Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2023, 6:33 am
What is your overall opinion about the book as a philosophical book?
For someone who suffered attention deficit disorder (ADD) which is a neurological disorder that causes a range of behaviour problems such as difficulties with attending to instruction, focusing on work, keeping up with assignments, following instructions, completing tasks, and social interaction, and who was successfully treated with the drug Ritalin, it seems strange that Shupe begins his book with an attack on civilisation, without which he wouldn’t have survived – or been able to write his book.
His first chapter, There is a Message in Emotional Pain – How Civilization Destroys Happiness, is too placative for me, and I have explained it in the other posting I made, which addressed this chapter. I also touched on the second chapter, Spiritual Obligations vs. Legal ones You can take human beings out of Nature, but you can’t take Nature out of human beings, so I would refer you to that.
His third chapter, Language: A Curse AND A Blessing, he displays basic misunderstandings in the role of language, and rambles on quite a bit, complaining about civilisation, which is good for nothing it would appear, and yearns for the primordial state of humanity in the garden of Eden, which is depressingly naïve.
In the next chapter, Do we Believe in Our Emotional Nature, or in the Law? He reveals his belief that “order was intrinsic in that natural world. Parents didn’t need to teach it to their children, because every human was born with it imprinted on his soul,” which also seems to appeal to a world that looks like it came out of a children’s book, where everything was so ideal.
In the next chapter, Feelings, he quotes Fred (Mister) Rogers: “We need to help our children to become more and more aware that what is essential in life is invisible to the eye.” Shupe complains that lawmakers don’t care about feelings by saying, “Thousands of years ago, our forbearers made a huge mistake, by overruling feelings with laws.” He probably means forebears, but what does he mean with laws overruling feelings? I can take feelings into account in my day-to-day dealings with people, but can we imagine a government trying to take the feelings of all of the population into account? He complains that feelings are not allowed to rule our decisions, because people want control, but imagine if there was no control and everybody just did what they felt like!
He then shows the direction he is going in. In How Things Are vs. How we Believe they Should Be, he complains that we have an order in our lives, that children go to school, and do not just stay away, because they feel like it. He believes that this has something to do with what Jesus said, “To enter heaven, we must come as little children.” He claims, “In voicing his expectation that he didn’t have to go to school, because he didn’t feel like going, Nathan became the voice of the human spirit, the voice of Christ.” So the voice of Christ is when we don’t feel like doing something? It is hard to consider this even vaguely philosophical.
In the next chapter, Living in Denial of our Emotional Intelligence, he quotes Jane Goodall talking about apes: “They kiss, they hold hands, they swagger, they shake their fist, the kinds of things we do, and they do them in the same context. They have very sophisticated cooperation when they hunt, and they share the prey. They show emotions that we describe has happiness, sadness, fear. They have a sense of humor… the kinds of things that traditionally have been thought of as human prerogatives.” Shupe says he is introducing “Spiritual Freedom, which springs from my belief that human life would naturally organize itself, if people were free to be true to how they feel.” I think he should read what Goodall says about the apes after puberty, when it becomes quite difficult to contain them. And, I can’t really imagine 8 billion people sitting in the undergrowth chewing leaves.
In the next chapter, Evolutionary Wisdom—Not Accumulated Knowledge—is the Source of Happiness, he quotes Evolutionary Biologist, E. O. Wilson: “We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom.” This, of course, is true, but wisdom derives from knowledge by testing its worth, and learning the best course of action. It is the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting. Well-being, say authors like Richard Nisbett and Igor Grossman, is correlated with "wise reasoning" – reasoning that is "pragmatic," and helps us "navigate important challenges in social life." He complains that too much importance is given to products derived from accumulated knowledge – perhaps he should include the drug Ritalin in his list.
The next chapter is no better: A Status Akin to Religion – How the Practice of Marriage led to Institutional Subjugation. He is referring to a time when, “when men claimed the right to own women, through the practice of marriage.” He claims, “In essence, marriage constituted the first religion” and that it destroys “the intimacy of sisterhood-brotherhood—the most essential legacy of evolution.” I have no doubt that marriage often fails to fulfil the hopes of young people, but I also observe that they approach it with a list of expectations and not a goal. When I married my wife 45 years ago, we were only decided on one thing, that we soul-buddies and wanted to grow old together. Everything else was organised along the way with that in mind.
Shupe’s speculations on “Why Soldiers Find it Difficult to Come Home from War” drift into the subject of unconditional love, and speaks about “people” who have experienced the intimacy of comradeship, and miss that brotherhood of people dependent upon each other in an extreme situation. He speaks about how this brotherhood isn’t experienced without the trials of combat and alienation takes place, and is observed by the veterans, when they see the opposition of a society that is divided like the USA. He says, “To save ourselves, we need to rediscover the brotherhood we’re hardwired for—the same brotherhood that those young men experienced at war,” and blames “our monetary and legal identities” for our alienation. However, anyone who leaves the country for a while and returns sees the problems at hand better than those emersed in them. I live in Germany since 1974, and when I return to Britain, I see many broken things – I just can’t see how to produce the kind of comradeship I experienced in active service.
He then talks about Our Two Selves, a “real” self and an “indoctrinated” self, and goes on to repeat the same misgivings he has about civilisation that he has already made clear.
He speaks about, A Spiritual Home - Spiritual Trust, the Foundation of a Spiritual Home. Despite his previous misgivings about marriage, he ascertains that “our primitive ancestors naturally had to gravitate together in spiritual trust, by surrendering to the absolute truth about humans—that we are not tigers, thus, cannot survive the natural world, alone.” Yes, tigers are extremely territorial, meaning that they mark their own space and want to occupy it all by themselves, but that is perhaps the limit of comparison. He says, “we absolutely need each other” but isn’t that the beginning of community and as consequence, of civilisation? He goes on to complain about social order again, but since when can people group together without some order? He then comes out with what his book is about: “I fully realize what I’m asking, here. I’m asking modern humans to literally turn away from the only way of life we know.” It is his chosen way of life apparently, but from his personal experiences that he records here, I gather that he is just disillusioned and was unhappy. In many words he explains that he wasn’t the problem, but society.
I could go on, but this is already long, and shows the direction in which Shupe is going with his book. I am not completely unsympathetic towards his situation and as a nurse, I have had a lot to do with people who didn’t fit into the confines of society. There is a lot wrong with society and it is unpredictable, but I feel that Shupe has developed his own spiritual concoction that he feels he must share with others, but is in fact (probably intentionally) very ambiguous about concrete measures to cope with life in a world where there are few places where an alternative lifestyle could be lived. Having said that, many of those communities that have exercised the same kind of criticism that Shupe expresses, have not gone well because they weren’t based on well tested principles, but rather on the disputes of the initiator with society. This is not, in my mind, the best recommendation.
- By Sy Borg
- By thrasymachus