Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Inner Engineering : A Yogi's Guide To Joy by Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

"Yoga is not about being superhuman; it is about realizing that being human is super."

20231006_215123.jpg (89.03 KiB) Viewed 16350 times

Sadhguru’s poignant remark opens a gateway to a deeper contemplation on the nature of human existence and the burgeoning discourse on the possibility of attaining superhuman capabilities. In the modern era, the fascination with transcending human limitations has garnered momentum, with science and technology standing as the vanguards of this aspiration.

Evidence has emerged, shedding light on individuals exhibiting ‘superhuman’ abilities. For instance, certain genetic mutations have been found to grant extraordinary capabilities, such as enhanced vision or speed, making a strong case for the existence of superhuman traits amongst us​(1)​. Moreover, anatomical anomalies like an additional finger with its own set of muscles, nerves, and tendons have been observed, hinting at the potential for superhuman physical attributes​(2)​.

The realm of genetic engineering also paves the way for the conceivable emergence of superhuman beings. Discussions around selectively breeding or engineering individuals with superior abilities have become part of the modern narrative(​3)​. Besides the genetic facet, the power of the mind has been explored as a conduit to achieving almost superhuman control over one's body and emotions through practices like mindfulness​(4)​.

On the flip side, Sadhguru's teachings in Inner Engineering beckon us to embrace our inherent human essence, positing that the pursuit of being human in its truest sense is itself a super endeavor. This dichotomy presents a fertile ground for philosophical exploration.

Amidst the escalating pursuits of superhuman feats, how does the Yogic perspective, as articulated by Sadhguru, place the essence of being human? Does the chase for superhuman capabilities eclipse the profoundness of our human experience?




References:

1. https://www.medicaldaily.com/10-genetic ... ity-416262
2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... comparable
3. https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-tec ... superhuman
4. https://www.in-mind.org/blog/post/becom ... -your-mind

[Stoppelmann]

I first heard Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev in a YouTube video and followed him for some time. I never bought the book because I found what he was saying elsewhere, and he says that he hasn’t purely followed one teaching but has taken from life’s experience.

The subject of Eugenics has been around for some time, and it is said that Hitler was influenced by the movement, as well as many other prominent personalities, even Churchill. The more we experiment on and with humans, the more speculation on what technology can achieve arises. I believe this may have some short-term advantages, but in the end, we are regressing and losing our potential, which is what I believe Sadhguru is saying.

On the other hand, I would recommend yoga to any young person looking to fulfil their physical potential, despite having only experienced it at an advanced age and being unable to take advantage of it myself. My wife and I spent several days at an Ashram where we learned yoga and Ayurveda, and although we recognised our own limitations, we saw the potential for young people.

Concerning natural mutations, it is important to investigate whether these bring a fully functioning finger, toe, or whatever and embrace changes if they are not a problem. Still, the idea of bringing about artificial mutations via genetic engineering is a subject which I look at critically. Once more, I think that our physical attributes are sufficient and that our full potential should be explored rather than assuming we can “fix” the human body with Borg-like additions.

[Sushan]

I first heard Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev in a YouTube video and followed him for some time. I never bought the book because I found what he was saying elsewhere, and he says that he hasn’t purely followed one teaching but has taken from life’s experience.

The subject of Eugenics has been around for some time, and it is said that Hitler was influenced by the movement, as well as many other prominent personalities, even Churchill. The more we experiment on and with humans, the more speculation on what technology can achieve arises. I believe this may have some short-term advantages, but in the end, we are regressing and losing our potential, which is what I believe Sadhguru is saying.

On the other hand, I would recommend yoga to any young person looking to fulfil their physical potential, despite having only experienced it at an advanced age and being unable to take advantage of it myself. My wife and I spent several days at an Ashram where we learned yoga and Ayurveda, and although we recognised our own limitations, we saw the potential for young people.

Concerning natural mutations, it is important to investigate whether these bring a fully functioning finger, toe, or whatever and embrace changes if they are not a problem. Still, the idea of bringing about artificial mutations via genetic engineering is a subject which I look at critically. Once more, I think that our physical attributes are sufficient and that our full potential should be explored rather than assuming we can “fix” the human body with Borg-like additions.

Thank you for your thought-provoking response. It opens up several avenues for further discussion, particularly regarding eugenics, genetic engineering, and the potential of the human body.

