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

[Stoppelmann]

The problem I see with: to make something clearer is that it may never end.

And that is a problem because...?

Have you ever seen a 5-year old boy replying to his mom's every
explanatory statement by asking her this very important
philosophical question : WHY ?!

Because I have seen such a boy once, during a long bus ride,
and the boy went on like that for literally more than 20 minutes,
before he got tired and hungry.

And so the moral of your story is...?

It seems to describe a young philosopher, seeking knowledge or understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Admirable, I would think? I still cannot see any evidence of the "problem" you mention.

Following from a distance, I see here the illustration of my point that we need a philosophy or religion of coexistence.

I was writing to a friend about some superficial theory of the beginnings of the New Testament when I realised how peripheral the whole discussion was, and though interesting to some degree, doesn’t address the important spiritual questions.

What took me away from Christianity was that numerous personalities discovered that the many traditions had similarities in their monastic traditions. One of them was Thomas Merton, who gave a talk just before he died to that effect, but it gave me reason to investigate all those people who saw the world and all life as one. St. Francis comes to mind, but most of the Mystics in many traditions had a non-dual view of the world, and there are groups all around the world that discover how the introspective disciplines are shared, along with compassion as common denominators.

Many academic discussions tend to circumvent the question of the consequences of traditions or their intentions. Instead, there is a discussion of theological fine points that lack any consequence.

Christmas, for example, is when multitudes gather in churches, watch nativity plays, and come away, perhaps emotionally moved by what they have seen but lacking any consequential reaction. The narrative has no spiritual effect but is reduced to how cute little Tommy looked when playing the shepherd or how sweetly the angels sang. Emotion is about all there is, but it is seriously lacking. It reminds me of the Christmas Truce of 1914 during World War I, a spontaneous ceasefire along the Western Front, particularly between German and British troops, around Christmas time. The truce began with soldiers on both sides singing Christmas carols across the trenches. Eventually, soldiers from both sides ventured into no man's land, the area between the opposing trenches, to exchange greetings and gifts and even play soccer matches. There were instances of soldiers sharing food, cigarettes, and other small tokens of goodwill.

However, it did not lead to a widespread cessation of hostilities, and the war continued for several more years with great intensity and loss of life. The higher military command on both sides took measures to prevent similar truces in subsequent years, emphasising the need to maintain discipline and aggression in the face of the enemy. There must be thousands of such stories that occurred during the wars of history when former friends fought each other as enemies, who had both been believers.

[Angelo Cannata]

The truce began with soldiers on both sides...

The higher military command on both sides took measures to prevent similar truces...

It seems to me that soldiers gave space to emotions, ignoring ideas, while higher military command gave space to their own ideas, ignoring emotions.

We can see that listening to emotions can give marvellous experiences, but this is something too weak: emotions are unable to deal with ideas; moreover, emotions can easily become negative emotions. Those soldiers who exchanged gifts would have been easily conditioned towards feelings of hatred by an efficient political propaganda: we know that this has happened and still happens. That’s the problem: emotion are weak, they are not stable, they can be easily manipulated.

Ideas are strong, but they become easily closed minded, making us blind even towards our own heart.

That’s why I think we need something new that is able to put together the world of emotions and a good management of the world of ideas.

Religions cannot to this, because they need world views, definitions, categories, that, in the essence, are dogmas and dogmas means exclusion.

Emotions cannot do this, because they are weak and easily manipulated.

Philosophy cannot do this, because it has reduced itself to reasoning, ignoring the world of emotions, art and body.

I think a newly built spirituality can do this, but it needs a serious and long work of study and elaboration, because today spirituality is understood just as Oriental spirituality, which lacks the strength of philosophical criticism.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The truce began with soldiers on both sides...

The higher military command on both sides took measures to prevent similar truces...

It seems to me that soldiers gave space to emotions, ignoring ideas, while higher military command gave space to their own ideas, ignoring emotions.

