What’s the difference between philosophical and literary foreseeing? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Philosophical and literary foreseeing both involve envisioning future possibilities, but they do so in distinct ways, shaped by the different aims, methods, and forms of expression in philosophy and literature.

1. Nature of Inquiry:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophers engage with abstract, conceptual, and often systematic exploration of ideas. Their goal is to critically assess the underlying structures of reality, knowledge, and society, often through rigorous logic and metaphysical speculation. For instance, Nietzsche’s foresight into the rise of nihilism is rooted in his philosophical critique of values and religion, anticipating how the collapse of traditional belief systems would affect future generations . Philosophical foreseeing tends to analyze broad, foundational principles—whether in metaphysics, ethics, or epistemology—and project how changes in these principles might shape the future.

• Literary Foreseeing: In contrast, literary foresight is more imaginative and expressive, typically manifesting through narrative, symbolism, and emotional depth. Literature, particularly speculative fiction, explores possible futures by creating worlds, characters, and scenarios that embody future potentialities. George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World are examples of literary works that foresee dystopian futures, offering critiques of political and social trends through detailed, emotionally resonant stories. Literary foreseeing often immerses the reader in lived experiences of these future realities, using character and plot to explore the consequences of societal shifts.

2. Form and Method:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophy often uses logical argumentation and conceptual analysis. Philosophers like Whitehead or Deleuze develop speculative metaphysical systems that provide frameworks for understanding future realities based on the principles of change and becoming. For instance, Whitehead’s process philosophy foresaw an evolving, dynamic universe, but this was based on his abstract reflections on the nature of reality, rather than empirical observation 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature uses narrative, metaphor, and allegory. Literary works can embed philosophical ideas but do so through storytelling rather than formal argumentation. For example, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale foresees a future shaped by the oppression of women, but rather than analyzing this possibility through logical exposition, Atwood vividly dramatizes it through the experiences of her characters.

3. Scope of Vision:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophers typically engage with grand, universal ideas. They often attempt to foresee future developments in science, ethics, or society by examining trends in knowledge, culture, or metaphysics. Their visions are usually broad in scope, addressing fundamental changes in how we might understand reality or live our lives. For instance, Nietzsche’s prophecy of the “Übermensch” (Overman) is a sweeping vision of a future human beyond current moral frameworks .

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature often provides a more intimate and concrete portrayal of future worlds. While it can address broad themes, it does so by focusing on individual lives and the emotional, psychological, and social impacts of future scenarios. For instance, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 foresees a future of censorship and intellectual repression, but the impact of this future is shown through the personal struggle of the protagonist.

4. Emotional and Aesthetic Experience:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophical works are more likely to engage with the intellect, using abstract reasoning to encourage reflection on the future. The emotional experience may be secondary to the conceptual clarity or the logical rigor of the vision. Nietzsche’s works, though emotionally charged, are primarily concerned with offering intellectual critiques and foresights.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature tends to engage both the intellect and emotions through its narrative and aesthetic qualities. Literary foresight can be more immersive, allowing readers to emotionally connect with characters and situations that exemplify possible futures. The sensory and emotional details of literary works allow readers to experience potential futures viscerally, as in the terrifying totalitarianism of Orwell’s 1984 or the environmental collapse depicted in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.

5. Purpose and Impact:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophical foresight aims to critically interrogate reality and offer new ways of understanding or conceptualizing the future. Philosophers like Foucault anticipated the increasing role of surveillance and biopolitics in modern societies through his critical analysis of power structures . The aim is often to inspire change in thinking, policy, or cultural norms based on the insights offered.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature often aims to provoke reflection and emotional response by showing the human and societal consequences of current trajectories. Writers like Deleuze used literature in creative ways, drawing upon philosophical ideas but presenting them in ways that allow readers to explore them through more imaginative and sensory experiences. The goal is often to inspire both thought and feeling, prompting readers to engage with possible futures on a more personal level.

In conclusion, while both philosophical and literary foreseeing engage with the future, philosophy does so through abstract, systematic inquiry, aiming for conceptual clarity and universality, while literature uses narrative, metaphor, and emotional depth to create immersive, imaginative visions of future possibilities.

How did they do it? Is there a method to foresee the world? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

The ability of philosophers like Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze to “foresee” the future is not rooted in a specific method for predicting events in a direct sense. Rather, their foresight came from their profound capacity to recognize deep patterns, contradictions, and potentials within the cultural, scientific, and intellectual landscapes of their time. Here are several key factors that contributed to their forward-looking visions:

1. Radical Critique of the Present: These philosophers deeply critiqued the prevailing structures of thought in their respective times. For instance, Nietzsche critiqued the moral and religious frameworks of European society, anticipating the collapse of traditional values and the rise of nihilism. By recognizing cracks in their present systems, these philosophers could anticipate what might follow in the wake of these societal shifts .