While your reference to the historical misuse of eugenics, notably by figures like Hitler, is valid, it's important to distinguish between those practices and the ethical application of modern genetic research. The dark history of eugenics should indeed serve as a cautionary tale, but it should not deter the responsible and ethical exploration of genetic advancements. For instance, the Human Genome Project and subsequent research have opened doors to understanding genetic diseases and potential therapies. This ethical approach to genetics, as argued by scholars like Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, is about healing and understanding, not about controlling or altering the human race as per eugenic ideologies.

Your cautious stance on genetic engineering is understandable, especially considering the ethical complexities involved. However, it's also worth exploring the potential of genetic engineering when used responsibly. As per the World Health Organization, genetic interventions hold promise for treating hereditary diseases and conditions that currently have no cure. This doesn’t necessarily mean altering what it means to be human but rather enhancing our ability to live healthier lives. The philosophical debate here is about finding a balance between accepting natural evolution and utilizing our scientific knowledge to improve human health and well-being.

Your view that our physical attributes are sufficient and that we should explore our full potential aligns with appreciating the human form as it is. However, the pursuit of enhancing human capabilities through technology might not be about “fixing” the human body but about expanding human experiences and abilities. It raises questions about the nature of human progress and the role of technology in our evolution. For instance, as discussed by thinkers like Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", technological advancements could potentially lead to a new era of human capability, merging the biological with the technological.

In light of these points, how do you view the balance between appreciating the human form in its natural state and the ethical use of technology and genetics to enhance human life? Do you think there’s a philosophical middle ground that respects the essence of humanity while embracing scientific progress?

[Stoppelmann]

Thank you for your thought-provoking response. It opens up several avenues for further discussion, particularly regarding eugenics, genetic engineering, and the potential of the human body.

While your reference to the historical misuse of eugenics, notably by figures like Hitler, is valid, it's important to distinguish between those practices and the ethical application of modern genetic research. The dark history of eugenics should indeed serve as a cautionary tale, but it should not deter the responsible and ethical exploration of genetic advancements. For instance, the Human Genome Project and subsequent research have opened doors to understanding genetic diseases and potential therapies. This ethical approach to genetics, as argued by scholars like Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, is about healing and understanding, not about controlling or altering the human race as per eugenic ideologies.

Your cautious stance on genetic engineering is understandable, especially considering the ethical complexities involved. However, it's also worth exploring the potential of genetic engineering when used responsibly. As per the World Health Organization, genetic interventions hold promise for treating hereditary diseases and conditions that currently have no cure. This doesn’t necessarily mean altering what it means to be human but rather enhancing our ability to live healthier lives. The philosophical debate here is about finding a balance between accepting natural evolution and utilizing our scientific knowledge to improve human health and well-being.

I agree with you that there is a differentiation to be made. I see the spectre of eugenic thinking as very much alive, and in that absence of actual ‘inner engineering,’ as Sadhguru calls it, the change that people would rather have is an external one. You can hear people say that things must perhaps first collapse before they get better, that some intervention from ‘outside’ (wherever that is) is needed to improve humanity, whether from a deity or an alien species, or that science must discover a technology that saves the world. It is all imagined, like some addictive qualities, to prevent the introspective discipline that would solve many problems.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ability to prevent hereditary illnesses must be exploited, especially after I have cared for patients with Huntington’s disease, which is horrific, and knowing the children, one of whom had already been confirmed, had the illness. Such misery must be prevented if possible. It is only when we become dependent upon medication or surgery to ‘improve’ humanity that I see a problem. We see this mentality in the so-called emancipation achieved through the pill or abortion, or the cosmetic surgery that supposedly improves or changes appearance. There are a multitude of interventions that we make, not only to human bodies but also to the natural world, which, in sum, make things worse. I can’t help thinking of orcs and goblins when I see the grotesque faces of failed cosmetic surgery, which resulted from evil intervention in Tolkien's world.

Your view that our physical attributes are sufficient and that we should explore our full potential aligns with appreciating the human form as it is. However, the pursuit of enhancing human capabilities through technology might not be about “fixing” the human body but about expanding human experiences and abilities. It raises questions about the nature of human progress and the role of technology in our evolution. For instance, as discussed by thinkers like Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", technological advancements could potentially lead to a new era of human capability, merging the biological with the technological.

In light of these points, how do you view the balance between appreciating the human form in its natural state and the ethical use of technology and genetics to enhance human life? Do you think there’s a philosophical middle ground that respects the essence of humanity while embracing scientific progress?

