Like tales about guns, babies and Jesus (to quote our family mother, Sarah Palin)

Never trust a man who doesn't believe in bedtime stories.

Well, there's an intriguing statement.. I remember that bedtime stories in your novel 'Tirza' were not lessons in morals but in nihilism. Did this by any chance come up in your conversation with Mr Goudsblom?

Dreams

I like To quote, once again (excuse me) Freud:
‘Men are more moral than they think and far more immoral than they can imagine.’
“Praatjes voor de Vaak”, certainly, but my immediate response would be: to whom are we talking? Klaas Vaak or the Sandman: our morality we are so proud of are just bed-time stories to hide the awefull truth that deep down we have no morality at all.
Okee, I agree, no reason to contradict the emminent sociologist.
But the true question is, after those stories that have made us fell in peacefull sleep: what are we dreaming of: our immoral desires or our high-standard moral ideals?
The freudian truth is that, in the end, they are the just same thing: “Such stuff as dreams are made on...”

Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

Deep down, where Freuds "Id" resides, we have no morality; that's true. But there is more to us than just the Id. And this is not a bedtime story.

With all due respect for prof. Goudsblom, but what business has a sociologist with nihilism, truth, and moral anyway, I wonder.

More ‘praatjes voor de vaak’
By another Dutch sociologist Willem Schinkel
See http://tiny.cc/ylRC3

A certain Joris pokes fun at "professor emeritus" Goudsbloem here (Dutch):
http://tinyurl.com/6cdgzt
(leuk geschreven en leuk afgekraakt)

Johan

Can I speak with you (a kind of public interview) for my students in Leiden?
I have problems understanding why the "immoral" desire to be unfaithful is the same as the "moral" desire to be monogamous. To give just an example.
I have to admit that at first I made a mistake. I wrote: "the immoral desire to be faithful."

Oscar

Where the line is placed is of the essence isn't it?
Is it a line on the move?

Jan T

I don't have the impression that Mr. Goudsblom has a lot of confidence in Mr. Schinkel.

Rutger

Goudsblom's book on nihilism is recommended.

Why is being unfaithfull to one so often considered as immoral, while maybe in that case your being faitfull to your deeper needs.

Mieke

It might cause pain to people involved.

@Arnon, I feel slightly insecure asking you some questions about this because I want to avoid you thinking I'm trying to be smart and this is a discussion between you and Johan. So please ignore if you think I'm way off.
What is it you yourself believe and/or would like to say about desire? If I were your student, I'd be hoping you'd first define desire for me. Because maybe you'd find the words immoral/moral aren't suitable adjectives for desire? Doesn't desire already hold a certain judgement (desire = immoral, whether it is to desire being unfaithful or to desire monogamy) because it implies an emotional attachment to a certain outcome. Is desire even something we can control?

Arnon

What book by Goudsblom are you refering to? His disseration "Nihilisme en cultuur"?

I never understood why we are still talking about nihilism. It is a perfectly acceptable, middle class way of thinking. To treat it as something dangerous seems to me to be little more than a fantasy of the self-proclaimed nihilists, a desire to locate themselves outside or above the mainstream. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own fantasies.

Noa

I would say that desire is a word that captures our entire being. It is everything. It is what keeps us on the move. Desire is also something that cannot be fulfilled (it is not the same as a question or a request).

What is deemed moral and immoral is a projection of society's interests. It really has nothing to do with desire I don't think. These are cultural values, and indeed there exist cultures where "unfaithfulness"--but they would never call it that--is considered the moral thing to do, and vice versa.

The problem is not with values, but with the relation between subject and society. The values merely define the rules of the game. I would say that the job at hand is to change the rules, but this is only for very few people.

My 2 cents.

@Michel, would you like me to write you a poem?

Arnon

True, unfaithfullness might cause pain with the people involved. But then, being faithfull when forced upon you , involving self sacrifice can cause a lot of self inflicted pain too.
'Meine Ehre heisst Treue', that's what I grew up with. For me that is being faithfull into its perversion.

Noa

I’m not sure if the subject of the public discussion will be “desire.”
I’m not sure if desire is always connected to moral judgment.
And I believe that civilization is at least partly based on the assumption that we are able to control our desire if not full-time at least part-time.
That you ask me to define your desire (how can you speak about desire, without speaking about your own desire?) is not surprising.
My answer is: I’m neither your husband nor your therapist, I don’t know what your desire is.
Please, tell me.