2. Emphasis on Process and Change: Philosophers like Whitehead and Deleuze were attuned to the idea that reality is dynamic, not static. Whitehead’s process philosophy and Deleuze’s philosophy of becoming both rejected the idea of fixed essences and instead focused on the constant evolution and transformation of systems. By recognizing that change is fundamental, they were able to theorize future developments based on the transformative processes they observed 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

3. Interdisciplinary Thinking: These philosophers drew from a wide range of fields—art, science, politics, psychology, and more. Foucault, for example, analyzed history, institutions, and social power structures, recognizing patterns that helped him foresee the increasing complexity of surveillance and biopolitical control. Deleuze and Guattari drew on biology, psychoanalysis, and political theory, which allowed them to anticipate shifts in how we understand human subjectivity and technology  

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

4. Focus on Underlying Forces: Instead of focusing solely on surface phenomena, these thinkers analyzed the underlying forces shaping culture and society. Nietzsche’s exploration of the will to power and Foucault’s analysis of power/knowledge relations allowed them to anticipate how these dynamics would evolve. Similarly, Deleuze’s interest in desire and multiplicity led to insights about future disruptions in social and political structures .

5. Speculative Metaphysics: Philosophers like Schelling and Whitehead developed speculative metaphysical systems that went beyond empirical data to explore the fundamental nature of reality. Whitehead’s notion of the universe as an ongoing process of becoming, for example, was not based on scientific data available in his time, but his speculative framework turned out to align with later discoveries in cosmology and quantum physics 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

6. Creative Imagination and Intuition: While grounded in rigorous philosophical inquiry, these thinkers employed creative imagination to think beyond the limitations of their time. Nietzsche’s “Übermensch” and his idea of eternal recurrence are examples of his imaginative thinking about the future of humanity. Deleuze’s concept of “deterritorialization” offered a framework for thinking about fluidity in human, technological, and cultural systems before such ideas became mainstream in the age of globalization and the internet 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

In summary, these philosophers did not “predict” the future in a methodical way, but their deep understanding of human nature, societal structures, and metaphysical processes allowed them to foresee patterns and shifts that would later become significant. Their interdisciplinary approach, openness to change, and willingness to critique the present helped them offer visions that continue to resonate with contemporary thought.

In other words, can we say that some philosophers foresaw the world, one or two centuries ahead, for example, Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Yes, we can say that many philosophers, including Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze, offered insights that seem to anticipate the developments of one or two centuries later. These thinkers often explored philosophical ideas that went beyond the intellectual climate of their times, envisioning aspects of the world that are highly relevant today.

1. Schelling: Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, particularly through his exploration of nature and the unconscious, laid the groundwork for ideas that would later resonate in both existentialism and psychoanalysis. His work on the nature of freedom and the interplay between consciousness and the cosmos anticipated later debates about existential choice and the metaphysics of nature that continue to influence philosophy, ecology, and even quantum physics today .

2. Nietzsche: Friedrich Nietzsche famously declared the “death of God” and foresaw the rise of nihilism in Western culture. His anticipation of a future where traditional values would collapse has proven prophetic in the sense that many of his concerns about meaning, individualism, and the will to power are echoed in contemporary existential crises and discussions about the postmodern condition. Nietzsche’s emphasis on power dynamics and the “revaluation of all values” also foreshadowed post-structuralism and critiques of modernity .

3. Whitehead: Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, as previously mentioned, aligns with contemporary developments in cosmology, quantum physics, and systems theory. His holistic, dynamic view of reality and his critique of mechanistic materialism resonate strongly with contemporary science, which increasingly understands the universe as an interconnected, evolving system  

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

4. Foucault: Michel Foucault’s work on power, knowledge, and social institutions foresaw the growing complexity of surveillance, biopolitics, and disciplinary mechanisms in modern societies. His concept of “governmentality” is especially relevant today, as it speaks to the ways in which power operates in subtle, decentralized forms through societal institutions and technologies. His analysis of the role of discourse in shaping truth also anticipated contemporary discussions about media, truth, and post-truth politics .

5. Deleuze: Gilles Deleuze’s work, particularly with Félix Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus, anticipated the rise of network thinking, digital culture, and nonlinear modes of understanding the world. His ideas about multiplicity, rhizomes, and deterritorialization have become increasingly influential in fields like digital theory, cybernetics, and posthumanism, where the boundaries between human, machine, and nature are being rethought .

In sum, these philosophers offered visionary ideas that anticipated future developments in science, culture, and technology. Their work continues to be relevant, not only because they critiqued their own times, but because they foresaw challenges and transformations that are now central to contemporary debates.

Can we say that Whitehead foresaw the contemporary cosmology in his process philosophy, though he didn’t have the observational data yet? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Yes, we can argue that Alfred North Whitehead, through his process philosophy, anticipated certain elements of contemporary cosmology, even though he did not have access to modern observational data. Whitehead’s philosophical framework, particularly his concept of the universe as a process of becoming rather than a static collection of objects, resonates with contemporary cosmological ideas about an evolving, dynamic universe.

Whitehead’s emphasis on process over substance suggests a cosmos that is continuously in flux, much like the modern understanding of the universe as expanding and evolving over time, from the Big Bang to present-day structures like galaxies and stars. This idea aligns with the current view in cosmology that time and space are not fixed but are intimately connected to the material content of the universe, much as in Einstein’s theory of relativity, which Whitehead critiqued and engaged with deeply .

