"German philosophy lacks of escape valve"
I am currently reading a book of Yukio Mishima called The Age of Blue. It is a story about two students debating and philosophising about the educational system and society. There is a quote of Mishima that I want to share with you:
German philosophy lacks of escape valve. Also, the brake never responds. It looks like a big building without a toilet inside it. Whereby, when someone needs to use it, he needs to go to the gloom of the forest or the neighbor's house. The filthy customs of our institute is one of the main effects of German philosophy within the Japanese educational system. Culture, of which so much is said, is simply the acquisition of that coventual style of teaching inherent in the German philosophy of idealism.When this monistic culture held a centrist position in the Japanese state, it revealed very practical qualities in emphasizing the importance of authority.
One of the main characters answered to this quote saying: Hopefully Germany and Japan will separate. Nazi politics is so metaphysical... I enjoy of reading authors as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Goethe, etc... but those are not practical enough. Consequently, the history of German culture is a history in which cultural phenomenology ends up being disappointed by the phenomenon itself.
I am aware that a lof of members enjoy and debate about German philosophy. I want to know your thoughts on Mishima's views.
German philosophy lacks of escape valve. Also, the brake never responds. It looks like a big building without a toilet inside it. Whereby, when someone needs to use it, he needs to go to the gloom of the forest or the neighbor's house. The filthy customs of our institute is one of the main effects of German philosophy within the Japanese educational system. Culture, of which so much is said, is simply the acquisition of that coventual style of teaching inherent in the German philosophy of idealism.When this monistic culture held a centrist position in the Japanese state, it revealed very practical qualities in emphasizing the importance of authority.
One of the main characters answered to this quote saying: Hopefully Germany and Japan will separate. Nazi politics is so metaphysical... I enjoy of reading authors as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Goethe, etc... but those are not practical enough. Consequently, the history of German culture is a history in which cultural phenomenology ends up being disappointed by the phenomenon itself.
I am aware that a lof of members enjoy and debate about German philosophy. I want to know your thoughts on Mishima's views.
Comments (24)
Well said! :up:
I like how Mishima points out German philosophy. Nevertheless, he was quite contradictory because he was influenced by Western/German culture/thought. He made a try on mixing them up with Japanese millennial culture but he discovered that idealism itself could destroy his culture then
But I would assume, since that time, that this has been more than countered by the influence of the "Scuola di Coca-Cola" of Western culture?
Probably German philosophy is not practical enough but we cannot get rid of it. I mean it is one of the pillars of Western thought or philosophy.
I suppose, defeasible reasoning and modern sciences notwithstanding, just as we cannot get rid of 'magical thinking' either. :sparkle:
How we live. How we think.
That's a superb summation! :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
That's an awesome simplification! :up:
I (only) want to be a vegan. :sad:
:up: :sparkle:
:up:
Quoting Agent Smith
Ethical motives or just a diet activity?
Mainly ethical.
Why is metaphysics not also a praxis? What makes something a praxis and why do we value praxis? Is it that we associate praxis with use, with practicality? And what is useful is what is relevant, significant and meaningful to us? What motivates lemons to develop a. metaphysics? Do you think Kants ideas were considers useful , relevant and meaningful to him? Is the praxis-metaphysics binary really a spectrum from the more practical to the more abstract , from the particular to the general?
If this is the case, then how do we understand the contrast between how humans and other animals live?
Doesnt our living language mean that compares to no -linguistic animals, we lack direct and immediate practical engagement with our world? After all, most of our engagements are less and less about using things in a simple perceptual way and more and more about virtual, conceptually-mediated living. Our objects are value objects like chairs and computers and cars, which are abstract concepts. Why do we prefer to live this more abstract , metaphysical way than in a simpler, less-concept-mediated style? Is this because concepts being f the site into the present, and integrate and unify what would otherwise appear as dispute and disconnected elements? And isnt this precisely what metaphysics does for us? If we have the choice between knowing an aspect of our lives better, more integratively, rather than more practically , do t we always prefer to know things better , more deeply, more richly?
So far I have only been talking about metaphysics as something certain philosophers write about. But there is also metaphysics as the implicit worldviews within which all of us organize our thinking. From this vantage, al even our most practical actions are informed and guided by an implicit metaphysical worldview, and one could say the same for animals.
I didn't say it wasn't a praxis but not practical enough (at least in my own view) and that's why the metaphor of Mishima is excellent: it is a formidable building which lacks of a toliet.
Quoting Joshs
When we put it on in practice and then, we can check the results. I am agree in the basic fact that metaphysics starts the "beginning" of everything. I am not doubting that. But, sooner or later, we have to develop a praxis. For example: humans were always been debating about the universe. Centuries ago it was about metaphysics but now is about physics, because you can explain through laws and formulas which were born thanks to experience and praxis.
Quoting Joshs
This question is object of another OP. But I would say, in my side, that a meaningful stimulus is death.
Quoting Joshs
:sparkle: :eyes:
Quoting Joshs
I don't know. I wish we could know more about Kant and his life because we only debate about his works. I would not categorise those as "useful" but original.
Quoting Joshs
I think Aristotle already answered this good question: Aristotle believed that animals, like humans, have purpose, and that telos is natural and unchanging. Aristotles Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare.
Quoting Joshs
:up: :100:
Quoting javi2541997
Im not sure youre understanding the purpose of a metaphysical stance. Do you think that when someone develops a spiritual or religious faith, and proceeds to live their life guided this faith , that this ethical and social guidance isn't considered extremely practical and useful to them, perhaps the most practical of all modes of experiencing life? Do you have overarching principles that guide your life, and do you think they come
into play in practical situations of dealing with others? Do those principles inform your sense of how to approach concepts like honor, loyalty, friendship, fairness and justice?
Those are exactly what Mishima is missing about. We all can have deep debates on honour, loyalty, friendship, justice, etc... but are they possible of being applied to? Are the citizens loyal? Do they care about friendship? I think not... that's the point of our criticism. We currently live in an era which is based on materialism and soft praxis. We can give a lot of definitions of fairness but are we ready to apply it?
Quoting javi2541997
Im not talking about definitions. Im talking about application. Are you, or Mishima, arguing that people who claim be using their faith or spirituality as a guide to navigating actual day to day situations are lying to themselves or fooling themselves? Is your argument that people are hypocrites and dont practice what they profess?
Exactly. Or at least their lives and claims are contradictory each other.
I haven't read Mishima, so at this point I'd say it's not wrong -- but I'd want to know more, because I don't know really in what way it's right.
I'd say that Mishima probably has a point, but it could be defused if what we cared about is German philosophy. But if we cared about Mishima, then that'd be different.
Please let me recommend you some of his important works to introduce you in Mishima's world:
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, The Sea of Fertility tetralogy: Spring Snow, Runaway Horses, The Temple of Dawn and The Decay of the Angel
If you have time and you are interested on new original books, Mishima would not disappoint you.
Cheers! :sparkle:
Cheers all the same!
My purpose in this OP was trying to understand what Mishima was referring to. I am bif fan of his books but I don't have a clue inside German philosophy :rofl: so... I thought: I guess somone can help me here! I think a good idea would be give a chance on Kant or Wittgenstein books!