Michel

I don’t believe you have read much about nihilism nor thought about it seriously.
I still recommend Goudsblom’s book.

@Arnon, I mistakenly reacted to your statement "immoral desire to be unfaithful" as opposed to "moral desire to be monogamous." I guess I gave the word desire more importance than you intended it to have.
My desires are entirely egotistical and therefore not worth mentioning.

Arnon

So what book are you referring to?
I was actually planning on reading it.
And who knows, I might even think about the subject seriously.

Noa

That is a kind offer, but I should warn you that poetry is an art form I have never been able to enjoy enough to make the poet's efforts worth while. You have to give up on some art forms, and poetry has been the earliest victim, along with sculpture. Others are still in triage.

@Michel, I was actually merely wondering why you hadn't responded to my question. Poetry is the only effective way to get answers, it seems.

Michel

I think you should give up on all art forms.
Probably you should give up on posting here as well.
Perhaps there are other things you can think of that are worth giving up on.

Arnon

It's a line on the move, a line that serves us well.

Nietsche said: "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.”

I must say that I would have less aversion to discussions of morality if it was possible to disconnect ideas of morality from ideas of God's will (or what dead elderly patriarchs claimed God's will to be).

My experience with the "morality" of the white Nationalists in apartheid South Africa (based on the ultra-Calvinist Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk) has left me with an allegy to the word "morality".

Noa

What question was that? I can't seem to find it in your comments.

Rutger

You are right.
One thing I can think of it to give up on dumping the link to my weblog with every comment.
It seems you and I are the only two people doing it. That is a good enough reason for me.
Of course, I'm not suggesting you follow this example, quite the opposite. Quitting is not for everyone.

@Michel, it was a question I asked you in reaction to your comment on Arnon's reading. You may have interpreted it as rhetorical. But never mind, it's not important anymore, we've moved on to other subjects.

@Michel - I liked your link, I like knowing you're about to publish your first novel. Margot adds her link. Other people do too know and then. In order to make you feel more comfortable, here's mine. Better?

Noa

If you are suggesting that your own desire is not worth taking seriously I urge you to see a therapist.
If you believe that there is a metaphysical desire with capital “D” I urge you to start thinking.

Michel

The book is titled "Nihilisme en Cultuur". As far as I know and according to Mr. Goudsblom himself it's his only book about nihilism.

All discussion about nihilism is pointless. In itself and because no real nihilist will ever bother to write about it.

Arnon

Thanks. I did see that title, but since it is so old, I figured he might have published a more recent book on the topic.
Look forward to reading it.

Sander

No, not all. Read Goudsblom' s book to begin with.

Sander

Nihilism, says Nietzsche, is something to commit to, and then to overcome. A bit like postmodernism. But, enough. Let me overcome myself and recommend a novel on the topic: Ivan Turgenevs "Fathers and Sons" ("Vaders en zonen" door Iwan Toergenjew in de Russische Bibliotheek van Van Oorschot).

@Arnon, look like somebody swallowed a clown today.

PS - Arnon, ironically, my therapist urges me to stop thinking.

Noa

Change your therapist. Mine helps me thinking clearly.

Arnon

I just got back from the cornerstore to pick up a copy of this week's "Groene" with your reading in it. Towards the end, I noticed Paul Celans line again--

"Alles ist wahr und ein Warten auf Wahres", (or "All is true and a waiting for trueness" in my translation).

I would say that this is the opposite of a nihilist position. Not because all is true--that could very well serve as a pro-nihilist argument--but because of the *waiting* for trueness. It introduces the factor time, which puts the "All" in perspective. Also, Celan doesn't speak of truth (Wahrheit) but of trueness ("Wahres"), which is must more modest.

Nihilism typically appeals to young people, i.e., the "sons", not the "fathers", who smile and shake their heads at their son's conviction of knowing, understanding, and rejecting all ("All"). Unlike their fathers, they have no idea what waiting is.

Rutger

If we consider nihilism as an extreme quest for truth, waiting for truth (or trueness) is not necessarily an anti-nihilistic position.
Mr. Goudsblom has some interesting things to say about Turgenev’s novel by the way and he remarks that nihilism can mean so many different things that it’s hard to discuss the subject, both parties might speak about two different things.

Noa

Mieke might be right.
Did you ask your therapist what he (or she) was trying to say?