We can see that listening to emotions can give marvellous experiences, but this is something too weak: emotions are unable to deal with ideas; moreover, emotions can easily become negative emotions. Those soldiers who exchanged gifts would have been easily conditioned towards feelings of hatred by an efficient political propaganda: we know that this has happened and still happens. That’s the problem: emotion are weak, they are not stable, they can be easily manipulated.

Ideas are strong, but they become easily closed minded, making us blind even towards our own heart.

That’s why I think we need something new that is able to put together the world of emotions and a good management of the world of ideas.

Religions cannot to this, because they need world views, definitions, categories, that, in the essence, are dogmas and dogmas means exclusion.

Emotions cannot do this, because they are weak and easily manipulated.

Philosophy cannot do this, because it has reduced itself to reasoning, ignoring the world of emotions, art and body.

I think a newly built spirituality can do this, but it needs a serious and long work of study and elaboration, because today spirituality is understood just as Oriental spirituality, which lacks the strength of philosophical criticism.

Angelo Cannata, or anyone else, could you give us an example of how the "Oriental spirituality" lacks the strength of philosophical criticism, please? But first, define what you mean by the "Oriental spirituality", please. Thank you.


Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that due to random mutations accumulated by all presently existing religions, a new specie called the Religion of Coexistence has emerged and has been naturally selected by both, all theists and atheists, such that all humanity has embraced it with a sigh of relief. Now, our Religion of Coexistence is global and monolithic, without even the smallest possibility of creating a slight denomination, because this new religion is so perfect, and fits all perfectly, which has happened often in the history of humanity.

Would you be happy ?

I would be very happy, however, the fundamental human biological coexistence is not merely a matter of belonging to the same Church. No matter what church we might be part of, there is an issue of our physical material biological survival, starting at the level of family, local community, region, and so forth, all the way up to the level of a nation. At all these levels we need to deal with selfishness and greed. No religion in the history of humanity has ever eliminated selfishness and greed among all of its believers. Why?

Because every single human being has, hers or his, dearest self to take care of 24/7, which comes with a strong instinct of self-preservation, and with its unique point of view. Need a good example?

Just take a look at members of this very discussion forum.

Have we all agreed on anything non-trivial, like Darwinian Evolution or the Big Bang, as members of this forum?

If not, then there will never be a Religion of Coexistence, because such religion would have to be defined in detail, and then agreed upon. I think it is safe to say that all historically serious religions originated from some divine revelation, questioning and debating of which is essentially heretical, and we already know what happens to heretics. By definition, a "religion" is a religion of some god or gods, except Buddhism, so the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution go out of the window in no time.

However, human coexistence is, fundamentally, about the coexistence of my dearest self with other most dear selves. Let's start from a male and female marriage. Male and female fall in love with each other, get married, and live happily ever after in a loving family. The idea of a love-less marriage does not occur frequently enough in society to be an alternative. We all want to be happy, and this is the reason why we want to live in a loving marriage forever. We get married, because we want to be happy by not repeating our parent's mistakes. Suffice to say that it is easier said than done.

Then, her-self and him-self divorce, because them-selves want to be happy, which makes their kids very unhappy, to say the least.

So, everything in human life, including coexistence, and religion, is essentially down to the individual self.

And, human coexistence, an elusive happiness that we all desperately seek for one's self, or a religion, cannot ever possibly be successfully imposed on a group of individuals FROM OUTSIDE. If it were possible at all, it would have happened more than once by now. And, what has happened more than once by now are wars. Is not human life essentially about freedom and the pursuit of happiness??

Buddhism has its central spiritual philosophy,
and the central part of this philosophy pertains
to our deep understanding of the nature of our self,
the first-person "I", our spiritual understanding of who we really are,
of what our True Nature is.

The nature of our mind is consciousness,
and being conscious always is a first-person experience
for all living beings without exception, including plant life (Flora).
Even single-cell organisms have an acute sense of self.

