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

[Ecurb]

"The Case for Xanthippe" is the title of a Robert Graves essay, which I read recently. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy on line, and the book in which I read it has returned to the library. But I remember the jist.

Xanthippe (Socrates wife) is reviled by history as a shrew. Graves sympathizes with her, however. IN the essay, he contrasts the rational with the creative and intuitive; philosophy with poetry (and other arts). Since Graves was a poet and novelist, he naturally sides with the intuitive, while admitting that in the general course of life, intuition must be checked by reason.

Xanthippe correctly intuited that Socrates' obsession with reason would bring his family into disgrace (as it did), and decrease the status of women. Graves is perhaps old-fashioned in thinking of reason as "male" and intuition and poetry as "female", but he claims that many of the poems of Sappho were lost because of the ascendancy of rationality and reason.

IN Socrates utopian Republic, poets are banished.

At first, Christianity swung the pendulum back in the poetic (intuitive) direction. But by Augustine's time, Christianity was justified and debated from the philosophic perspective. The Church froze Her dogma,and used philosophic reason to argue for it.

The reformation limited the strangle-hold the Church held on theology and philosophy -- but the emergence of science in the
Enlightenment furthered its dominance. In the French Revolution, the mob disavowed its Catholic roots, and enthroned reason as its God.

Graves associates reason with science, philosophy, and modern, urban living. Intuition is associated with poetry, the arts, and the buccolic. What woman of quality (Graves wonders) would put up with Socrates' philandering with boys, questioning everything, and idling around the agora all day?
In addition, although reason rules in the sciences, genius and real innovation depends on creativity and inuition, however much these qualities are no longer admired in everyday life. The poetic temperment, he says, never accepts the second-rate in poetry, or friendship, or love. This temperment is our protection against insensate and (sometimes) inhumane abstact rationality.


As an added bonus, here's one of Graves poerms:

The Naked And The Nude


For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.

Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.

The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.

The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometimes nude!

[JackDaydream]

"The Case for Xanthippe" is the title of a Robert Graves essay, which I read recently. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy on line, and the book in which I read it has returned to the library. But I remember the jist.

Xanthippe (Socrates wife) is reviled by history as a shrew. Graves sympathizes with her, however. IN the essay, he contrasts the rational with the creative and intuitive; philosophy with poetry (and other arts). Since Graves was a poet and novelist, he naturally sides with the intuitive, while admitting that in the general course of life, intuition must be checked by reason.

Xanthippe correctly intuited that Socrates' obsession with reason would bring his family into disgrace (as it did), and decrease the status of women. Graves is perhaps old-fashioned in thinking of reason as "male" and intuition and poetry as "female", but he claims that many of the poems of Sappho were lost because of the ascendancy of rationality and reason.

IN Socrates utopian Republic, poets are banished.

At first, Christianity swung the pendulum back in the poetic (intuitive) direction. But by Augustine's time, Christianity was justified and debated from the philosophic perspective. The Church froze Her dogma,and used philosophic reason to argue for it.

The reformation limited the strangle-hold the Church held on theology and philosophy -- but the emergence of science in the
Enlightenment furthered its dominance. In the French Revolution, the mob disavowed its Catholic roots, and enthroned reason as its God.

Graves associates reason with science, philosophy, and modern, urban living. Intuition is associated with poetry, the arts, and the buccolic. What woman of quality (Graves wonders) would put up with Socrates' philandering with boys, questioning everything, and idling around the agora all day?
In addition, although reason rules in the sciences, genius and real innovation depends on creativity and inuition, however much these qualities are no longer admired in everyday life. The poetic temperment, he says, never accepts the second-rate in poetry, or friendship, or love. This temperment is our protection against insensate and (sometimes) inhumane abstact rationality.


As an added bonus, here's one of Graves poerms:

The Naked And The Nude


For me, the naked and the nude
(By lexicographers construed
As synonyms that should express
The same deficiency of dress
Or shelter) stand as wide apart
As love from lies, or truth from art.

Lovers without reproach will gaze
On bodies naked and ablaze;
The Hippocratic eye will see
In nakedness, anatomy;
And naked shines the Goddess when
She mounts her lion among men.