@Arnon
“both parties might speak about two different things”, that I was already afraid of.
(Maybe I buy the book by Goudsblom).

to Michel

I agree with AG that you musn't know much about the subject but when you say about nihilism: "To treat it as something dangerous seems to me to be little more than a fantasy of the self-proclaimed nihilists, a desire to locate themselves outside or above the mainstream.", know that the danger in nihilism is to be freed from desires alltogether, or purpose, or use - not that it matters at that point. But -in that stage- the danger to lose (or kill) everything that stands for your humanity is quite realistic.

to Sander

I beg to differ. A "real" nihilist, as you call it, is almost never a nihilist by choice. And as RHCdG mentioned, nihilism is often a state that -once reached- needs to be overcome. Cause -as i told Michel- you don't want to be left with no desires. The struggle for (some sort of) life after nihilism is as crucial as the struggle for truth that precedes it. (and writing can be a useful tool on the way out)

I too recommend Goudbloms work and although I think Toergenjews novel is exquisite, Barasows brave, honourable, true and idealistic nihilism isn't really of the same sort as the one we've come to know.

Noa

Your goddess is back.

A true nihilist would object to your subjective morality that it needs to be overcome. I am not that nihilist and ordered mr. Goudsbloms work to enlighten me. Bol.com has a great deal, Jan Thys.

i stand corrected. i was doubting the word 'needs' as i typed it. i guess it's just healthier to overcome it.
but i do agree that a "real" nihilist would object to my morality. a nihilist objects to every morality. (which is in my opinion - in this world - unbearable and therefor unhealthy)
of course, i cannot write from the point of view of a true nihilist, cause i wasn't brave enough to stick to the truth.

Even though a nihilist may reject the concept of morality. This rejection does not mean that the nihilist is a less moral person.

Mayli

Re: "A nihilist objects to every morality"

Except, of course, to his own morality. In the nihilst discourse, truth is really only a McGuffin, i.e., a plot device needed to advance a certain cause, but bearing no relevance otherwise. The object, or cause, is merely to reject, or to challenge the values and the law of the Father.
The point I'm trying to make is that one can only be a nihilist for so long. Therefore, when Arnon says,

"If we consider nihilism as an extreme quest for truth, waiting for truth (or trueness) is not necessarily an anti-nihilistic position"

in a way, he is absolutely right, because true nihilism (in my view) must ultimately come to its own denial. Not because of the truth it seeks, but because logically, it is impossible to conceive of an established and accepted nihilism. As a result, nihilism is bound to wait for its own "second coming", its own Messiah. How odd indeed.

Is nihilism then "an extreme quest for truth", as Arnon puts it? Yes, it is. But we must add that it will be found wrong the moment it is confirmed.

@Sander
Indeed. Thanks.

Sander and Mayli

I would say that a “true nihilist” (whatever we mean with this) questions the base on which morality is founded.

Sander

And now something completely different: A while ago Mieke asked if it is possible to leave more than 100 comments on one entry.

to Carlos

Carlos, iIvery much agree with you, that a nihilist is still a very moral person. In fact, iIthink that it is his highly developed moralism who has brought him there.

dear Rutger

Although I find many truths in what you say, as Arnon mentioned; Goudsblom points out many different kinds of nihilism. And I'm afraid the one you and I are discussing is not the same one. Yours is Barasows, mine is Nietzsches.
But either way, you're right, one can only be a nihilist for so long. But -in my variety- only because otherwise he'll go mad.
Cause, and that's my other point, I believe that a nihilst ends up throwing away his own moralism in the end as well. Which contributes in the 'losing your sanity' -part.
(again, in the Fathers and Sons kind, this is not at all the case)

Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean with
Is nihilism then "an extreme quest for truth". Yes, but we must add that it will be found wrong the moment it is confirmed.
--What is found wrong, the truth or the quest?
I believe the quest, but in both cases, is it really found wrong or just unbearable?

Sander

Take a look at the entry 'Laughing' of 21/08. It made 100 comments and then the function 'Add' disappeared.

Mayli

Could you explain the difference between Barasow's nihilism and Nietzsche's?
Thanks.

Mayli

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't remember Turgenevs novel well enough; it's 25 years ago when I read it. (Your mentioning the name Barazow brought back good memories).
Is nihilism a truth, an ideology, or is it a quest, a method? The way I look at it, it must be the latter. Like postmodernism, nihilism challenges accepted truths, but it does not replace them with its own truth, simply because there is no truth to nihilism. There is only a desire for truth.