Additionally, Whitehead’s concept of prehension—where entities influence each other in a network of relationships—could be seen as an early philosophical parallel to contemporary ideas about the interconnectedness of all matter and energy in the universe. His holistic, organic view of the cosmos challenges the mechanistic, reductionist models that were dominant in his time, a challenge that remains relevant today as physicists and cosmologists look for unified theories that integrate gravity, quantum mechanics, and other forces.

While Whitehead did not have access to the empirical tools and data that contemporary cosmologists have, his metaphysical system foresaw a universe much more like the one we are discovering through observational data: one that is dynamic, relational, and fundamentally creative. This makes him a philosophical precursor to some of the discussions in cosmology today about the nature of time, space, and the cosmos as a whole 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology .

Can scientific materalialism find its way out of self-destruction? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

The idea that scientific materialism could lead to its own “self-destruction” reflects concerns that this worldview, which interprets the universe purely through the lens of matter and mechanistic processes, may be inherently limited or harmful in its consequences. Critics, like Matthew David Segall and thinkers influenced by Alfred North Whitehead, argue that scientific materialism has led to a fragmented understanding of reality that neglects the interconnectedness of nature, consciousness, and ethics  .

For scientific materialism to avoid self-destruction, some scholars argue that it would need to undergo significant revision or expansion. This might involve integrating more holistic, relational, or process-oriented perspectives, such as those found in Whitehead’s process philosophy. These approaches challenge the materialist reduction of reality to mere atoms and void, suggesting instead that the universe is a dynamic, evolving system in which subjective experience and values matter as much as physical laws.

Moreover, materialism’s self-destructive tendencies are evident in ecological crises, where treating nature as an inert resource leads to environmental degradation. Philosophers like Segall suggest that moving away from mechanistic materialism toward a worldview that sees the cosmos as “ensouled” or inherently meaningful could foster a more sustainable relationship between humanity and the Earth 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

In short, while scientific materialism has made significant contributions to our understanding of the universe, many thinkers argue that it must evolve to include dimensions of meaning, ethics, and interconnectedness in order to overcome its self-destructive tendencies.

What’s ‘cosmologically ensouled interpretation’ as proposed by Matthew David Segall? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Matthew David Segall’s concept of a “cosmologically ensouled interpretation” emerges from his engagement with the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. This interpretation challenges the reductionist and mechanistic views of the cosmos that dominate modern science, which often describe the universe in purely physical and mathematical terms devoid of meaning or purpose.

In contrast, Segall argues for an understanding of the cosmos as inherently meaningful and alive, suggesting that both physics and chemistry are not just descriptions of inert matter but involve living, organized processes at different scales. This view reintroduces a sense of soul or life into the cosmos, suggesting that the universe itself may be seen as a kind of living organism, or at least as something that is deeply interconnected with consciousness and subjectivity, rather than being purely mechanistic.

This approach is influenced by Whitehead’s philosophy, which critiques the “bifurcation of nature”—the separation of human consciousness from the rest of the universe. In a cosmologically ensouled interpretation, consciousness is not seen as an anomaly but as integral to the cosmos. It offers a more holistic way of understanding the universe that bridges the gap between science and spiritual or ethical dimensions, suggesting that the universe is imbued with purpose and creativity, not just mechanical causality   

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

Deferent and epicycle (均輪和本輪）

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%9D%87%E8%BC%AA%E5%92%8C%E6%9C%AC%E8%BC%AA

Is contemporary cosmology in an epicyclic phase of theoretical development? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

The suggestion that contemporary cosmology might be in an “epicyclic phase” of theoretical development refers to the historical analogy with the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos, which used increasingly complex layers of epicycles (small circular orbits superimposed on larger orbits) to account for the observed movements of planets. These adjustments were made to preserve the geocentric framework, even as the model became less elegant and more complicated.

If we apply this analogy to contemporary cosmology, the question asks whether current cosmological theories, like the Ptolemaic system before the Copernican revolution, are becoming overly complex and perhaps convoluted in an attempt to account for observations without fundamentally changing the underlying framework.

There are debates about whether certain models in contemporary cosmology, especially those involving dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, could represent an “epicyclic” phase. For example:

1. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: These concepts were introduced to explain phenomena that don’t fit neatly into our current understanding of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. Some critics argue that introducing dark matter and dark energy is analogous to adding epicycles—attempting to salvage existing theories (like General Relativity) rather than radically rethinking the framework.

2. Cosmic Inflation: The inflationary model, which posits a rapid expansion of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, has become more intricate to account for various observations. Some physicists feel that this growing complexity might indicate that inflation is an “epicycle-like” solution rather than a fundamentally correct understanding of the early universe.

However, the analogy has limits. Cosmology is based on empirical data, and new theories like dark matter and dark energy are formulated in response to precise observations, such as galactic rotation curves and cosmic microwave background measurements. Unlike the Ptolemaic system, which was fundamentally based on incorrect assumptions (geocentrism), modern cosmological models are deeply rooted in observational data.

In short, while some theorists argue that certain aspects of cosmology (e.g., dark matter, dark energy) might represent a patchwork of epicycles, others contend that these are well-motivated and empirically necessary developments. The question remains open, but the “epicyclic phase” analogy is a provocative way to consider whether cosmology might be due for a revolutionary shift.