The middle ground is what I have described above: the introspective discipline that develops the natural abilities of humanity, coupled with the study of genetic illnesses and how we can prevent them. In the same way, the exploitation of natural resources and disturbance of the planet’s natural balance can only be resolved by the same mindset—a reduction of ego and the understanding of what the planet needs to continue to sustain life.

[Sushan]

Thank you for your thought-provoking response. It opens up several avenues for further discussion, particularly regarding eugenics, genetic engineering, and the potential of the human body.

While your reference to the historical misuse of eugenics, notably by figures like Hitler, is valid, it's important to distinguish between those practices and the ethical application of modern genetic research. The dark history of eugenics should indeed serve as a cautionary tale, but it should not deter the responsible and ethical exploration of genetic advancements. For instance, the Human Genome Project and subsequent research have opened doors to understanding genetic diseases and potential therapies. This ethical approach to genetics, as argued by scholars like Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, is about healing and understanding, not about controlling or altering the human race as per eugenic ideologies.

Your cautious stance on genetic engineering is understandable, especially considering the ethical complexities involved. However, it's also worth exploring the potential of genetic engineering when used responsibly. As per the World Health Organization, genetic interventions hold promise for treating hereditary diseases and conditions that currently have no cure. This doesn’t necessarily mean altering what it means to be human but rather enhancing our ability to live healthier lives. The philosophical debate here is about finding a balance between accepting natural evolution and utilizing our scientific knowledge to improve human health and well-being.

I agree with you that there is a differentiation to be made. I see the spectre of eugenic thinking as very much alive, and in that absence of actual ‘inner engineering,’ as Sadhguru calls it, the change that people would rather have is an external one. You can hear people say that things must perhaps first collapse before they get better, that some intervention from ‘outside’ (wherever that is) is needed to improve humanity, whether from a deity or an alien species, or that science must discover a technology that saves the world. It is all imagined, like some addictive qualities, to prevent the introspective discipline that would solve many problems.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ability to prevent hereditary illnesses must be exploited, especially after I have cared for patients with Huntington’s disease, which is horrific, and knowing the children, one of whom had already been confirmed, had the illness. Such misery must be prevented if possible. It is only when we become dependent upon medication or surgery to ‘improve’ humanity that I see a problem. We see this mentality in the so-called emancipation achieved through the pill or abortion, or the cosmetic surgery that supposedly improves or changes appearance. There are a multitude of interventions that we make, not only to human bodies but also to the natural world, which, in sum, make things worse. I can’t help thinking of orcs and goblins when I see the grotesque faces of failed cosmetic surgery, which resulted from evil intervention in Tolkien's world.

Your view that our physical attributes are sufficient and that we should explore our full potential aligns with appreciating the human form as it is. However, the pursuit of enhancing human capabilities through technology might not be about “fixing” the human body but about expanding human experiences and abilities. It raises questions about the nature of human progress and the role of technology in our evolution. For instance, as discussed by thinkers like Ray Kurzweil in "The Singularity is Near", technological advancements could potentially lead to a new era of human capability, merging the biological with the technological.

In light of these points, how do you view the balance between appreciating the human form in its natural state and the ethical use of technology and genetics to enhance human life? Do you think there’s a philosophical middle ground that respects the essence of humanity while embracing scientific progress?

The middle ground is what I have described above: the introspective discipline that develops the natural abilities of humanity, coupled with the study of genetic illnesses and how we can prevent them. In the same way, the exploitation of natural resources and disturbance of the planet’s natural balance can only be resolved by the same mindset—a reduction of ego and the understanding of what the planet needs to continue to sustain life.

As a physician, I too have witnessed the transformative impact of genetic research, particularly in managing hereditary diseases. The advances made since the Human Genome Project have been monumental in understanding and predicting genetic disorders. However, your concerns about the ethical dilemmas this research presents, reminiscent of the eugenics movement, are significant. Balancing the benefits of genetic advancements with ethical principles is a challenge. It's a dilemma highlighted by geneticists like Francis Collins, who advocate for the responsible use of this knowledge. At the same time, your emphasis on 'inner engineering' and introspective discipline resonates with the need for internal growth. The Stoic philosophy, which values self-mastery and resilience, supports this view, suggesting that true human progress may be more about personal development than external scientific breakthroughs. Yet, the undeniable benefits of scientific advancements in healthcare cannot be overlooked. This brings us to a crucial question: How can we harmonize these internal and external approaches to human development, creating a complementary relationship where introspective discipline and scientific progress coexist?