The expression "God is dead" may hold truth to it, but at the same time, it also kills truth (or pronounces its death) when up until that point, God was believed to equal truth. The other thing is that the statement does not replace God with something else, a new or different God; it only takes away. At best, one could say that it replaces God (or truth) with a void, an emptiness, a hole. (Malevich' black square comes to mind). But this can only be temporary. Nihilism cannot sustain itself; is this what you mean when you use the word "unbearable"?

Partially. To me nihilism is not -like postmodernism- a method but a state of being. You say there is no truth, just the desire for it. I found that this desire does lead to a certain truth. But that truth is unbearable cause you cannot maintain a life on planet earth, knowing this truth.

I'm being vague now, but then again it is hard to put these thing in a few lines when you want to respect nuances. If you care enough we could discuss this outside of the blog.

Also, I know it's almost obvious to drop 'God is dead' when I said Nietzsche, but that particular phrase is not the most relevant to the matter, I trow. It's not what I meant when I mentioned the 'madman'.
But you're right about the void, the emptiness, the hole.

to Mieke

Barasow (the main character of Toergenjews 'fathers and sons') stood for the heroic kind of nihilist who doesn't bow for any form of authority, doesn't just accept any principle, no matter how respected that principle is.
It was the first time (1860-1870) that nihilism was regarded not as a mocking word for a 'good for nothing' but as an honourful idealistic standard. It was looked upon as brave to live without any certainties, any basic ethic. Not something many could do. (just the chosen few)
But it was much more positive than it might sound. The idea was to deny all duties given by society, family, culture, etc - all in the name of personal liberty.

Nietzsche, on the other hand , goes much further in relativation of those basic grounds until he reaches this complete sense of 'meaninglessness'. But not the careless kind, where you just wave it away, more out of really caring and finding certain morals very important, concluding that they're not - a very painful conlusion for an idealist.

But Goudsblom explains this much better and more elaborate on the first 20 pages of 'Nihilisme en Cultuur'

by the way, Mieke.
you said: "Why is being unfaithfull to one so often considered as immoral, while maybe in that case your being faithfull to your deeper needs."
I agree with AG when he says you might hurt other people.
But if you really find your deeper needs more important in that moment, you can resolve the situation by letting the 'other' in on the new context of your behaviour.
The most common example is letting your partner now, you're going for someone else. It might be just as painful, but not as immoral.
Wanting both without the subjects consent or awareness is simply 'not right'.

to noa & arnon

desire is indeed not something we can control, and so i believe that desire in itself is never moral or amoral, but the way you handle your desires, can be.

Mieke, Mayli

Surely the most moral course would then be to have a secret affair. After all it is the knowledge of the affair that might cause pain. Not having the affair might well cause pain to oneself. Telling about the affair will certainly cause pain to one's partner and to oneself. But I don't think people take decisions based on moral evalautions in this regard. What they do and don't do is based on the strength of their desires and fears, and also their willingness to take risks (which again depends on their personality type).

I don't believe societies regard adultery as immoral because it might make the spouse feel bad. A patriarchal society has extreme interest in ensuring a man's offspring is genetically his own. This is the same reason why in those societies so much importance is placed on female virginity before marriage.

Mayli

I never claimed I knew much about the topic.

I was trying to articulate something about nihilism that always struck me as rather paradoxical. On the one hand it is considered a dangerous type of philosophy, because it destroys any basis on which to found morality. On the other hand, I would argue that a sizeable portion of our population is nihilist. They don’t believe in progress, God, humanism and what have you. In that sense, it has become mainstream and even trivialized. Sociologists have written libraries full of books arguing that our society is marked by fear precisely because we have lost the belief in the “bedtime stories”.

Another part of my poorly conceived comment was that I always felt the task of exposing morals as bed time stories always struck me as somewhat gratuitous and even self-serving. As if it is heroic.

My sense is that for the most part the task of exposing the bedtime stories is finished, and has been finished for a while. Sure, now and then new bedtimes stories emerge or older ones are recycled. They may need to be exposed, but that task is rather mundane, hardly heroic or difficult.

I love Arnon’s novels because they treat nihilism as the starting point, not the end result. Beck and Mehlman are nihilists at the start of the novel. For example, we learn about Beck that in his past he was dedicated to exposing bedtime stories, but that his task is done, ironically both because it was successful and futile at the same time. The novels are about overcoming nihilism, even though we know beforehand that every attempt will be very problematic.
Crudely put, nihilism itself is not very interesting, the question of overcoming it is. Wasn’t that Nietzsche’s point as well? Like I said, I haven’t read much on the topic, so feel free to lecture me on this.