長夜孤魂

https://youtu.be/o3JNrhN8-8I?si=MLzqIdwmJvo5yiBn

「1813」 —- What does the phrase ‘in the aftermath of German Idealism’ mean? Can we say that Husserl’s phenomenology was a response to that aftermath? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

The phrase “in the aftermath of German Idealism” refers to the intellectual period following the peak of German Idealism, particularly after the works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. German Idealism was a major philosophical movement that explored the nature of reality, consciousness, and the relationship between mind and world, emphasizing that reality is shaped by the mind’s activity.

The “aftermath” indicates a time when thinkers began to react to, critique, and move beyond German Idealism. Some philosophers tried to address perceived shortcomings or contradictions in Idealism, while others sought alternative approaches to the problems it posed. This period gave rise to new schools of thought, including Marxism, existentialism, and phenomenology, all of which, to varying degrees, grappled with German Idealism’s legacy.

Husserl’s phenomenology can be seen as a response to this aftermath. Husserl sought to address some of the unresolved problems of German Idealism, particularly the tension between subjectivity and objectivity. While German Idealists like Hegel emphasized the absolute unity of thought and being, Husserl sought to ground philosophy in the direct description of experience, emphasizing the intentionality of consciousness—how consciousness is always directed toward something. His method of epoché (bracketing assumptions) aimed to set aside metaphysical speculations about the nature of reality, returning philosophy to a study of phenomena as they appear to consciousness.

In this way, phenomenology can be seen as both a continuation of and a response to the issues raised by German Idealism, especially its focus on the role of the subject in constituting reality. Husserl, like the Idealists, was concerned with the conditions of knowledge and experience but took a different methodological path to address these questions.

The Abyss of Freedom/Ages of the World (Slavoj Zizek (Author), Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling (Author), 1997)

In the last decade, F. W. J. von Schelling has emerged as one of the key philosophers of German Idealism, the one who, for the first time, undermined Kant's philosophical revolution and in so doing opened up the way for a viable critique of Hegel. In noted philosopher Slavoj Zizek's view, the main orientations of the post-Hegelian thought, from Kierkegaard and Marx, to Heidegger and today's deconstructionism, were prefigured in Schelling's analysis of Hegel's idealism, and in his affirmation that the contingency of existence cannot be reduced to notional self-mediation. In The Abyss of Freedom, Zizek attempts to advance Schelling's stature even further, with a commentary of the second draft of Schelling's work The Ages of the World, written in 1813.

Zizek argues that Schelling's most profound thoughts are found in the series of three consecutive attempts he made to formulate the "ages of the world/Weltalter," the stages of the self-development of the Absolute. Of the three versions, claims Zizek, it is the second that is the most eloquent and definitive encompassing of Schelling's lyrical thought. It centers on the problem of how the Absolute (God) himself, in order to become actual, to exist effectively, has to accomplish a radically contingent move of acquiring material, bodily existence. Never before available in English, this version finally renders accessible one of the key texts of modern philosophy, a text that is widely debated in philosophical circles today.

The Abyss of Freedom is Zizek's own reading of Schelling based upon Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. It focuses on the notion that Lacan's theory--which claims that the symbolic universe emerged from presymbolic drives--is prefigured in Schelling's idea of logos as given birth to from the vortex of primordial drives, or from what "in God is not yet God." For Zizek, this connection is monumental, showing that Schelling's ideas forcefully presage the post-modern "deconstruction" of logocentrism.

Slavoj Zizek is not a philosopher who stoops to conquer objects but a radical voice who believes that philosophy is nothing if it is not embodied, nothing if it is only abstract. For him, true philosophy always speaks of something rather than nothing. Those interested in the genesis of contemporary thought and the fate of reason in our "age of anxiety" will find this coupling of texts not only philosophically relevant, but vitally important.

Slavoj Zizek is the author of The Sublime Object of Ideology, Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel and the Critique of Ideology, and most recently, The Indivisible Remainder: An Essay on Schelling and Related Matters.Currently he is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. Judith Norman is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas.

Nowhere is the endeavor to comprehend this enigma more strenuous than in the three drafts of Die Weltalter ("Ages of the World") from 181 to 1815. (Ibid, p. 2)

The three drafts remain fragments: all of them contain only book 1 of the planned trilogy of "Past," "Present," and "Future." They are interrupted at the crucial point of giving an account of the differentiation between Past and Present, of the emergence of the Word from the self-enclosed rotary motion of drives. However, in their very failure, they are arguably the acme of German Idealism and, simultaneously, a breakthrough into an unknown domain whose contours became discernible only in the aftermath of German Idealism. This breakthrough is most tangible in the second draft, and for this reason it was chosen for translation in the present volume. The work bears witness to such an effort of thought that it is almost painful to read. (ibid, pp. 3-4)

It is now clear that the entire post-Hegelian constellation - from Marxism to the existentialist notion of finitude and temporality as the ultimate horizon of being, from deconstructionist "decentering" of the self-presence of logos to New Age obscurantism - has its roots in Schelling's late philosophy. (Ibid, p. 4)

Ghost Rider (2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Rider_(2007_film) (Netflix)