Your perspective on the ethics of medical interventions, particularly the overreliance on them for non-essential purposes, aligns with the need to distinguish between necessary medical interventions and elective ones. This balance is crucial in maintaining the essence of healthcare while embracing technological advancements. Furthermore, your point about our relationship with the environment, advocating for a reduction in ego and a deeper understanding of Earth’s needs, echoes the principles of ecological philosophies like Deep Ecology. It suggests a shift towards a more harmonious coexistence with nature, where technological humanism guides our use of technology.

In light of these considerations, how do you perceive the role of healthcare professionals in navigating the ethical complexities of genetics and patient care? And secondly, how can we as individuals and as a society foster a balance that respects both our innate human potential and the advancements in science and technology, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with our environment?

[Stoppelmann]

As a physician, I too have witnessed the transformative impact of genetic research, particularly in managing hereditary diseases. The advances made since the Human Genome Project have been monumental in understanding and predicting genetic disorders. However, your concerns about the ethical dilemmas this research presents, reminiscent of the eugenics movement, are significant. Balancing the benefits of genetic advancements with ethical principles is a challenge. It's a dilemma highlighted by geneticists like Francis Collins, who advocate for the responsible use of this knowledge. At the same time, your emphasis on 'inner engineering' and introspective discipline resonates with the need for internal growth. The Stoic philosophy, which values self-mastery and resilience, supports this view, suggesting that true human progress may be more about personal development than external scientific breakthroughs. Yet, the undeniable benefits of scientific advancements in healthcare cannot be overlooked. This brings us to a crucial question: How can we harmonize these internal and external approaches to human development, creating a complementary relationship where introspective discipline and scientific progress coexist?

I thought I had addressed this aspect, but I obviously didn’t express myself clearly. There is a need for differentiation, I agree, and there is no doubt in my mind that hereditary diseases, such as Huntington’s, are a bane that we should seek to eradicate. What I meant to highlight was more the fact that the thinking of many people has been diverted into a direction by which external methods are suggested as the better methods, and disregarding methods, such as Sadhguru’s ‘inner engineering,’ that are pushed into the “Self-Help” genre, along with Homoeopathy and the like.

Your perspective on the ethics of medical interventions, particularly the overreliance on them for non-essential purposes, aligns with the need to distinguish between necessary medical interventions and elective ones. This balance is crucial in maintaining the essence of healthcare while embracing technological advancements. Furthermore, your point about our relationship with the environment, advocating for a reduction in ego and a deeper understanding of Earth’s needs, echoes the principles of ecological philosophies like Deep Ecology. It suggests a shift towards a more harmonious coexistence with nature, where technological humanism guides our use of technology.

In light of these considerations, how do you perceive the role of healthcare professionals in navigating the ethical complexities of genetics and patient care? And secondly, how can we as individuals and as a society foster a balance that respects both our innate human potential and the advancements in science and technology, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with our environment?

As a nurse, I was involved in the ethical discussion in the hospital/care home, making it an important aspect of my managerial role. This was primarily focused on the patient's right to self-determination, especially concerning resuscitation and intensive care. However, in the hospital environment, it was also about the patient’s right to information and a complete explanation of what the intervention entails. For this reason, patients were encouraged to provide a written expression of their wishes in certain situations in which they could not respond to questions.

In my German environment, I feel that a lot has been done. Still, it is primarily a generational issue, with many elderly people unable to change their habits or unwilling to see why. However, it is not only a generational issue, and my son, who has chosen to be a vegetarian, is still required by people of his age to explain why he has done so. Older people flaunt their contradictory habits in his face rather than accepting his decision. I experienced the same many years ago when I gave up indulgence for Lent and was asked whether I thought myself morally better than those who didn’t do the same.

So I’m not sure whether individuals can do much in the face of an advertising industry that blares in the face of consumers and displays their artificial portrayal of their goods on every street corner.

