Inspiration

[speed]

I posted the following in a post in another thread. My ego inspired me to create a new thread, so said inspired ideas would not be lost (especially before my inspiration wears off).



Classic Literature, influential philosophy, timeless music, eternal art, and pure science, are about, and to be appreciated for their pure inspiration--the genius, the experiencing of another world, this whirlwind of inspired creative genius, and of course, they are genius for overcoming the common place and practical. These works of inspiration, are, indeed, in many ways, luxuries that have no practical purpose. Such inspiration can be found in the recently discussed idea of Dasein (what creative inspiration to think of such a thing!), and thus all of influential Philosophy (Philosophy requires inspiration; a new creative idea; a new individual world to share). And I suppose, there is some inspiration somewhere in analytical philosophy (Wittgenstein sure had it); although I dont see many examples, hehe.

Hence, inspiration--those great works of pure ideas and creation--have no practical point or ideology behind them, but those of the whims, pecularities, and strengths and weaknesses of their inspired creator. Later on, they inspire others, or some practical purpose; but their original intent is pure and unsullied by such practical considerations.

I think these points, are pretty much the most important things Ive stated my whole time on this board. And I know many of us on this board, are creative persons: artists, poets, writers, scientists, hell, even computer programmers, who should understand this.

 

[MURAI]

Yes, work fueled by inspiration is not exactly practical or meant to always get some tangible result. It can serve to create its own universe. But to be good it needs to have a target or purpose. I remember my English teacher in highschool said, that in poems it needs rules. And he made a metaphor about it comparing it to a hose. It goes farther and stronger by covering the mouth and applying some pressure.

 

[The Bringer]

This is actually a topic I had recently discussed in my blog.

Philosophy literature is definitely an influence on me. I have been reading a lot lately and it has inspired me to write again but it doesn't give me that over consuming feeling I need. Mythology really does it for me. The wonderous stories of the gods and their actions while living on Earth is inspiring... but doesn't quite get it for me. Of course, combining the two really helps too.

My main inspiration (and it really works because on the weekend I started writing my second novel) is the seasons of the year. Autumn. I can't believe how inspired I get when this dark damp season is upon us... and it lasts well into the winter and spring as well. Nothing gets me like the coziness of night surrounding me, the damp streets and rainy sky.

Sunday was an ugly ugly day here but I loved it. I sat down at the kitchen table and wrote the 14 page introduction to my book. All I need to do is just glance outside and I am forced to write what is on my mind. The flow was amazing.

 

[Freanan]

Interresting topic.

I think that besides physical survival and having offspring there is also a need for psychical/intellectual immortalisation of the self in every individual as part, maybe even as definition of life itsself.

According to that, inspired actions and creations would not be done for the sake of themselves, but for the sake of the said urge for mental and physcial immortality. Of course you could also turn that around and say that creativity only exists for itsself, and life is based on it as a correlate.

 

[Nile577]

Classic Literature, influential philosophy, timeless music, eternal art, and pure science, are about, and to be appreciated for their pure inspiration--the genius, the experiencing of another world, this whirlwind of inspired creative genius, and of course, they are genius for overcoming the common place and practical. Hense works of inspiration, are, indeed, in many ways, luxuries that have no practical purpose. .

"Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself. Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect, and as a consequence, the productions of genius serve no useful purpose. The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit. To be useless and unprofitable is one of the characteristics of genius; it is their patent of nobility." - Arthur Schopenauer

 

[Nile577]

The Dark Times
(inspiration in a passage of quotes)

"Anyone who cannot identify with Modern life while he is alive needs one hand to ward off a little his despair over his fate... but with the other hand he can jot down what he sees among the ruins, for he sees different and more things than the others; after all, he is dead in his own lifetime and the real survivor" - Franz Kafka

"Like one who keeps afloat on a shipwreck by climbing to the top of a mast that is already crumbling. But from there he has a chance to give a signal leading to his rescue" - Walter Benjamin