The sense of self is the centre of our conscious life
and the centre of our subjective experience of the objective reality
which also includes other persons, human and animal alike,
for example, our beloved pets, whom have their individual unique personalities.

To start our journey of self-discovery and our philosophical debate,
I am asking you this question of central importance to human coexistence :

What is your self ?

P. s.

The above question which is indispensable for a successful human coexistence,
is the subject matter of the following separate topic, and I hope
that you would like to debate it there :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

[Stoppelmann]

It seems to me that soldiers gave space to emotions, ignoring ideas, while higher military command gave space to their own ideas, ignoring emotions.

We can see that listening to emotions can give marvellous experiences, but this is something too weak: emotions are unable to deal with ideas; moreover, emotions can easily become negative emotions. Those soldiers who exchanged gifts would have been easily conditioned towards feelings of hatred by an efficient political propaganda: we know that this has happened and still happens. That’s the problem: emotion are weak, they are not stable, they can be easily manipulated.

Ideas are strong, but they become easily closed minded, making us blind even towards our own heart.

That’s why I think we need something new that is able to put together the world of emotions and a good management of the world of ideas.

Religions cannot to this, because they need world views, definitions, categories, that, in the essence, are dogmas and dogmas means exclusion.

Emotions cannot do this, because they are weak and easily manipulated.

Philosophy cannot do this, because it has reduced itself to reasoning, ignoring the world of emotions, art and body.

I think a newly built spirituality can do this, but it needs a serious and long work of study and elaboration, because today spirituality is understood just as Oriental spirituality, which lacks the strength of philosophical criticism.

Thank you for your perspective, and it is true what you say about ideas and emotions, but only sometimes. Emotions can also motivate and move people, and ideas can also weaken people, so it is probably bound to circumstances, which vary. This is an understanding that was neglected throughout history by dominant cultures and religions which caused much misery and suffering.

I left the church because I discovered that various perspectives are necessary to understand our existence, and the various cultural and religious expressions worldwide provide us with an understanding that they are all figurative “fingers pointing to the moon.” We need to understand them as such. You only have to have conversations with people from other countries, and you realise how differently they see an occurrence, just like witnesses of an accident, and give their own perspective. Only when you have all the reports can you understand what happened in an accident.

Our problem seems to lie in our identification with things, which you see in children. The idealistic pictures of children from various ethnic groups accepting each other are cute, but put them in a situation where they have their toys, and one likes the toy of the other child better, and you will see where aggression comes from. Often, we never grow out of this, even as adults. The only way is to not identify with objects but regard them as incidental and instead work on an ethic of coexistence. For this, we need principles which the ethic teachings worldwide have all had a stab.

The bottom line involves identifying with your opposite and recognising them as affiliated with yourself. Life, in general, is interconnected, and we are slowly beginning to understand how complex this is despite having a political reality that widely disputes this. Many disputes come from resentment; from some perspectives, it may be understandable, but it doesn’t give a direction for the future. The past is only a guide for the future but must not dictate. Reconciliation is, however, a difficult business and requires letting go of or paying back what we have wrongfully gained but also letting go of the desire for revenge. It sometimes takes generations.

So, a religion of coexistence is one of reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, and forgiveness.

[Pattern-chaser]

...

I think a newly built spirituality can do this, but it needs a serious and long work of study and elaboration, because today spirituality is understood just as Oriental spirituality, which lacks the strength of philosophical criticism.

Is it not the case that any form of spirituality can often *complement* "the strength of philosophical" investigation? Balanced scepticism is surely beneficial too, but "criticism" is as often counter-productive as it is helpful...?

[Stoppelmann]

Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that due to random mutations accumulated by all presently existing religions, a new specie called the Religion of Coexistence has emerged and has been naturally selected by both, all theists and atheists, such that all humanity has embraced it with a sigh of relief. Now, our Religion of Coexistence is global and monolithic, without even the smallest possibility of creating a slight denomination, because this new religion is so perfect, and fits all perfectly, which has happened often in the history of humanity.

