/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17215026]

I’ve been thinking, how much of our being is based upon the memes passed down to us and our upbringing? How much of us is truly ourselves and what actually is the “self”?

I know it isn’t a particularly uncommon thought, so I was hoping that there was some good philosophical (or other) writing on this. I’m not so much looking for literature on breaking free from the various religions or the subjectivity of morality, rather, I’m trying to find writings that tackle the individual identity, how much of it is molded by external influence, and how to break free (of if it even is worth breaking free) from that influence.

[Anonymous No.17215047]

>>17215026
I'm just gonna say that these are the first ramblings of a madmen- that is how it feels at first at least. Where you are still to learn about philosophy and and history, in any in-depth way, so the questions in these prior and existential ways come out so undefinied, but also obvious in what they're asking.

To give you something of an answer to your post, you're talking about what is usually the question of "nature vs nurture," it's obviously very complex and many have decided to "go beyond," the question in some way, just as they do to the subject/object distinction. Subliminated. But most in the West play into it very decisively, as you have to have some stance on it, such as Locke famously with his "tabula rasa," or Hume's empirical skepticism against all human values and choices on the other enlightenment end. But the real meaningful thinkers come out over them. Example, of many,:

>Free will appears unfettered, deliberate; it is boundlessly free, wandering, the spirit. But fate is a necessity; unless we believe that world history is a dream-error, the unspeakable sorrows of mankind fantasies, and that we ourselves are but the toys of our fantasies. Fate is the boundless force of opposition against free will. Free will without fate is just as unthinkable as spirit without reality, good without evil. Only antithesis creates the quality.

[Anonymous No.17215135]

>>17215047
So to that quote, now more than any other time period it does seem that history could be an error. We are flooded with so much information that the truth has become muddled, and when the truth is muddled it’s hard to find the truth in oneself. That’s kind of my hang up at the moment.

We are made and taught by truths that are constantly changing and shifting in moral positions, so it feels like the identity we base on those truths becomes unstable. My more religious friends would say that your identity should be based on Jesus, which is fine, but that isn’t satisfying me. Of course, you can try and define your own identity, but how much of your own input is truly yours and not shaped by external input?

I guess I’m trying to track down the heart and soul of independence and freedom but on the most personal level, but of course, that could mean something different to everyone so this is kind of hard to discuss.

[Anonymous No.17215206]

>>17215026
I'm actually not memeing, pic related offers some pessimistic takes on these questions. The "self:" an illusion borne of accumulated experiences; a memory recorder that evolved out of control and gained the delusion that it was a human being, acting, making choices, when in truth it was only spinning a narrative on top of actions determined unconsciously, materially, in a manner both indecipherably complex, and hopelessly, soullessly mechanical.

[Anonymous No.17215249]

>>17215135
Okay, now I definitely understand what you mean. It's really getting down to what is human meaning, and the "why?" But with the question of perspectivism as Nietzsche would raise it, that is: How can there be such thing as human value not defined by yourself, when the guy next to you has such a radically different value. They are absolute questions, which we require both the individual, as well as the highest wrapping of your head around abstract truth. But there is no truth which does not dawn on being, on the whole. The greatest abstract truth, will always be the most meaningful. I advise you to start with the great tradition of man in the West, Plato, Hesiod, etc. the Greeks in general, then the Christian age and the rest of Western thought and art. As your answer will come from our whole civilisation, in art and thought, practice and body. It can not be reduced either to a denial of all prior meaning in life, or an absolute worship of tradition and immaculate world of forms (something in which Plato overcame in its negative sense). You must learn to be free, to act on meaning, what is "true, good and beautiful" and so on. You must rise up, so God or the Gods may descend, as Holderlin or the Greek tragedians would put it. In between is mans lot.

But I will however, give you a piece of advice if you enter into that lost, deluded and nihilistic questioning, mistaking the real and false questions alike, that situation is the same for all, in being:
>To our less philosophical readers, for example, it is now clear that the so passionate Teufelsdrockh precipitated through "a shivered Universe" in this extraordinary way, has only one of three things which he can next do: Establish himself in Bedlam; begin writing Satanic Poetry; or blow out his brains.

And now one of the greatest peaks of Western thought, in Plato, and his Parmenides dialogue:

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].
- Final passage of the Parmenides

>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].
- Heidegger's conclusion of his seminar on the Parmenides

[Anonymous No.17215314]

>>17215135
Also relevant quote:

>One thing counts above all else: freedom! But what is ‘freedom’? is it –as our politicians believe –“licence?”–of course not! Freedom is: integrity. He who is true to himself, i.e. who acts in accord with his own being, and in perfect harmony with his own nature, is free.