The nude are bold, the nude are sly
To hold each treasonable eye.
While draping by a showman's trick
Their dishabille in rhetoric,
They grin a mock-religious grin
Of scorn at those of naked skin.

The naked, therefore, who compete
Against the nude may know defeat;
Yet when they both together tread
The briary pastures of the dead,
By Gorgons with long whips pursued,
How naked go the sometimes nude!

I haven't read the essay which you spoke about, but the book by Graves which I have read by him is, 'The White Goddess: A historical grammar of poetic myth.' I found the book inspirational for the way it looks at mythical and poetical ways of seeing. He suggests that 'poetry, since it defies scientific analysis, must be rooted in some sort of magic...'

The way poetry develops world views is not recognized by many now and it is a hypnotic doorway into perception. Graves pays attention to how this was captivated by the Celtic tradition of poetry. The one image which he depicts which stands out for me as 'the battle of the trees' and I think of it when I see the trees swaying towards each other on a windy day or amidst a storm.

[Ecurb]

I've read "I Claudius" and some poems and essays, but not "the White Goddess". I think in his Xanthippe essay Graves missed the essential argument. Science is great -- at what it does. It's problem is that it provides no answers (and cannot even question) the fundamental issues with which we humans are concerned. What is love? Whom should we love? What is justice, or honor? What is consciousness? What is beauty? Of course we also care about "What are atoms" -- but not as much.

IN addition, the worship of science (and data) is not always effective. Doctors used to be intuitive -- talking to patients and recognizing that all patients are different, and some treatments may work well statisitically, but not for a particular patient. Today, Doctors look at the computer printouts, not at the patient. Fine. I'm fully confident that the computrer printouts are valuable and that data is valuable. But it can be over-valued.

The poem I linked is relevant to debates here on Philsoophy forums. "Define your terms" is the endless refrain. Well, "naked"
and "nude" are "synonyms which should express the same deficiency of dress."' But there are subtle (and important) differences in the terms. Not everything can be reduced to definitions, of logic, or even reason.

[heracleitos]

Since Graves was a poet and novelist, he naturally sides with the intuitive, while admitting that in the general course of life, intuition must be checked by reason.

In the French Revolution, the mob disavowed its Catholic roots, and enthroned reason as its God.

Religion has two pillars: the transcendental part, i.e. liturgy and prayer, and the rational part, i.e. its moral theory.

Unlike its moral theory, which is entirely rational, the transcendental part of religion harks back directly to our natural predisposition, intuition, and instinct. To achieve its goal, which is the reinforcement of our spiritual strength, the transcendental aspect of religion does not make use of reason. Instead, it makes use of a direct connection with the divine.

People who do not make use of this instrument, will sooner or later succumb to mental turmoil. In my experience, that is just a question of time. When the person's spirit eventually gets in trouble, the body will sooner or later also start failing.

Given the fact that it the capacity to reason requires a healthy brain and body, proclaiming that Reason is one's God, is ultimately self-defeating, especially, while trying in vain to keep things afloat by means of psychotropic medication.

Praying for health makes quite a bit of sense, because praying itself is required for health.

[LuckyR]

Since Graves was a poet and novelist, he naturally sides with the intuitive, while admitting that in the general course of life, intuition must be checked by reason.

In the French Revolution, the mob disavowed its Catholic roots, and enthroned reason as its God.

Religion has two pillars: the transcendental part, i.e. liturgy and prayer, and the rational part, i.e. its moral theory.

Unlike its moral theory, which is entirely rational, the transcendental part of religion harks back directly to our natural predisposition, intuition, and instinct. To achieve its goal, which is the reinforcement of our spiritual strength, the transcendental aspect of religion does not make use of reason. Instead, it makes use of a direct connection with the divine.

People who do not make use of this instrument, will sooner or later succumb to mental turmoil. In my experience, that is just a question of time. When the person's spirit eventually gets in trouble, the body will sooner or later also start failing.