Would you be happy ?

Happiness is often misunderstood. Happy comes from hap (n.) "chance, fortune," and the sense of "very glad" was first recorded in late 14 C, and the meaning "greatly pleased and content" is from the 1520s. A great majority of the European words for "happy" at first meant "lucky." But happiness, as in a "pleasant and contented mental state," is from the 1590s. Essentially, in a world where equanimity ruled, this pleasant and contented mental state would be the norm, and unhappiness would ask why, but we know that equanimity is not the norm.

The vision you portray above is, therefore, no more than that. As I have mentioned in the last post, a religion of coexistence would require reconciliation, first with the fact that all life on our planet interacts and is interdependent, and secondly with the injustices of the past. There will be perpetrators and victims, the privileged and the deprived, each with their own personal form of reconciliation. Resentment must yield to affinity – a daunting task.

I would be very happy, however, the fundamental human biological coexistence is not merely a matter of belonging to the same Church. No matter what church we might be part of, there is an issue of our physical material biological survival, starting at the level of family, local community, region, and so forth, all the way up to the level of a nation. At all these levels we need to deal with selfishness and greed. No religion in the history of humanity has ever eliminated selfishness and greed among all of its believers. Why?

Because every single human being has, hers or his, dearest self to take care of 24/7, which comes with a strong instinct of self-preservation, and with its unique point of view. Need a good example?

For me, selfishness and greed are just the consequences of identifying with objects and opinions rather than with our neighbour, but instead seeing the other as a competitor for resources. Such identification may have been understandable before civilisation but is illusionary and proves to be by the suffering it causes. Our needs are the same, and our resources are limited, so we must combine efforts to increase our resources or agree on methods to restrict our needs.

Just take a look at members of this very discussion forum.

Have we all agreed on anything non-trivial, like Darwinian Evolution or the Big Bang, as members of this forum?

If not, then there will never be a Religion of Coexistence, because such religion would have to be defined in detail, and then agreed upon. I think it is safe to say that all historically serious religions originated from some divine revelation, questioning and debating of which is essentially heretical, and we already know what happens to heretics. By definition, a "religion" is a religion of some god or gods, except Buddhism, so the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution go out of the window in no time.

Religion comes from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance.” This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read." Essentially, it is a re-reading of existence, of nature, of our circumstances, and our ideas. I believe the ancients went through a phase when they stepped back from the drama of existence in which they felt themselves immediately participatory, which they had written down in myth, which was superstition, to reconsider what they knew. This was the real beginning of religion and philosophy, which were indistinguishable for a long time.

Similarly, we have a whole lot of contemporary myths to overcome. The most important myth to overcome is the myth that we know what life is about and that our observances are in some way exhaustive. We have numerous theories, like the Big Bang, which some regard as fact. However, they can only ever be provisional, even if they are useful, and in waiting for the next theory to come along. Dogmatism isn’t only a feature of religion.

However, human coexistence is, fundamentally, about the coexistence of my dearest self with other most dear selves. Let's start from a male and female marriage. Male and female fall in love with each other, get married, and live happily ever after in a loving family. The idea of a love-less marriage does not occur frequently enough in society to be an alternative. We all want to be happy, and this is the reason why we want to live in a loving marriage forever. We get married, because we want to be happy by not repeating our parent's mistakes. Suffice to say that it is easier said than done.

Then, her-self and him-self divorce, because them-selves want to be happy, which makes their kids very unhappy, to say the least.

So, everything in human life, including coexistence, and religion, is essentially down to the individual self.

All religions teach that the conceived self is an illusion, and only by emptying ourselves of these illusions do we come to the essence of our being and oneness with life itself. It may be formulated in various ways, but that seems to me to be the core. I believe that the (true) self is part of a sacred Unity, and on our excursion as physical beings, we are the ears and eyes of that Unity.

[Angelo Cannata]

So, a religion of coexistence is one of reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, and forgiveness.

