Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hereandnow wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 9:23 am

Greta:
So there is sell-out, the trade-off. Selling our souls to the Devil. Selling our happiness for survival. It's about giving to Mammon, because if you don't, Mammon will personally come to your door and pulverise you and yours. It is being an animal to survive amongst animals until you no longer need to play those games (if they are not too conditioned already, hence unhappy retirees). That's the good part of getting old, being freed from the need to impress, or even express. Just to do and be and to actually notice what everyone is doing rather than checking them off.

From Walden:
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms...”

And Emerson's Nature:
Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear.


Romantic ideas, no doubt. But to truly retire from the pettiness of this world, one should, I think, realize first that that pettiness is not the world. It never was.

Nice quote. It's a bit sad to think that in a generation or two there won't be readily accessible woods in which to retreat. I guess they can always meditate on a pot plant in their apartments.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that pettiness was never part of this world. It seems to me that pettiness is very much part of the world for the young and the young-thinking - part of the squabbling and struggling that the inexperienced need to do to find a place in the world. One becomes less petty with the acceptance of how things are, which age often brings. I may be misinterpreting what you mean, though.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 4:29 pm

Sculptor1

On which planet?

This one. So I read all you wrote, and it is pretty clear to me that we are not on the same page. I agree that religion, public religion,s are ridiculous things and cause a lot of trouble and if only people would learn to think clearly about such things they wouldn't waste their time, etc., etc. But I do disagree that once religion is understood clearly there will be nothing left beyond its institutions. Religion is no more its institutions than agriculture is agribusiness.

You are shockingly naive. You disregard thousands of years of the history of oppression and replace it with your subjective nonsense, redefining what you want to be religion and ignoring what it actually is.

It is not as if all that is essential about religion goes away simply because megachurches are corrupt. To discover the essence of religion we have to look at content free of its institutional entanglements.

You mean if only religion were not so ... er ... welll.. religious.!! LOL

Here we find the terrible uncertainties of and frailties of the human condition, the thousand natural shocks the flesh is heir to, and so forth. This is why I take religion seriously: All inquiries into the nature of things end in a trailing off of meaningful language, and this is true of our ethical world most disturbingly. All one has to do is take a serious look at the tonnage of human suffering. herein you will find the foundation for religion qua religion. Religion is about human suffering without remedy. Simon Critchley wrote, "suffering people can tolerate; but suffering for no reason, this is unbearable."

Religion is about suffering - you got that right. It creates it and thrives on it. In fact it is the parasite that feeds on it.

But even if suffering is eliminated, the question remains regarding its existence at all. And, of course, to resolve your affairs in the trivialities of post modern life, well, trivializes life. But then, this takes the matter into a deeper discussion about whether being a person has any genuine depth or profundity. Most do not think so, and the religious types are too transfixed by scripture, and the new age people are idiots. But philosophers, they can rearrange the argument at the level of basic assumptions. One can never go back to being ruled by trivialities again.

Religion has nothing to do with meaning and existence. Religion is a system of thinking in which no discussion is encouraged because all the answer are ready made and they all end with "because god".

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 11:51 pm I can remember back in the late 1960s reading all of Hesse. I loved his books. At the moment I can't remember why I loved them, but I did. A lot was going on then. I think you probably have a thing or two to say about them and maybe Nietzsche.

You may be a little disappointed on that score.

I get the impression from Nietzsche's aphoristic style that he purposely challenges the reader, hopefully thinker, to confront him on his own conceptions. While this can be done with virtually any philosopher, his brilliant style forces these reactions by the impression of speaking to oneself directly. Zarathustra is the epitome of that, at least I find it so. N himself said “One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.”

There are a couple of his main ideas I'm not in conformity with. But more than any other philosopher in the Western Canon, it would be fascinating to know to what extent he would have revised some of his wholly created late 19th century preconceptions of the following century on which he was uncannily accurate in most instances. I imagine if he were alive today he would be the modern "Voltaire" fulminating against governments and corporations in defense of the environment to the same degree he ostracized Christianity.

Hesse is one who more than any other novelist I know, including Thomas Mann, blends the Medieval, mystical and modern into a timeless moment easily transcribed into any age though its interpretations may vary. As a novelist, he was the most perfect Jungian version of one.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 11:51 pmPlease tell me some of your ideas.

My ideas are usually transcribed as metaphor, i.e., connotations with tentacles, and may occasionally be difficult to understand though paradoxically this subconscious type of communication may also make a meaning clearer than if directly expressed. I noticed in your blog that thoughts may expand to become virtual prose poems by the use of it. I find ideas more interesting when they reflect in more than one mirror which is Nietzsche's strength. Often when they reflect back into one summarizing vision, symbols may emerge or it all disintegrates completely.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑July 11th, 2019, 11:51 pm Have you looked at my blog which you can find under contact over on the right under my name? If you have something to say about that I would love to hear that too. Where do you live?

I looked at your blog and plan to explore more. I've read the Avatars, Laws of Manu and Socrates. All I can say at this time is I'm definitely interested in reading more.