沒有見過這麼窩囊的颱風 — 山陀小屁兒 （10/2 10/3）

這個世界，不缺小屁孩，剛剛我跟 D 君說，柯文哲錯在斤斤計較小錢，你要理解，小錢人多口雜，事跡敗露，防不勝防，所謂小錢，就是境內，以新台幣結算的錢，比如說，4740 / 4300 萬，210 / 157 萬，所謂非小錢，就是大錢，就是境外，加密貨幣，區塊鏈，洗到天涯海角，那種神不知鬼不覺的錢，比如說，三十億台幣，三百億台幣，三千億台幣，你要理解，台灣的貪污，比起共匪胃口，芝麻綠豆不如，區區一個許家印，就搞掉十萬億人民幣，那個有頭有臉的趙家人，不搞個十萬八萬億美金，就不配姓趙，意思是說，柯文哲這種，所謂 157，沈慶京這種，所謂財團，在共匪眼中，芝麻綠豆不如，以上說明，滅共首須滅（五百）趙，他們生飲中國人民精血，生換中國人民器官，本來民眾黨，理應為滅共護台而立，殊知搞成小錢糞坑，柯某實在有愧渭水，

有一種書寫，要求作者，以餘生換之，比如說，謝林寫 The Ages of the World，一寫就寫了四十年，結果改寫二十次，只寫了三分之一，的三個版本 （1811, 1813, 1815)，這件事說明，老謝應該迂迴，應該說，我今天下午要去墾丁，意思是說，謝林錯在，前半生移動，後半生卻動彈不得，中年續絃幼妻，連生六兒女，又被供在柏林大學，扮演道貌岸然的精神導師，遂與這個世界，只可能沒有半毛錢關係，你要理解，唯有流浪車行者，行走于這個世界，才能告訴你，這個世界，大約光景如何，

周四近午，山陀小屁兒，仍未登陸，風較昨小，德國觀念論，執意唯心，其衰遂意涵，唯物的反撲，現象學存在主義，則採經驗論，以避唯心唯物之爭，謝林在理性的邊界，亦預見了精神分析的到來，

What’s the affinity and difference between the philosophy of Spinoza and Schelling? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-2)(negativity vs vitality)(車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)

The philosophies of **Spinoza** and **Schelling** share significant points of affinity, particularly in their focus on the unity of nature and the divine, but they also differ sharply in their metaphysical approaches, particularly concerning the nature of freedom, the role of individuality, and their understandings of the relationship between the finite and the infinite. Here’s a comparison of their major similarities and differences:

### Affinities Between Spinoza and Schelling:

1. **Monism and the Unity of Being**:

   - **Spinoza**: Spinoza is known for his radical monism, where God and Nature (Deus sive Natura) are one and the same substance. For him, there is only one substance, and everything that exists is a mode of that substance. This means that God is not a separate entity from the world; rather, the world itself, and everything in it, is an expression of God.

   - **Schelling**: Early in his career, Schelling also advocates for a form of monism, especially in his *Philosophy of Nature*. He argues that nature is not a separate creation but an expression of the Absolute — an underlying unity that manifests itself through both nature and human consciousness. Schelling’s concept of the Absolute has a similar unifying character to Spinoza’s substance, where the duality between mind and matter is overcome by recognizing their underlying unity.

   - **Affinity**: Both thinkers view the world as an expression of an immanent divine principle, and both reject a dualism between the spiritual and the material realms. They emphasize that nature and divinity are not separate entities but are deeply interconnected.

2. **Immanence**:

   - **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s philosophy is fundamentally immanent. God is not a transcendent creator who exists outside the world but is entirely present within the world. Everything that exists is a part of this divine substance, and thus there is no "outside" to the immanent order.

   - **Schelling**: In his early works, Schelling shares a similar view of immanence, especially in his *Philosophy of Nature*. For Schelling, nature is not something separate from the Absolute but an immanent expression of it. The divine is revealed through the processes of nature, and human consciousness is part of that unfolding.

   - **Affinity**: Both Spinoza and early Schelling promote an immanent view of the divine, seeing nature and the world as part of the unfolding of a singular, divine substance or principle.

3. **Pantheism**:

   - **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s philosophy is often interpreted as pantheistic, as he equates God with Nature. God is not a personal being or a creator outside the world, but the entire universe itself. Everything that exists is an expression of God’s infinite attributes.

   - **Schelling**: Schelling’s early work also has pantheistic elements, particularly his notion that nature is a visible manifestation of the Absolute. While Schelling later moves beyond a purely pantheistic outlook, in his early *Philosophy of Nature*, he shares Spinoza’s view that the divine is not a transcendent being but is immanent within the world.

### Differences Between Spinoza and Schelling:

1. **The Nature of the Absolute**:

   - **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s Absolute (God or Substance) is completely static and determined. Everything that happens is the result of a deterministic chain of causes, all of which are expressions of the one divine substance. There is no freedom in the sense of spontaneity or contingency because everything follows necessarily from the nature of God or Substance.