To Mayli

We are at about 2/3 of the current maximum of 100 comments. Other people show interest as well. If it's OK with you then why don't we continue right here.

I am not sure how you differentiate between Nietzsche's most famous dictum and his parabel of the Madman, or even how nihilism can be thought outside of this killing of God. The institutions Barazow rejects are all traditionally governed by God. This is why I wonder at the different nihilisms Goudsblom distinguishes; I will pick up his book in the library later this week.

I thought it very interesting to see the image of Malevich' "Black Square" emerge from the following excerpt of Nietzsche's "Madman". Note also the postmodern connotations (e.g., "Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?"). Finally, please note the madman's realization in the third paragraph that he has come too early. Ein warten auf Wahres...

"The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves."

From: "La Gaya Scienza"
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.html

Carlos! You are CRUSHING my soul.

HOW, i ask you, can you say: "After all it is the knowledge of the affair that might cause pain. " NO!
No, no, no.
I understand that that's what it looks like, because knowledge of the affair causes the victim to react to the affair... but just beacuse nobody reponds to the deed (and you don't have to deal with the consequences of what you've done) doesn't make the deed itself right.
do you really think that TELLING your wife you're cheating on her hurts?
isn't it just the fact THAT you're cheating on her that hurts?

unfortunately most people seem to think this way, just because the problems seem to start when the partner finds out. but the problem really started with the affair.

another thing, a secret affair is not at all the most moral thing to do!?
let me explain:
an affair implies doing something outside of your relationship that the person you're envolved with doesn't want you to do. and a relationship of that type also implies that you agree not to do that. so having the affair on itself is immoral. towards yourself and towards your partner. the DEED is imoral.
now, a 'secret' affair implies that, on top of all that, you hide crucial information from your partner so that he or she doesn't even have the freedom to decide for him-or herself whether they want to be in this situation and how they want to be dealing with this situation. you take away their decision-making about their own life, which also implies a lack of respect towards them.

i'm sorry for using all this space and going on and on about this but it seems so logical to me and so logical for others to think otherwise.

you do agree that IF people were to take decisions on moral evaluation that they wouldn't HIDE an affair but either confront their partner with it OR break of the relationship to start another, right?!?
(or, of course, not have an affair at all - but, suprisingly, that seems out of the question)

dear Rutger

I don't know if it is due to my phrasing, but you've misunderstood me.
I didn't differtiate between 'God is dead' and the madman. Nor did i think of Nietzsche's nihilism outside of the killing of God. How could I? It is not for nothing his most famous dictum.
I just didn't want to put the emphasis on that particular phrase in what I was trying to say.

Thank you for the excerpt, it's alaways nice to read it again.

Dear Mayli

I am wondering if the disappointment is in the deed, and not in neglecting to tell. Say, you and I were married, and I had promised you not to drink anymore. What would be worse to you, the fact that I did continue drinking, or failed to tell you about it?

To whom are we going to confess our deeds, when we just committed our worst deed?

I quoted the excerpt because it fits both Celan's line and Malevich' painting so well, and because it illustrates the essence of nihilism, which to my mind is in the waiting, i.e., in suspending truth. In that respect, I also sense there is an element of jouissance in there; perhaps Johan Schokker is willing to confirm this. After all, jouissance may be understood as the sensation of being freed from every sense of shortage ("Alles ist wahr"). As a result, one is no longer bound by signifying symbols but is completely absorbed by the object of desire, like falling into a black hole. In other words, desire can never be fulfilled; at best one may lose oneself, instead of gaining the desired object. To kill God, isn't that like killing oneself, like cutting the relation between heaven and earth?