The religions that already exist preach and teach reconciliation, affiliation and so on. All of them. This means that, if we start just doing the same, we will end up to the same contradictory problems, that is, despite preaching forgiveness, for some mysterious rrason we end up practicing injustice, violence, hypocrisy.
I think an important point that creates this contradiction is the one you mentioned: "we need principles". But principles are exposed to criticism, because we can easily show that they are conditioned by local perspectives, by subjectivity. This criticism has driven to postmodern philosophy, whose problem is that it demolishes everything, leaving just emptiness, nothingness.

I think that a well built spirituality is the way to face these problems.

[Angelo Cannata]

Is it not the case that any form of spirituality can often *complement* "the strength of philosophical" investigation? Balanced scepticism is surely beneficial too, but "criticism" is as often counter-productive as it is helpful...?

I agree. I conceive criticism not as just destroying, demolishing. For example, I think that a powerful criticism is when we claim consideration of emotion, the human body, everyday life. In context, I conceive criticism as just simply considering different perspective: when I consider a perspective different from my one, that other perspective becomes automatically a kind of criticism towards my perspective. Perhaps "critique" is more suitable than "criticism" in this case.

[Belindi]

So, a religion of coexistence is one of reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, and forgiveness.

The religions that already exist preach and teach reconciliation, affiliation and so on. All of them. This means that, if we start just doing the same, we will end up to the same contradictory problems, that is, despite preaching forgiveness, for some mysterious rrason we end up practicing injustice, violence, hypocrisy.
I think an important point that creates this contradiction is the one you mentioned: "we need principles". But principles are exposed to criticism, because we can easily show that they are conditioned by local perspectives, by subjectivity. This criticism has driven to postmodern philosophy, whose problem is that it demolishes everything, leaving just emptiness, nothingness.

I think that a well built spirituality is the way to face these problems.

True, we need principles. All metaphysics is about finding principles, including the principles-related chat at the bus stop and cafe.
However when principles become institutionalised and worse, policed, we do not need them. What we should be thinking and believing is that life is individuals' quests to truth and beauty and the holy grail is always receding from us but normally does not permanently disappear.

[Lagayascienza]

So, a religion of coexistence is one of reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, and forgiveness.

The religions that already exist preach and teach reconciliation, affiliation and so on. All of them. This means that, if we start just doing the same, we will end up to the same contradictory problems, that is, despite preaching forgiveness, for some mysterious rrason we end up practicing injustice, violence, hypocrisy.
I think an important point that creates this contradiction is the one you mentioned: "we need principles". But principles are exposed to criticism, because we can easily show that they are conditioned by local perspectives, by subjectivity. This criticism has driven to postmodern philosophy, whose problem is that it demolishes everything, leaving just emptiness, nothingness.

I think that a well built spirituality is the way to face these problems.

I agree that post-modernism leaves a vacuum in which we gasp for air.

As for coexistence, reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, forgiveness ... I like all of these. They're great and I try to practice them. But do we need spirituality for these? And what would a "well-built spirituality" look like. Built by whom? Us? Based on what?"

In the end, don't all forms spirituality have to be based on faith of some sort rather than on facts? Isn't that the way it's always been? Someone comes up with a just-so story that people like, then they attach the property TRUE to it, then it accumulates doctrine and dogma and, voila, we have another religion.

I'd love to find a religion, or at least a spirituality, that I didn't need faith to believe in. Then I could follow it's tenets (if they are any different to those I currently subscribe to) with a clear intellectual conscience. But another, mere, religious dogma would do nothing to fill the post-modernist void.

[Stoppelmann]

So, a religion of coexistence is one of reconciliation, affiliation, contrition, and forgiveness.

The religions that already exist preach and teach reconciliation, affiliation and so on. All of them. This means that, if we start just doing the same, we will end up to the same contradictory problems, that is, despite preaching forgiveness, for some mysterious rrason we end up practicing injustice, violence, hypocrisy.
I think an important point that creates this contradiction is the one you mentioned: "we need principles". But principles are exposed to criticism, because we can easily show that they are conditioned by local perspectives, by subjectivity. This criticism has driven to postmodern philosophy, whose problem is that it demolishes everything, leaving just emptiness, nothingness.