Given the fact that it the capacity to reason requires a healthy brain and body, proclaiming that Reason is one's God, is ultimately self-defeating, especially, while trying in vain to keep things afloat by means of psychotropic medication.

Praying for health makes quite a bit of sense, because praying itself is required for health.

An opinion, unencumbered by data.

[heracleitos]

An opinion, unencumbered by data.

You can find an interesting discussion on the subject, a meta analysis of research, in:

Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials.

Religious traditions across the world display beliefs in healing through prayer. The healing powers of prayer have been examined in triple-blind, randomized controlled trials. We illustrate randomized controlled trials on prayer and healing, with one study in each of different categories of outcome.

We believe that the research has led nowhere, and that future research, if any, will forever be constrained by the scientific limitations that we outline.

The biggest problem with clinical trials is that praying for health is highly autosuggestive, as it is obvious that it only works for people who truly believe that it will work. It is pointless to include people who do not believe that it will work, because in that case, it will obviously not work.

This is not just the case in religion. If you do not believe that at autosuggestive situation will work out, then it surely will not:

Autosuggestion is a psychological technique related to the placebo effect, developed by apothecary Émile Coué at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a form of self-induced suggestion in which individuals guide their own thoughts, feelings, or behavior.

Coué observed that the main obstacle to autosuggestion was willpower. For the method to work, the patient must refrain from making any independent judgment, meaning that he must not let his will impose its own views on positive ideas. Everything must thus be done to ensure that the positive "autosuggestive" idea is consciously accepted by the patient, otherwise one may end up getting the opposite effect of what is desired.

We cannot know if praying works because it is an act of self-motivation or because of divine intervention. The only thing that is clear is that praying does not help for people who do not believe that it does. Therefore, it cannot possibly work for atheists. Hence, even if prayer may not always manage to save the life of a believer, we know that an atheist is always beyond salvation. An atheist can never be saved.

It is the same situation as an athlete trying to run the 100 meters within 10 seconds. The very first requirement is for the athlete to believe that he can do that. Otherwise, he surely cannot. Therefore, the athlete needs a strong capacity to believe and to have faith. That is why top athletes prefer religion. You will not easily see an atheist win a gold medal in the Olympics. How many atheist football stars will manage to play football for Manchester United? I guess none. Without capacity to faith, one cannot achieve much. Top performers always believe and always have unwavering faith. That is pretty much the opposite of atheism. When an atheist does not believe that he can do it, then it is obviously true that he cannot do it.

[Ecurb]

How many atheist football stars will manage to play football for Manchester United? I guess none.

Maybe all the atheists signed for Brighton-Hove-Albion, which just crushed Man U. 4-0.

[Ecurb]

It is the same situation as an athlete trying to run the 100 meters within 10 seconds. The very first requirement is for the athlete to believe that he can do that. Otherwise, he surely cannot. Therefore, the athlete needs a strong capacity to believe and to have faith. That is why top athletes prefer religion. You will not easily see an atheist win a gold medal in the Olympics. How many atheist football stars will manage to play football for Manchester United? I guess none. Without capacity to faith, one cannot achieve much. Top performers always believe and always have unwavering faith. That is pretty much the opposite of atheism. When an atheist does not believe that he can do it, then it is obviously true that he cannot do it.

Here are some other people with strong faith. All of them believe with unwavering faith.

There is the quack herbalist who thinks that he has found a cure for cancer. His patients all die -- but he believes!

There is the hack poet, who sends his poems off to magazines every month. All the editors reject them; all his readers are unimpressed. But he continues! He believes in himself!

Then, of course, there is the insane asylum patient who thinks he is Napoleon. His doctors tell him he is not Napoleon. His family tells him he is not Napoleon. But he believes in himself.

The notion that the athlete who has faith is going to win the game is ridiculous. Surely he will try 40 yard shots on goal (he believe he can score). The realistic athlete will pass the ball to his teammate. The 12 second 100 meter sprinter who has faith that he can be timed in less than 10 seconds will not run any faster. Instead, the realistic 12 second sprinter will know that he can only run faster if he trains harder and uses more steroids. He will have faith in his ability to break 10 seconds when he actually DOES break 10 seconds.