   - **Schelling**: Schelling’s concept of the Absolute evolves over time, and in his later works, he emphasizes the dynamic, creative nature of the Absolute. For Schelling, the Absolute is not a fixed, static substance, but a process of becoming that involves both necessity and freedom. Schelling’s later philosophy, especially in works like *The Ages of the World*, emphasizes the idea of a "ground" of the Absolute that is irrational and dark, a source of potentiality and freedom that precedes the emergence of order.

   - **Difference**: Spinoza’s Absolute is static, necessary, and fully determined, whereas Schelling’s Absolute becomes a dynamic, living process that includes both necessity and the possibility of freedom and creativity.

2. **Freedom and Necessity**:

   - **Spinoza**: For Spinoza, freedom is not the ability to choose between alternatives, but the understanding of necessity. True freedom is realizing that everything happens according to the laws of nature and accepting it. Human beings are part of the deterministic order, and our freedom consists in our intellectual understanding of this order.

   - **Schelling**: In contrast, Schelling places a strong emphasis on freedom as a real, metaphysical force. Particularly in his later work, Schelling sees freedom as fundamental to the nature of the Absolute. For Schelling, the world is not fully determined, and freedom involves the capacity for creativity, spontaneity, and the emergence of new possibilities. He posits an irrational "ground" of existence that allows for the existence of freedom alongside necessity.

   - **Difference**: Spinoza equates freedom with intellectual understanding and acceptance of necessity, whereas Schelling sees freedom as a real, creative force that allows for contingency and the emergence of new realities.

3. **The Role of the Individual**:

   - **Spinoza**: For Spinoza, individuals are modes of the one substance, and while they have a certain degree of individuality, they are ultimately determined by the larger order of nature. Individuality is not essential but rather a manifestation of the underlying substance.

   - **Schelling**: Schelling, particularly in his later philosophy, places more emphasis on individuality and the role of the individual will. He views individual freedom as a real force in the world, where individuals can act creatively and bring new realities into existence. This emphasis on individuality and freedom distinguishes Schelling from Spinoza’s more deterministic worldview.

   - **Difference**: Spinoza’s system is more deterministic and views individuality as a mere expression of the divine substance, whereas Schelling gives more importance to individual freedom and creativity as part of the unfolding of the Absolute.

4. **God, Evil, and the Problem of Negativity**:

   - **Spinoza**: Spinoza’s God is completely good and perfect, and the existence of evil is simply a lack of understanding on our part. Since everything follows from the necessary nature of God or Substance, what we perceive as evil is merely a limitation of our perspective.

   - **Schelling**: Schelling’s later philosophy introduces a much more complex understanding of evil and negativity. In *Freedom Essay* and *The Ages of the World*, Schelling argues that evil arises from the dark, irrational ground of existence that precedes the manifestation of the Absolute. This ground contains both good and evil, and thus evil is a real metaphysical possibility within the unfolding of the Absolute.

   - **Difference**: Spinoza does not see evil as a real force but as a lack of understanding, while Schelling sees evil as a fundamental part of existence, rooted in the irrational ground of being itself.

### Summary:

- **Affinities**: Both Spinoza and Schelling share a commitment to monism, an emphasis on the immanence of the divine in nature, and a rejection of traditional dualisms between mind and body, God and the world. They both offer a vision of the unity of all things within a single, overarching principle (Spinoza’s Substance and Schelling’s Absolute).

  

- **Differences**: Spinoza’s philosophy is deterministic and emphasizes intellectual freedom within a fully determined system, while Schelling develops a more dynamic, creative view of the Absolute that includes real freedom and individuality. Spinoza’s God is static and perfect, whereas Schelling’s Absolute includes a dark, irrational ground that allows for both freedom and the emergence of evil. 

Schelling, especially in his later philosophy, breaks away from Spinoza’s strict determinism and offers a more complex, existentially rich view of the world that incorporates freedom, creativity, and negativity.

How did Lacan use the philosophy of Hegel in his own theory? Why didn’t he use Schelling’s philosophy? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-2) (negativity vs vitality) (車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)

Jacques Lacan’s use of Hegel, particularly the *Phenomenology of Spirit*, plays a crucial role in shaping his psychoanalytic theory, especially in terms of the subject’s development, desire, and recognition. Lacan engages deeply with Hegel's dialectical method, most notably the *master-slave dialectic*, to explore the dynamics of subjectivity, self-consciousness, and desire within psychoanalysis. On the other hand, Schelling’s philosophy receives less attention from Lacan, and there are a few reasons for this divergence.

### How Lacan Used Hegel in His Theory:

1. **The Master-Slave Dialectic and Subject Formation**:

   - Lacan appropriates Hegel's famous master-slave dialectic to explain the process of subject formation through recognition and desire. For Hegel, self-consciousness arises through a struggle for recognition between two consciousnesses. One becomes the master, the other the slave, and through this dynamic, self-consciousness develops. Lacan reinterprets this in psychoanalytic terms, where the subject's desire for recognition is key to understanding identity and self-consciousness.

   - In Lacan’s theory, the subject emerges through a similar dialectic of recognition, not only with others but also through language and the symbolic order. The "Other" in Lacan’s thought is akin to Hegel’s master — it represents the social and symbolic structures that shape the subject and through which the subject seeks recognition.