I see there is quite a bit to be said on this subject, undoubtedly to the interest of some and the boredom of many. But who cares, I am still curious to find what you initially wanted to say, and what I regrettably have misunderstood. Would it be too much to ask if you could rephrase?

dear Rutger

of course i'd be more upset about you not telling me than about you starting drinking again. you drinking again is only human.
just as cheating can be.
honestly, to take it to extremer extend, when a boyfriend told me he had slept with someone else, i was disapointed maybe, but still grateful he was strong and honest enough to confront me with it and glad that he was still connected enough to want to make that step towards me.
we only really lose our partners when we lock them out, don't we?

so to whom are we going to confess our deeds, when we just committed our worst crime? to the ones who suffer from it, namely, ourselves first, then the next victim. most people don't even manage to get to that first step.

about truth nihilism and rephrasing, i would love to. but rather over coffee and some extra time. i really gotta keep working on that ecological - gaia project, which is -unfortunately- also on my mac. (i'm easily distracted)

one more thing, though, have you ever seen an original of his black squares? with the connection you made, you should. they all vary in color and texture too. but no words really, it's all in the eye of the beholder i guess... it's also just a square of black paint, right?

Rutger

It surprises me a little to see you make a link between nihilism and Malevich -his black square-, especially in that work it has a strong spiritual connotation, wich for me is far from being nihilistic.

to Michel

i am in no position to lecture anyone. but it would be nice to continue exchanging our thoughts on the matter.
(but not now - if you'll excuse me)

to Mieke

i grew up with painters, paintings and connoisseurs and from what i've seen, paintings (and a lot of other things actually) tend to depict what the admirer reflects.

Mayli

I am sorry if I am crushing your soul.

I believe that any moral judgment that ignores human frailties and failings cannot be considered moral. As a practical matter, most people having affairs do not forewarn or inform their significant others. I wonder if this makes them all immoral. Is the immorality in the deed, the concealment, or in the cultural mores? I agree that brutal honesty would, in general, be preferable. But we all have a crude working knowledge of human society and psychology. The truth is not always a viable proposition. In fact society forces us to become liars and actors at least some of the time.

To play the devil's advocate once more and up the ante: What if you were having an affair and decided to tell your husband because it was the moral thing to do. Your husband is heartbroken, leaves you and becomes extremely depressed. Several months later he commits suicide. Was it still the moral thing to tell him?

Carlos, my dear...

Yes. It would still be the moral thing to tell him.
If my husband would get depressed and kill himself cause he couldn't deal with the fact that i cheated on him... then more so, to have had that affair was imoral (and the indirect cause of his death) - not the fact that i told him.

I should still tell him because i believe that we get challenged in all sorts of ways in life, and those challenges (like dealing with betrayal) change us and teach us. Who am i to keep someone from growing?
True, some people don't deal with their challenges in a very constructive way, but also that, makes them who they are.

I hear what you say and i'm sorry that i have to agree on what most people do. And is the immorality in the deed, the concealment, or in the cultural mores? I think most of the time it's just plain ingnorance, a lack of ethics - or as you said before, just that people do not make decisions based on morality.

I hate that so many people believe that society forces us to become liars and actors, at least some of the time. Isn't that just to easy??
How about trying a little harder?

Sure, there'll be a price to pay.
But wouldn't it be worth it?

Mayli

Paintings (and other things) tend to convey what the artist reflects.

Mieke

I did not mean to suggest that the painting is lacking in spirituality. It obviously stirs up many ideas and emotions, and signifies a great moment in the history of art (although I hesitate to call it an achievement). However, while the black paint has been applied over the white canvas, to me it has always been like the black is the taking away of the white, like a vacuum cleaner. (White of course being the presence of all colors, and black the abscense). When Nietzsche says, "Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? (...) Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? (...) Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?"--to me, he seems to point right at the square.

Mayli

No, I did not know there were 4 different versions, and I am very pleased to learn that this is the case. To continue the reference to Celan, it seems to indicate that to Malevich, "All" was not "All". It changed over time, and was updated with different color nuances; in spite of our first impression it wasn't "true" but, rather, a "waiting for trueness".
There is a difference between eternity and infinity. The latter is like a structured, temporized version of the former. "True nihilism", or whatever we mean by this, like Arnon says, takes this into account.

I realize we are keeping you from your work, and I appreciate your time!

@Mieke, Arnon

The number of comments is indeed limited. There is no functionality to handle an enormous amount of comments, so I just set a limit at 100. (Actually, it has been 50 and then 80 before.) Never has the 100 comments been reached until recently.

I have changed the maximum amount of comments to 150. In the HTML version of the site, which I am currently working on, the amount of comments will not be technically limited. But maybe for the sake of keeping the discussions sane and readable some constraint might be desirable.

I usually don't bother to correct typos but this one is pretty bad. It's not "abscense" but *absence*, of course.