I think that a well built spirituality is the way to face these problems.

I was pointing out that pain has been caused in the past that has to be reconciled by acknowledging our affiliation, perpetrators regretting the past, and victims forgiving to enable a future. By repeating the hurt that has been caused, your argument seems to be somewhat circular.

If we don’t have principles, such as the basic principles of justice, or some consensus on what constitutes morally correct behaviour and attitudes, we have no source from which we can draw an agreement on how we should interact.

You do not elaborate upon what a “well-built spirituality” is supposed to be.

[Angelo Cannata]

what would a "well-built spirituality" look like. Built by whom? Us? Based on what?"

A well built spirituality is based on what postmodernism has been unable bring forward. After realising that postmodernism has left just demolition, the next step is to think and live in a non-metaphysical way. For example, you can worship God, but not because that God exists metaphysically. You worship that God while acknowledging that you do it just because you like it, you find it good. I understand that this can be felt as something strange, but actually we can realize that any object we see is part of our experience because our mind has organized our experience this way.
This is the problem of metaphysics: when you say that we should follow the principle of justice, you are automatically trying to impose your idea of justice: there is not an objective idea of justice independent from the subjectivity of those who talk about it.

[Angelo Cannata]

You do not elaborate upon what a “well-built spirituality” is supposed to be.

See my previous post.

[Stoppelmann]

what would a "well-built spirituality" look like. Built by whom? Us? Based on what?"

A well built spirituality is based on what postmodernism has been unable bring forward. After realising that postmodernism has left just demolition, the next step is to think and live in a non-metaphysical way. For example, you can worship God, but not because that God exists metaphysically. You worship that God while acknowledging that you do it just because you like it, you find it good. I understand that this can be felt as something strange, but actually we can realize that any object we see is part of our experience because our mind has organized our experience this way.
This is the problem of metaphysics: when you say that we should follow the principle of justice, you are automatically trying to impose your idea of justice: there is not an objective idea of justice independent from the subjectivity of those who talk about it.

So, how do you overcome the hurt that has been suffered? How do you base anything if there is no solid base? How do you build without a foundation that is built on something solid?

If we just do what we like, it will soon be said by someone else doing what they like that we are infringing on their freedom.

How do we establish that someone has been done wrong by? Is there no basic agreement on what we can and can’t do, if our goal is to coexist?

[Angelo Cannata]

So, how do you overcome the hurt that has been suffered?

Unfortunately there is no overcome. We try to help, to compensate, to forgive, but all of these things cannot cancel the suffering that has happened. Think of the Holocaust, for example: we can try to do better in the future, but nothing can cancel this tragedy that happened.

How do you base anything if there is no solid base? How do you build without a foundation that is built on something solid?

If we just do what we like, it will soon be said by someone else doing what they like that we are infringing on their freedom.

How do we establish that someone has been done wrong by? Is there no basic agreement on what we can and can’t do, if our goal is to coexist?

If we haven't a solid base, we cannot pretend that it exists just because we need it. This would be like thinking that there must be food, because I am hungry. Or, for example: I need a pair of shoes, therefore this is evidence that there must be a pair of shoes in my room.
So, first we need to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there is not such a solid base that we would like. As a consequence, any solid thing that we try to build is subjective and, as such, we cannot impose it to other people.
This means that, when we want to prevent somebody from doing evil, we cannot base our action on anything objective. What we can do is trying to find agreements and base our actions on these agreements. Anything else can be easily criticized and demolished. We cannot pretend that things haven't been demolished just because we need them or because this makes us uncomfortable. If an earthquake has demolished everything, I don't think it is a good idea to pretend that no demolition has happened just because we don't like it or because the demolition causes problems to us.