2. **Desire and the Dialectic**:

   - Lacan famously said, "Man's desire is the desire of the Other," meaning that human desire is shaped by the desire for recognition from the Other (a concept drawn from Hegel's dialectic). Lacan uses this to explain how the subject’s desires are never purely their own but are structured and mediated by the desires of others and by language.

   - Hegel’s dialectical process, where self-consciousness is formed through a series of negations and contradictions, parallels Lacan’s notion of desire as being perpetually unfulfilled and driven by lack. The subject is always seeking something that is ultimately unattainable, leading to a constant movement of desire, much like Hegel’s notion of the dialectic as a movement driven by contradiction.

3. **The Mirror Stage and Hegelian Recognition**:

   - Lacan’s famous concept of the *mirror stage*—where the child identifies with an external image of itself, leading to the formation of the ego—bears Hegelian influences. The child’s recognition of itself in the mirror parallels Hegel’s idea of self-consciousness arising through the recognition of another. However, Lacan emphasizes the misrecognition (*méconnaissance*) inherent in this identification, suggesting that the ego is an illusion shaped by external forces.

   - This misrecognition relates to Hegel’s notion that self-consciousness is always mediated by the other and that the subject is never fully in control of its own identity, a key insight that Lacan deepens in his psychoanalytic work.

4. **Negativity and the Subject**:

   - Hegel’s idea of negativity, where self-consciousness develops through the process of negating what it is not, resonates with Lacan’s theory of the subject. Lacan argues that the subject is defined by a fundamental lack (often symbolized by the "objet petit a"), and this lack or void is what drives desire. For Lacan, the subject is not a unified whole but is split, constantly striving to overcome this lack but never fully achieving it — a process that mirrors Hegel’s dialectical progression through negation and contradiction.

### Why Lacan Didn’t Use Schelling’s Philosophy:

1. **Hegel’s Focus on Subjectivity and Desire**:

   - Hegel's philosophy, especially the *Phenomenology of Spirit*, offers a clear framework for understanding the development of subjectivity, recognition, and desire — all of which are central to Lacan's psychoanalytic project. Lacan saw in Hegel a structure that closely mirrored the processes he was exploring in psychoanalysis, such as the role of the Other, the nature of desire, and the subject's constant negotiation with the symbolic order.

   - Schelling, on the other hand, is more focused on metaphysical and ontological questions, such as the nature of the Absolute and the interplay between freedom and necessity. While these are profound philosophical issues, they do not map as directly onto the psychoanalytic concerns with subjectivity and desire that Lacan was addressing.

2. **Schelling’s Focus on the Unconscious as Metaphysical**:

   - Schelling was one of the earliest philosophers to talk about the unconscious, particularly in his later philosophy, where he explored the unconscious as a metaphysical force underlying existence. However, Schelling’s view of the unconscious was more cosmic and metaphysical, seeing it as part of the dynamic structure of reality itself.

   - Lacan’s focus, by contrast, was on the unconscious as it relates to language, subjectivity, and symbolic structures, drawing heavily on Freud's psychoanalytic framework. While Schelling’s concept of the unconscious was important in the history of ideas, it did not offer the kind of practical, structural insights into the psyche and desire that Hegel’s philosophy did for Lacan’s purposes.

3. **Schelling’s Less Direct Engagement with Language and the Symbolic**:

   - Lacan’s theory is deeply concerned with language and the symbolic order. He argues that the unconscious is structured like a language and that the subject is fundamentally shaped by its immersion in language. Hegel’s dialectical philosophy, with its focus on recognition, negation, and self-consciousness, provided Lacan with tools to think through how language and the symbolic shape subjectivity.

   - Schelling, while a profound thinker, does not engage with language or the symbolic in the way Hegel does. His metaphysical approach to existence, nature, and freedom, while influential in other philosophical contexts, was not as directly useful for Lacan’s focus on the symbolic dimension of psychoanalysis.

### Summary:

Lacan used Hegel’s philosophy, particularly the *master-slave dialectic* and the idea of desire as mediated by the Other, to deepen his psychoanalytic theory. Hegel’s concepts of recognition, negation, and subjectivity provided Lacan with a framework for understanding the dynamics of desire, self-consciousness, and the unconscious. 

Lacan did not focus on Schelling’s philosophy because Schelling’s concerns with metaphysical issues like the Absolute, freedom, and the cosmic unconscious were less relevant to Lacan’s focus on language, desire, and the symbolic structure of the unconscious. Hegel’s dialectical method, with its emphasis on subjectivity and recognition, proved more immediately applicable to the psychoanalytic theory Lacan was developing.

What did Jon Mills talk about Hegel? Why didn’t he talk about Schelling? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-2) (車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)(negativity vs vitality)

Jon Mills, a contemporary philosopher and psychoanalyst, is known for his work in psychology, psychoanalysis, and philosophy. He has written extensively on Hegel and his relevance to psychoanalysis, particularly in the context of subjectivity, self-consciousness, and the development of the human psyche. Mills often explores how Hegel’s dialectical process can be applied to understanding the development of the self, particularly in the context of psychological theory and the dynamics of the unconscious.