[heracleitos]

Here are some other people with strong faith. All of them believe with unwavering faith.

The more unlikely the goal, the more unlikely that the person will succeed. That is just probability theory.

Believing that you can overcome cancer, may or may not be likely. If you don't try, however, the doctor may very well conclude that you have given up, and that additional effort is pointless:

Motivation for Healing in Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607888


Studies have revealed that motivation plays a vital role in a person's ability to heal. The nature of motivation for healing in cancer patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of motivation for healing in cancer patients.

Motivation is an essential factor in initiating treatment, bearing complications, and participating in rehabilitation programs.

Some researchers have defined motivation as a spiritual or religious phenomenon,[5] and others have described it as wishes, needs, desires, and goals.[1,2,3]

It is necessary that we understand how cancer patients maintain and build up their motivation.

The medical field is very aware of the problem of patient motivation:

https://patientengagementhit.com/news/t ... mprovement

Patient motivation techniques are critical for providers trying to activate patients in chronic care management programs.

https://sybridmd.com/blogs/general/how- ... e-patients

Some techniques to motivate patients for health improvement

The medical healthcare providers can do better by achieving patients’ wellness by considering a few motivation techniques that end up with better health. However, the point of concern is how do physician motivate patients?

Motivating patient to maintain their health is something really serious that everyone needs to understand. There are times when patients are highly motivated to do things on their own and there are times when they lack motivation and don’t even try with a single step. So do a few things as above mentioned and keep your patients going for better health.

When a doctor says, "The patient is not fighting. All of this is useless. We are going to lose the patient.", it is obvious what the doctor means. It simply means that the patient is probably an atheist with absolutely no capacity to faith.

[Ecurb]

The more unlikely the goal, the more unlikely that the person will succeed. That is just probability theory.

Believing that you can overcome cancer, may or may not be likely. If you don't try, however, the doctor may very well conclude that you have given up, and that additional effort is pointless:

Studies have revealed that motivation plays a vital role in a person's ability to heal. The nature of motivation for healing in cancer patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the meaning of motivation for healing in cancer patients.

Motivation is an essential factor in initiating treatment, bearing complications, and participating in rehabilitation programs.

Some researchers have defined motivation as a spiritual or religious phenomenon,[5] and others have described it as wishes, needs, desires, and goals.[1,2,3]

It is necessary that we understand how cancer patients maintain and build up their motivation.


The medical field is very aware of the problem of patient motivation:


When a doctor says, "The patient is not fighting. All of this is useless. We are going to lose the patient.", it is obvious what the doctor means. It simply means that the patient is probably an atheist with absolutely no capacity to faith.

"Motivation" and "faith" are not synonyms, nor is it correct to suggest that atheists lack faith in (for example) their ability to heal from a disease because they lack faith in the existance of God. Obviously, participating in rehabilitation, taking prescribed drugs, and leading a healthy lifestyle can promote healing and health. However, that has nothing to do with faith in God, or faith in general. why would it? The patient with abosulute faith that he will recover may avoid rehab and stop taking his drugs. "Why should I bother," he says. "I'm going to recover no matter what." The person who thinks his odds of recover are 1/5 may be more dilligent.

In any event, this has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

[GE Morton]

We cannot know if praying works because it is an act of self-motivation or because of divine intervention. The only thing that is clear is that praying does not help for people who do not believe that it does. Therefore, it cannot possibly work for atheists. Hence, even if prayer may not always manage to save the life of a believer, we know that an atheist is always beyond salvation. An atheist can never be saved.

Not clear whether you're speaking there of saving lives or saving "souls." But it should be possible to determine whether prayer helps with the former, by doing a retrospective statistical study. Do devout persons live longer, on average, than atheists, ceteris paribus? (Getting that ceteris paribus right would be crucial).

It is the same situation as an athlete trying to run the 100 meters within 10 seconds. The very first requirement is for the athlete to believe that he can do that. Otherwise, he surely cannot. Therefore, the athlete needs a strong capacity to believe and to have faith. That is why top athletes prefer religion. You will not easily see an atheist win a gold medal in the Olympics. How many atheist football stars will manage to play football for Manchester United? I guess none. Without capacity to faith, one cannot achieve much. Top performers always believe and always have unwavering faith. That is pretty much the opposite of atheism. When an atheist does not believe that he can do it, then it is obviously true that he cannot do it.