[Sushan]

As a physician, I too have witnessed the transformative impact of genetic research, particularly in managing hereditary diseases. The advances made since the Human Genome Project have been monumental in understanding and predicting genetic disorders. However, your concerns about the ethical dilemmas this research presents, reminiscent of the eugenics movement, are significant. Balancing the benefits of genetic advancements with ethical principles is a challenge. It's a dilemma highlighted by geneticists like Francis Collins, who advocate for the responsible use of this knowledge. At the same time, your emphasis on 'inner engineering' and introspective discipline resonates with the need for internal growth. The Stoic philosophy, which values self-mastery and resilience, supports this view, suggesting that true human progress may be more about personal development than external scientific breakthroughs. Yet, the undeniable benefits of scientific advancements in healthcare cannot be overlooked. This brings us to a crucial question: How can we harmonize these internal and external approaches to human development, creating a complementary relationship where introspective discipline and scientific progress coexist?

I thought I had addressed this aspect, but I obviously didn’t express myself clearly. There is a need for differentiation, I agree, and there is no doubt in my mind that hereditary diseases, such as Huntington’s, are a bane that we should seek to eradicate. What I meant to highlight was more the fact that the thinking of many people has been diverted into a direction by which external methods are suggested as the better methods, and disregarding methods, such as Sadhguru’s ‘inner engineering,’ that are pushed into the “Self-Help” genre, along with Homoeopathy and the like.

Your perspective on the ethics of medical interventions, particularly the overreliance on them for non-essential purposes, aligns with the need to distinguish between necessary medical interventions and elective ones. This balance is crucial in maintaining the essence of healthcare while embracing technological advancements. Furthermore, your point about our relationship with the environment, advocating for a reduction in ego and a deeper understanding of Earth’s needs, echoes the principles of ecological philosophies like Deep Ecology. It suggests a shift towards a more harmonious coexistence with nature, where technological humanism guides our use of technology.

In light of these considerations, how do you perceive the role of healthcare professionals in navigating the ethical complexities of genetics and patient care? And secondly, how can we as individuals and as a society foster a balance that respects both our innate human potential and the advancements in science and technology, while maintaining a harmonious relationship with our environment?

As a nurse, I was involved in the ethical discussion in the hospital/care home, making it an important aspect of my managerial role. This was primarily focused on the patient's right to self-determination, especially concerning resuscitation and intensive care. However, in the hospital environment, it was also about the patient’s right to information and a complete explanation of what the intervention entails. For this reason, patients were encouraged to provide a written expression of their wishes in certain situations in which they could not respond to questions.

In my German environment, I feel that a lot has been done. Still, it is primarily a generational issue, with many elderly people unable to change their habits or unwilling to see why. However, it is not only a generational issue, and my son, who has chosen to be a vegetarian, is still required by people of his age to explain why he has done so. Older people flaunt their contradictory habits in his face rather than accepting his decision. I experienced the same many years ago when I gave up indulgence for Lent and was asked whether I thought myself morally better than those who didn’t do the same.

So I’m not sure whether individuals can do much in the face of an advertising industry that blares in the face of consumers and displays their artificial portrayal of their goods on every street corner.

Thank you for the clarification and I got your point. Your insights into the ethical discussions in healthcare, particularly regarding patient rights, as well as your observations on generational attitudes and the influence of advertising, open up several fascinating avenues for further exploration.

In the realm of healthcare, the emphasis on patient rights, especially concerning self-determination and informed consent, is a critical aspect of modern medical ethics. This patient-centric approach is not just about providing treatments but also about respecting patients' autonomy and their right to make informed decisions about their care. I've seen how this approach can significantly improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. However, it also presents challenges, such as ensuring that patients fully understand their options and the implications of their decisions. This complexity raises questions about how healthcare systems and professionals can better facilitate these crucial conversations and empower patients.

The generational differences in attitudes towards lifestyle choices, like vegetarianism, also present an intriguing point of discussion. It highlights how health and lifestyle choices are influenced by broader cultural and societal factors. These generational divides can impact public health initiatives and personal health decisions. It makes me wonder how healthcare professionals can bridge these gaps, promoting healthier lifestyles across diverse age groups. This issue is particularly pertinent in the context of chronic diseases, where lifestyle changes can have a significant impact.

The influence of advertising and consumer culture on health choices is a critical concern. The constant bombardment of marketing messages often promotes unhealthy choices or unrealistic beauty standards. This environment can make it challenging for individuals to make informed decisions that are in their best health interests. It leads to the question of what role healthcare professionals, educators, and policymakers can play in counteracting the influence of advertising. How can we promote a culture of health literacy and critical thinking, empowering individuals to make choices that are truly beneficial for their well-being? (This may seem like going away from the initial topic, but I think it is important)