Where I live is in British Columbia which is nowhere near as pleasant as it used to be...true for most places. They used to call it "Lotus Land"! Time has deformed it into its opposite. I'd gladly exchange most of modern technology, including the internet for the relatively good old times when there were far fewer people and a local library...thoughts tantamount to anathema for the Millennial generation.

As Joseph Campbell said "follow you're bliss"! Whereas that may sound corney but if there's something resident in one's psyche which offers it then it couldn't be more favorable to oneself to groove oneself accordingly!

Regards

Sculptor1
You are shockingly naive. You disregard thousands of years of the history of oppression and replace it with your subjective nonsense, redefining what you want to be religion and ignoring what it actually is.

And you are not so shockingly unresponsive. To see the idea that is being presented you have to forget your own thoughts and resentments enough to listen.

Religion has nothing to do with meaning and existence. Religion is a system of thinking in which no discussion is encouraged because all the answer are ready made and they all end with "because god".

I did assume you could think a bit beyond this pedestrian resentment. There is in fact a whole dimension of thought that looks at religion and metaphysics as part of what it is to be a person. It does take some initial curiosity to look into this, however. Until then, you will have not a clue as to what I am talking about.

Greta wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 6:30 pm

Hereandnow wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 9:23 am

From Walden:
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms...”

And Emerson's Nature:
Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear.


Romantic ideas, no doubt. But to truly retire from the pettiness of this world, one should, I think, realize first that that pettiness is not the world. It never was.

Nice quote. It's a bit sad to think that in a generation or two there won't be readily accessible woods in which to retreat. I guess they can always meditate on a pot plant in their apartments.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that pettiness was never part of this world. It seems to me that pettiness is very much part of the world for the young and the young-thinking - part of the squabbling and struggling that the inexperienced need to do to find a place in the world. One becomes less petty with the acceptance of how things are, which age often brings. I may be misinterpreting what you mean, though.

But look here Greta. Just like in the olden days aristocrats built grand walls around the leafy demesnes so for the foreseeable future the ruling classes will have grassy Mar A Lago.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑July 12th, 2019, 11:28 pm

Sculptor1
You are shockingly naive. You disregard thousands of years of the history of oppression and replace it with your subjective nonsense, redefining what you want to be religion and ignoring what it actually is.

And you are not so shockingly unresponsive. To see the idea that is being presented you have to forget your own thoughts and resentments enough to listen.

Religion has nothing to do with meaning and existence. Religion is a system of thinking in which no discussion is encouraged because all the answer are ready made and they all end with "because god".

I did assume you could think a bit beyond this pedestrian resentment. There is in fact a whole dimension of thought that looks at religion and metaphysics as part of what it is to be a person. It does take some initial curiosity to look into this, however. Until then, you will have not a clue as to what I am talking about.

I think you are talking about "spirituality". That is not religion.

It's 90% ******** and can be achieved more effectively by rejecting all that and taking a walk in the woods, and breathing the air.

Sculptor1
"I think you are talking about "spirituality". That is not religion."

A verbal squabble, then. And if your family has just died horribly in a fire, say, I dare say that walk in the woods will not amount to much. Religion addresses human suffering, which is something science cannot do. It may have massive stupidities built into its inherited features, but the question that is upon a person, now, in the actual moment when terrible things assault the fictions of daily living, this is what religion is all about, not the power structures through which it exists. These are, as I tried to say, incidental. They are true of many things, paying your taxes, buying a car, living and breathing; but because all of these have terrible dysfunctions built into them..... well, the IRS's mishandling of my back taxes or the embezzling head of the department is not what paying taxes IS. It actually has a genuine and defensible purpose.

I don't think that the social can really replace the religious. Social events do depend on media an it's local tendency and have no real cultural connection to a person. Just think about christmas, a feast truly based on christian heritage, no real social agenda could initiate in that periodic
way a feast connected to social behaviour and charity as chrismas. Social agenda is locally based on a few timely limeted actions, meanwhile a religion imposes even regular events that have a social and charity connection (like chrismas etc.) and can have by far a bigger effect on social behavious than the few events started by some local political social actions. Even the collection for charitable causes is by far more effective if it's started from religion than it could ever be if it's started from politics.

detail:
Social agenda is locally based on a few timely limeted actions, meanwhile a religion imposes even regular events that have a social and charity connection (like chrismas etc.) and can have by far a bigger effect on social behavious than the few events started by some local political social actions.

I think this is an interesting point. Social affairs as you describe them are more local and more ephemeral and the things people find important now will be replaced, very likely. Religion has its foundation deeper and is relatively timeless. The question is, is there something in religion that will not permit its annihilation? That is to say, religion may have this tradition and historical presence that impacts thoughts and feelings in a way that makes it weightier, foundational, but is there something besides the history and tradtion about religion that makes it irreplaceable? Something existential, something about the way the world is structured? One could look at classical literature or music in the same way: it is not just the duration through time. There is the nature of what it is.

Keep in mind that traditions of the past that were very strong determinants of values and behavior did in fact vanish.