"We say outright: these are madmen, yet these madmen have their own logic, their God even, and it's as deepset as could be." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"You made me confess the fears that I have. But I will tell you also what I do not fear. I do not fear to be alone or to be spurned for another or to leave whatever I have to leave. And I am not afraid to make a mistake, even a great mistake, a lifelong mistake and perhaps as long as eternity too" - Stephen Dedalus (James Joyce)

"It seemed to me impossible to leave the world until I had brought forth all that I felt was within me." - Ludwig van Beethoven

 

[speed]

"Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself. Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect, and as a consequence, the productions of genius serve no useful purpose. The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit. To be useless and unprofitable is one of the characteristics of genius; it is their patent of nobility." - Arthur Schopenauer

I think this quote sums it up best. Schopenhauer understood creativity and art I think more than any other philosopher--even Nietszche.


Onto the philosopht sphere, I know Leo Strauss--who's been recently unjustly tied to the neo-con movement--stated that there are two types of persons in philosophy: 1) academics and scholars; 2) the great creative thinkers. He claimed that 99.99 of philosophers were scholars; he was a scholar, and that scholars merely worked on the droppings if you will, of the truly great creative thinkers. And he also stated that in philosophy, those great thinkers almost always had to couch their thoughts in obscure or estoric language to defend a inspired system or thought that perhaps had certain weaknesses and could get the philosopher in trouble.

 

[hibernal_dream]

I posted the following in a post in another thread. My ego inspired me to create a new thread, so said inspired ideas would not be lost (especially before my inspiration wears off).



Classic Literature, influential philosophy, timeless music, eternal art, and pure science, are about, and to be appreciated for their pure inspiration--the genius, the experiencing of another world, this whirlwind of inspired creative genius, and of course, they are genius for overcoming the common place and practical. These works of inspiration, are, indeed, in many ways, luxuries that have no practical purpose. Such inspiration can be found in the recently discussed idea of Dasein (what creative inspiration to think of such a thing!), and thus all of influential Philosophy (Philosophy requires inspiration; a new creative idea; a new individual world to share). And I suppose, there is some inspiration somewhere in analytical philosophy (Wittgenstein sure had it); although I dont see many examples, hehe.

Hence, inspiration--those great works of pure ideas and creation--have no practical point or ideology behind them, but those of the whims, pecularities, and strengths and weaknesses of their inspired creator. Later on, they inspire others, or some practical purpose; but their original intent is pure and unsullied by such practical considerations.

I think these points, are pretty much the most important things Ive stated my whole time on this board. And I know many of us on this board, are creative persons: artists, poets, writers, scientists, hell, even computer programmers, who should understand this.

I've noticed these kinds of posts have become commonplace on this board and to be honest are sort of starting to annoy me. They're almost religious or fanatical in prose and nature - we follow a higher calling, we are the chosen people. It seems more like you are trying to justify certain people's choice of profession as a "higher" academic or artist and for "overcoming" the practical, as you put it. You make it sound like being useless and impractical is a prerequisite to creativity, inspiration and genius. And the practical is a disease that we must rid ourselves of in order to qualify. It's like saying Darkthrone is to be praised for the stripping itself of all production values and nothing more. How is the practical something to be overcome? It is nonsense that only certain people professions have a kind of monopoly on creativity, and the height of pretentiousness. Simply because someone has an impact on other people's lives they are somehow disregarded as a "great thinker"? The implications and tone of your post are rather distasteful - true, perhaps Beethoven or Einstein would not have been recognised had they taken up teaching. Does this negate their genius? Anyone from accountants, engineers, lawyers, presidents and benefit from inspiration and creativity. I've met hundreds of people in everyday, commonplace positions who use their genius and inspiration to affect the lives of countless others. In fact you could say those professions are superior because they are acting for others outside of their own self-interest, unlike artists of whom the majority claim to create art for themselves (in my experience). Sorry if I don't find your ideas "inspired" ... I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with Schopenhauer's statement, as well as most of Parerga.. a text so steeped in 19th centure German arrogance and self-justification that while reading I agreed with a some of it, I actually pitied the man.