[Anonymous No.17215362]

>>17215206
I appreciate the recommendation, but I’m not looking to necessarily dismantle or develop a nihilistic view on the “self”, I have to live with myself after all.
>>17215249
I appreciate you taking the time to write all that up and address my questions. I’ll start reading Plato’s work tomorrow and move on to your other recommendations from there. Also, though I painted it in a bad light, I do not mind my religious friends answer by any means, just that I’d like to know a bit more about the topic as a whole. Freedom, liberty, and independence are words that often get thrown around a lot and used in a political sense, but finding them for oneself on a metaphysical or spiritual sense seems to me a very important thing to do in the times we currently find ourselves in. Truth in particular, even if the truth presented to us through various histories or societies might be lies. It’s all still sort of over my head and I’m still having some trouble grasping it, but at least I have some direction now. Again, I really appreciate it.
>>17215314
I like that one a lot.

[Anonymous No.17215429]

>>17215249
Also, reading through your post a couple of times, this part in particular sticks out to me:
> You must learn to be free, to act on meaning, what is "true, good and beautiful" and so on. You must rise up, so God or the Gods may descend, as Holderlin or the Greek tragedians would put it. In between is mans lot.

I don’t want to get in the subjectivity of “ true, good and beautiful” but I imagine I’ll develop my own view on those things as i go through what you’ve recommended? I mean, I have a preconceived view on all those things I’m sure lines up pretty close with your own, but I still find it interesting that I’d want to act on those things and through doing so obtain “freedom”.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17215453]

>>17215026
What self do you have to contrast your memes to? Is it all memes, or all self, or something inbetween?

[Anonymous No.17215634]

>>17215362
Yes, the difficult thing is just finding the proper footing in which to articulate your thoughts and understanding of other thinkers. Plato is definitely the best figure to start with for that, not only does he lay the greater part of the discourse and frame of philosophy and Western thought in general that any other thinker(as well as all the other spheres of his influence), but also his actual philosophy itself, has never been "invalidated" in the modern sense of refutals and rebuttals. Obviously there are many other great philosophers throughout the ages, many critique or make improvements upon him, but none have ever removed the value or real core of his ideas, and almost none reach the same height, as he did specifically in his later dialogues. So he's still a very valid thinker, but because of how much time we are set apart from him on first reading he can even seem ridiculous, most people run into this at first reading (as I did) but with modesty and persistence you'll see why he's so praised. I apologize if those quotes I posted about Plato were somewhat off-topic, as they're a response to the entire body of Plato's system and you have to know the terminology and all that, but they are very valid to the topic at hand.

You're on the right track to finding truth, really the perfect one, in being traditional and not being caught up and deluded by the flowery talk of intellectualisation, but still open minded and persistent to find that truth and meaning. And if you liked that quote, I recommend you check out these links:

https://thevictoriansage.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/on-looking-into-nietzsches-twilight-of-the-idols/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74V6lHh97yo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_os-ysZJM_I

They'll probably project you forward a bit and you wont understand it, but little gain is got with little movement. In such cases, the value is first sensed or intuited, it is instinctual, and then articulated in the particulars (which is of a secondary and less important nature, though still necessary).

>>17215429
I'm very glad you liked that bit, as I was really trying to get at how you still have meaning, and faith and belief in what is true, while not simplemindedly giving into any particular idea of subject/object, not opening one's mouth when one shouldn't trying to give an answer to Nietzsche's perspectivism, such as those who just accept a total relativism of meaning, total subjectivity, which Nietzsche doesn't necessarily lead to. That's the problem with many, they read the moderns and radicals and take that radicalness without the base in which they were working on.

The process of learning should be a balancing of ideas, but without cooling the fire of truth which resides in them. Or whatever, I hope this post has also helped.

[Anonymous No.17215666]

>>17215362
If you're looking for an order to first read Plato, try "Plato Five Dialogues." then some other small early ones like Laches if you like, after which Gorgias (exemplifies a lot of Plato's typical and middle philosophy, such as about ethics, but by far isn't his final statement on the matter) and then you might as well go into the big/famous middle works of the Republic and Symposium (considered by most to be his poetic masterpiece). And you should at least read Parmenides and Heraclitus from the Presocratics, and be familiar with the rest, to see where Plato was coming out of and replying to. Sometime during your reading of Plato. They're extremely short in being fragments as well. This isn't a whole start with the Greeks list, but they're great poets of Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, as well as Aristophanes for comedy, is a good bare minimum. It also sucks that compared to other languages, there's no good translation of Homer into English.

[Anonymous No.17215700]

>>17215047
>Free will appears unfettered, deliberate; it is boundlessly free, wandering, the spirit. But fate is a necessity; unless we believe that world history is a dream-error, the unspeakable sorrows of mankind fantasies, and that we ourselves are but the toys of our fantasies. Fate is the boundless force of opposition against free will. Free will without fate is just as unthinkable as spirit without reality, good without evil. Only antithesis creates the quality.
This is beautiful.

[Anonymous No.17215711]

>>17215700
It's from Nietzsche if you wanted to know.

[Anonymous No.17216096]

>>17215429
>I’d want to act on those things and through doing so obtain “freedom”.
There's only one way, anon.