Solitude on the Mountaintop

Solitude on the Mountaintop

Of himself, Nietzsche spoke of his capacity of: "the energy to choose absolute solitude and lead the life to which I had become accustomed ... I need solitude, which is to say, recovery, return to my self, the breath of a free, light, playful air." This need for and ability to return to oneself is perhaps one of the best benefits of actively seeking moments of solitude. In an age of electronic media vying for our attention and fast-paced lifestyles, solitude is perhaps one of the most precious commodities in our modern lives.

The protagonist prophet of Nietzsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra shares the author's need for solitude. The prologue begins:

 "When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it."

Here, we see the Philosopher-Prophet enjoying a time of returning to himself and to contemplation. While modern life affords us with more information and potential wisdom than ever to process and take into our spirit, if we do not practice solitude away from the constant stream of input, we will only react to and with soundbites. Without solitude, we cannot allow the mind to work things out in a deep and meaningful way.

Zarathustra went to his mountain and contemplated humankind and the world around him. Sometimes I feel like Zarathustra and secret myself away to quiet places where there is only me and the world that surrounds me. It has been one of the most rewarding habits I have ever acquired. While I am not as wise as Zarathustra, I have emulated him - in truth, in my solitude, I have become my own Zarathustra in some sense, because I took to heart Nietzsche's example.

When we practice the self-refreshing joy of solitude, we can face life's tasks and others with purpose and energy. Solitude is not loneliness or isolation... it is a meaningful, chosen activity of a true Self.

-Jeff

============

I shall leave off here with the rest of the Prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

"But at last his heart
changed,--and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the
sun, and spake thus unto it:


Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for
whom thou shinest!


For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have
wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine
eagle, and my serpent.


But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and
blessed thee for it.


Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much
honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.


I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become
joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.


Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the
evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the
nether-world, thou exuberant star!


Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.


Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest
happiness without envy!


Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden
out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss!


Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again
going to be a man.


Thus began Zarathustra's down-going."

Engaging Others

Engaging Others

While I have certainly been guilty of breaking my own principles in this respect, there are some that I try to adhere to that make for more fruitful exposition of things philosophical or when one is actively arguing premises.

Firstly, argumentation does not mean you are fighting others. It is merely the sound and reasoned conversation that is attempting to reach a logical and civil conclusion. In some sense, that is already implying a standard or ethic whereby one engages others. To merely slam those who we do not agree with or who do not agree with us in a personal attack (ad hominem) is not good form and should never be part of an argument. Rarely do examples of personal behavior or the lives of others have any relevance in philosophical engagement, so I avoid it like the plague. A premise should have its own "proofs" and should not rely on destroying the character of other people. Ideas have meaning, but they are nothing without people to consider them and put them into practice. Only a group of "yes men" need to slander their perceived opposition, because they are convinced already and in all reality are not open to civil discussion of any concepts. I disengage from people that are merely trying to argue with you, in the negative sense, by falsely using the principles of argumentation to show that everything you said is a fallacy - which is a fallacy in itself, because it is not sound and civil engagement.

This leads us to another important principle: dialogue. Dialogue is the active portion of the conversation - is truly is a conversation between people and people and ideas. It is an exchange, not a diatribe or monologue. If you want to convince others of the soundness of an idea or action, then you must actively engage them. If you are preaching to the choir or attempting to destroy the opposition, that is not dialogue, that is propaganda. While propagandic exposition has its place, it should be used carefully and transparently. This is intellectually honest and openly identified propaganda can engage the hearer, because they are aware and open to the type of message being received. Dialogue is meaningful exchange, so it must be meaningful to all parties. Some of the best conversations I have ever had are one in which there was mutual respect and exchange of ideas, even though we did not see eye-to-eye. Walking away from a conversation where ideas were actually heard and all persons are satisfied that they were heard is very fruitful, even if for a future revisiting of the topic.

Lastly, even though there are many other principles that could be discussed, is idea ownership. Playing devils advocate and arguing with people merely to argue is just a ploy. We should only do so when the real motivation is to test ideas or to get people to think outside of the box. This should be done in a friendly spirit of learning and not as a mind game. Also, one should state their own ideas with ownership, as a positive truth statement or proposition. Unless you are a relativist or arguing some skeptical point of view, too much emphasis is placed these days, in my humble opinion, on couching everything as a possibility, not a claim. Even in this last sentence I qualified this as moy own opinion, but I did make it clear that it was my opinion. Why I believe that could be questioned, but the fact that I do believe it cannot be. It is well enough to state what you think. It is impossible to meaningfully engage shifting "what ifs" and "maybes" is just plain annoying and not how one makes a sound argumentation.

In closing for now, if anything, a philosopher is a person that straight-forwardly engages people and ideas in a civil and sound manner. One does not have to be trained in any way whatsoever to do this and therefore all of us can be and perhaps inherently are philosophers at heart when we are truly and honestly engaging others and their ideas or putting forth our own.

-Jeff

Signals

In the constellation of Sagittarius, at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy, there lies great mysteries: super-massive black holes, nebulae, exoplanets ... and the unknown...

This is a Mythopoetic & Philosophy/Theology of Philosophy blog... perhaps with some of my bad poetry thrown in. In truth, it is more of a journal than a blog, in that the main purpose is to put out musings on various mythopoetic and philosophical topics, revisit some of them over time, and perhaps to get some feedback on them. Also, I am hoping it will help stimulate some of the content on my rpg blog as a by-product.

The aim of this blog is not to convince anyone of anything, but rather it is a place of reflection. The ideas presented here may or may not be my own world-view - a good philosopher can enjoin as many points of view as possible. The propositions themselves will take center stage, only then perhaps will there be any discussion of their personal relevance to me. It is the ideas that count, not the person. If you have ever taken philosophy classes, this is not new to you.

Whether personal, mythological or more academic, this a place for my mind to wander in cyberspace... from Centaurus there comes an alien signal, reaching out to the people of Earth