 

[speed]

I've noticed these kinds of posts have become commonplace on this board and to be honest are sort of starting to annoy me. They're almost religious or fanatical in prose and nature - we follow a higher calling, we are the chosen people. It seems more like you are trying to justify certain people's choice of profession as a "higher" academic or artist and for "overcoming" the practical, as you put it. You make it sound like being useless and impractical is a prerequisite to creativity, inspiration and genius. And the practical is a disease that we must rid ourselves of in order to qualify. It's like saying Darkthrone is to be praised for the stripping itself of all production values and nothing more. How is the practical something to be overcome? It is nonsense that only certain people professions have a kind of monopoly on creativity, and the height of pretentiousness. Simply because someone has an impact on other people's lives they are somehow disregarded as a "great thinker"? The implications and tone of your post are rather distasteful - true, perhaps Beethoven or Einstein would not have been recognised had they taken up teaching. Does this negate their genius? Anyone from accountants, engineers, lawyers, presidents and benefit from inspiration and creativity. I've met hundreds of people in everyday, commonplace positions who use their genius and inspiration to affect the lives of countless others. In fact you could say those professions are superior because they are acting for others outside of their own self-interest, unlike artists of whom the majority claim to create art for themselves (in my experience). Sorry if I don't find your ideas "inspired" ... I guess it goes without saying that I disagree with Schopenhauer's statement, as well as most of Parerga.. a text so steeped in 19th centure German arrogance and self-justification that while reading I agreed with a some of it, I actually pitied the man.

Interesting. You're argument is clearly the antithesis of mine, and a number of philosophers/artists/musicians. Indeed, your argument here seems to be the argument of quite a number of people. When most tell others they're interested in philosophy, art, etc. this is always the reply. Why bother? It's so impractical; it's the path to nowhere; it helps no one, etc, etc. Why not use your talent to help others?

You've opened up a interesting question, especially in regards to a large portion of Schopenhauerian/Nietszchean/Heideggerian/Foucault philosophy. I think one can read their philosophy, and assume it is all about reaffirming the creation of some superman, who is above everyone else, cares little for helping others--a haughty creator etc. Its especially evident in Nietszche. And yet, I do not believe thats what it means. I believe they are reaffirming the right for any human, to totally fulfill their powers; and such fulfillment, will possibly benefit mankind in the future. They are defending the genius--themselves--from their fate. The fate to see through everyday life; the fate to be misunderstood, even hunted down or condemned and killed by those who find them dangerous, haughty, etc. My god, this is the central question in many ways of philosophy since Socrates. Even Christ, can be seen through this light. He had visions for the world, tried to force every man to find his own salvation, yet was killed by the masses for doing so; for being so different.

But lets take your path. What of the genius, who uses his talents to help others. The man or woman who foregos perhaps taking on the practical and commonplace. Or, the genius who places his gifts in the hands of some practical or altruistic means, like say Tolstoy and his later years--preaching brother love, communal living (many Russians think he helped push the russian populace towards communism), etc. Do these persons really help in the long run? Or do they worsen things? Distort things? And what do these altruistic things really do? Allow more to have peacful but clouded existences?

But in the end, I really do think the point you addressed, is a major one. Should my "inspiration", Nietszche's superman, Heidegger's Warrior Poet, Plato's philosopher king, all be of a purely impractical creative nature? That was part of my point in this thread. I suppose its buried in there, perhaps not terribly clear. Obviously, if said philosophies go any further, they run dead smack into a nasty form of relativitism. And when embraced by second rate artists and philosophers like Hitler and Mao, they become terrifically destructive; when embraced for some purely practical purpose, they turn out bad art and destructive science--like the nuke, Gorky Malraux, Rand, Steinbeck, you name the movie (pay it forward, crap like that) They turn out murderous ideas like eugenics, fascism, greedy capitalists, etc. Yet, how do we reconcile the need for individuals to reach their deepest potential, without harming the community? Especially in todays almost ethic-less, profit-driven world?