Mayli

Perhaps I should try a little harder to be honest to my mother-in-law. I'm sure she'd appreciate me telling her what I really think of her. I'm sure my partner would too. I'm sure they'll both thank me for my honesty.

Your husband's committing suicide is "personal growth"?

Carlos

Your mother-in-law or your partner might be sensitive to your threat to kill yourself, but I'm not either of them. So I'll put it to you straight:

You're a dickhead, and you look like one.

Rutger

Believe me, my mother-in-law would like nothing more than my early self-inflicted transcendence to another plane. Of course her civility is just a charade. Just like yours!

LOL

:-)

well, goodnight boys - it was lovely talking to you.

i suggest we all get up with 'always see your face' from Love (band from the sixties) tomorrow morning... and let the little sun we get shine into our lives.

(carlos, tell your mother in law to do the same, maybe she'll come around)

@Mieke

About the goddess, yes, I knew she would be (despite her dramatic farewell). Liesje -as another example- should be back soon too. I may not be exercising my brains to the max (purposefully, I hated that part of the old me who used to sit in bars quoting Mishima) but I am a very good judge of character.

Noa

You may quoting Mishima to me as much as you like. I have a love/hate relationship with him.

Aliefka

how on earth could you mistake me for this Liesje 'Low'?

Mayli

What are you doing up so late?
As for Noa, she is a sweetheart. She thought I was going to come after her with an axe at one time. Upon hearing this news, Liesje disappeared, and was never heard from again. I hope you'll stick around a little longer.

@Mayli, seems like you've been doing some catching up on past blog-conversations here. You may also have noticed I soon dismissed the idea Liesje could be you. I'm convinced she's a man.

@Arnon, I have to say: I'm quite disheveled at you saying (in so many words) that I'm stupid.
I've been wondering what to do about your statement, I could of course succumb to the temptation of proving my worth by showing off my knowledge, but that would be weak and foolish. Instead, I'll resort to an anecdote:
I remember one time specifically when I was labeld as stupid. My teacher (this was a school in London) claimed The Hague was the capital of Holland. I was 9 years old and felt it my obligation to say that in fact the official capital of Holland was Amsterdam. Standing up and contradicting the teachers in that school felt like you were risking your life. This school could by no means compare to a Dutch school in the 70's.
She put me in the corner with a dunce's hat on and laughed publicly at my stupidity. The rest of the class (in part for fear of their own lives and in part due to not really caring, other than caring about pleasing the teacher) believed what the teacher said.

Noa

I don’t feel responsible for the fact that you seem to feel stupid. I can only question the work your therapist is doing.
It’s possible to dismiss a statement without implying that the person who made this statement is stupid.
According to Louis Tas shame is a lack of empathy with yourself.
Maybe feeling stupid has to do with this lack of empathy as well.

@Arnon, I find your twisting of my words and playing of word-games is becoming a tiresome battle. Sometimes it's just easier to roll over and play dead, which I have done in the past, but I this time I feel manipulated and manipulation of facts and truths in order to claim superiority over someone goes against my "morality".
I could backtrack and show you exactly where you said I should start thinking (and not only this one time). The subtext seemed pretty clear to me. If you meant something else, well, let me know.
I could also backtrack and show you exactly where you systematically prefer to twist my words and intentions/questions rather than respond to them. This is highly condescending and aimed at leaving me feeling utterly stupid. Sometimes I wonder what all those professors you like to speak about here would think if you were to respond to them in a similar tone.
I think the questions I posed were quite valid as they related to the terminology you chose to use, therefore a more than logical question for an academic to ask. If you think I'm (or my questions) are stupid and haven't been thought through, well, be prepared for what you'll be confronted with in your lessons.
As for my therapist, I don't quite understand your obsession with that but if you're in need of one, I'll gladly give you his phone number. He's 75 years old and I promise you won't be able to outsmart him. You're brain is perfectly safe in his accomplished hands.

Noa

If you think the questions you ask are valid questions there is no need to feel stupid anymore.
I’m not sure what your point is. Probably the point is that you need some attention.
Well I would say that I give you plenty of attention.
And there you have your definition of desire: You desire my attention but whatever I give you it’s never enough.

@Arnon, no I desire your respect.

and needless to say you (but of course, this is a conclusion you already must have drawn yourself).

oh and just in case we get into that mess again: to obtain someone's respect has a different connotation in English than it does in Dutch where it is as much as saying you want someone to look up to you. This, I do not desire. Simply respect will do.