### Mills on Hegel:

1. **Hegel's Influence on Psychoanalysis**: Mills argues that Hegel’s dialectical method, especially the development of self-consciousness through the master-slave dialectic, provides important insights into the formation of the self and subjectivity, which resonate with psychoanalytic theory. Hegel’s ideas of negation, contradiction, and synthesis align with the psychological processes of internal conflict and transformation.

2. **Dialectics and Subjectivity**: Mills uses Hegel's *Phenomenology of Spirit* to explore how the self develops through a series of dialectical movements — from immediate sense-certainty to self-consciousness and eventually to absolute knowing. This movement mirrors the way the psyche encounters and resolves internal conflicts, leading to the development of a cohesive self.

3. **Negativity and Psychic Conflict**: For Mills, Hegel’s notion of negativity, the idea that the self is defined by a constant process of negation and becoming, aligns with psychoanalytic concepts of internal struggle and the process of working through unconscious material. He believes Hegel’s ideas can enhance our understanding of how individuals confront and integrate repressed aspects of the psyche.

### Why Didn’t Jon Mills Talk About Schelling?

While Mills engages extensively with Hegel, Schelling is less central to his work. There could be a few reasons for this:

1. **Psychoanalytic Relevance**: Hegel’s dialectics, particularly the master-slave dynamic and the focus on self-consciousness, seem more directly applicable to psychoanalytic theory than Schelling’s philosophy. Hegel’s focus on the process of becoming, negation, and the development of consciousness through contradiction resonates strongly with psychoanalysis, where the self is seen as a dynamic, conflicted entity.

   In contrast, Schelling’s emphasis on the Absolute and his later metaphysical concerns might be less directly relevant to the psychoanalytic framework Mills works within. Schelling’s ideas, while important in their own right, focus more on the nature of freedom, the unconscious in a metaphysical sense, and the relationship between nature and spirit. These themes, while connected to psychology, don’t directly engage with the process of psychological development in the way Hegel’s dialectical method does.

2. **Hegel's Dominance in Philosophical Discourse**: Hegel’s influence in continental philosophy and psychoanalytic theory is much more prominent compared to Schelling’s, particularly in the 20th century. Thinkers like Jacques Lacan and Slavoj Žižek draw heavily on Hegelian concepts when discussing psychoanalysis, which may explain Mills’s preference for Hegel over Schelling. Hegel's legacy in psychoanalysis makes him a more natural focus for thinkers like Mills who operate within that intellectual tradition.

3. **Schelling’s Philosophical Complexity**: Schelling’s philosophy is notoriously complex and underwent significant shifts over the course of his career, from early idealism to later existential and religious thought. This shifting nature makes it harder to pin down a single cohesive narrative in his thought that can be directly applied to psychoanalytic frameworks in the way Hegel's more structured dialectical approach can.

In summary, Jon Mills focuses on Hegel because Hegel’s dialectics offer a clear framework for understanding the development of the self, subjectivity, and psychic conflict, all of which resonate with psychoanalytic theory. Schelling, while important in his own right, likely doesn’t receive as much attention from Mills because his work doesn’t directly align with the psychoanalytic themes that Mills is interested in exploring.

大禹和柯文哲

司馬遷說，大禹喜戲水，常常不回家，有點像遠洋跑船，動輒數十年，回家卻有一群幼齡兒女，意思是說，我們不確定，不回家的大禹，怎麼生得出啟，但是我們確定，大禹傳位給啟，開啟了中國三千年，家天下惡例，意思是說，大禹以降，以至今日蠢包，害中國沒有民主自由人權法治三千年，大禹對外宣稱治水，柯則對外宣稱治水庫，簡單講，二人都喜玩水，但學科不同，前者是流體力學，後者是加密貨幣洗錢學，

王滬寧公公說笑話

https://youtu.be/fKrSrLtO4fw?si=u7yrObBcZKSEXSZU

黃珊珊招了

https://youtu.be/2WVpAts0KCI?si=O1yWJWWh3nog_fSZ

Banjo Paterson (1864-1941) (車行形上學）（metaphysics of van life)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjo_Paterson

bush ballad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_ballad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bush#The_Australian_bush

你要理解，他寫的叢林流浪 （Waltzing Matilda）（1895）（31 歲），是澳洲非官方國歌，

我先前說過，三十四十，是我們唯一，有可能原創的十年，我想，這是因為，三十四十，感情豐富，粗具閱歷，體力精神，像出廠五年的車，遂可見到，某個系統的縫隙，

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E5%8F%A2%E6%9E%97%E6%B5%81%E6%B5%AA_(%E6%BE%B3%E5%A4%A7%E5%88%A9%E4%BA%9E%E6%B0%91%E8%AC%A0)

意思是說，二十世紀初，tramp 曾是有名的逃逸路線，你要理解，逃逸所為何來，正是追尋自由，

自由的定義，就是命運之愛 （amor fati)，但不認命運，又調侃命運，微哂命運，你要理解，戴維斯為自由，曾不惜斷腿，

黃國昌率領華航空姐黃珊珊韓國瑜傅崐萁習近平反攻大陸殺光八千萬共匪解救十四億中國人于水深火熱千古輪迴人間煉獄

https://youtu.be/Hgw0CkEFPLA?si=26ydxCFM0Qo6f_Sb