Faith in what? An athlete (and nearly everyone else) surely must have faith in his own abilities in order to succeed in whatever he is attempting to do, but not likely faith in supernatural entities.

[LuckyR]

An opinion, unencumbered by data.

You can find an interesting discussion on the subject, a meta analysis of research, in:

Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials.

Religious traditions across the world display beliefs in healing through prayer. The healing powers of prayer have been examined in triple-blind, randomized controlled trials. We illustrate randomized controlled trials on prayer and healing, with one study in each of different categories of outcome.

We believe that the research has led nowhere, and that future research, if any, will forever be constrained by the scientific limitations that we outline.

The biggest problem with clinical trials is that praying for health is highly autosuggestive, as it is obvious that it only works for people who truly believe that it will work. It is pointless to include people who do not believe that it will work, because in that case, it will obviously not work.

This is not just the case in religion. If you do not believe that at autosuggestive situation will work out, then it surely will not:

Autosuggestion is a psychological technique related to the placebo effect, developed by apothecary Émile Coué at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a form of self-induced suggestion in which individuals guide their own thoughts, feelings, or behavior.

Coué observed that the main obstacle to autosuggestion was willpower. For the method to work, the patient must refrain from making any independent judgment, meaning that he must not let his will impose its own views on positive ideas. Everything must thus be done to ensure that the positive "autosuggestive" idea is consciously accepted by the patient, otherwise one may end up getting the opposite effect of what is desired.

We cannot know if praying works because it is an act of self-motivation or because of divine intervention. The only thing that is clear is that praying does not help for people who do not believe that it does. Therefore, it cannot possibly work for atheists. Hence, even if prayer may not always manage to save the life of a believer, we know that an atheist is always beyond salvation. An atheist can never be saved.

It is the same situation as an athlete trying to run the 100 meters within 10 seconds. The very first requirement is for the athlete to believe that he can do that. Otherwise, he surely cannot. Therefore, the athlete needs a strong capacity to believe and to have faith. That is why top athletes prefer religion. You will not easily see an atheist win a gold medal in the Olympics. How many atheist football stars will manage to play football for Manchester United? I guess none. Without capacity to faith, one cannot achieve much. Top performers always believe and always have unwavering faith. That is pretty much the opposite of atheism. When an atheist does not believe that he can do it, then it is obviously true that he cannot do it.

Perhaps you didn't read the meta-analysis you yourself cited. The studies looked at remote (or "distant") prayer, that is praying for other people who are not present. Thus the study subjects generally didn't even know they were being prayed for. Thus their belief in prayer was immaterial.

The conclusion of the researchers (a pharmacologist and a "research officer", whatever that is) was: "Where does this leave us? God may indeed exist and prayer may indeed heal; however, it appears that, for important theological and scientific reasons, randomized controlled studies cannot be applied to the study of the efficacy of prayer in healing. In fact, no form of scientific enquiry presently available can suitably address the subject."

They said that because their analysis revealed results that were essentially random, some studies showed a benefit, some showed no impact and some showed a worse outcome with prayer.

Long story short, prayer is definitely not required for health. Thanks, by the way for providing evidence of that.

[heracleitos]

Long story short, prayer is definitely not required for health.

Long story short, it is not possible to determine anything on the matter by experimentally testing it. Hence, you believe it or you don't. I have simply pointed out that if you don't believe it, then it will obviously not work. But then again, that is also true for running the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it. Mere scepticism will not be particularly helpful in that case.

[Ecurb]

Long story short, it is not possible to determine anything on the matter by experimentally testing it. Hence, you believe it or you don't. I have simply pointed out that if you don't believe it, then it will obviously not work. But then again, that is also true for running the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it. Mere scepticism will not be particularly helpful in that case.

The poker player who needs to draw an ace "believes" he will draw an ace only if he is a moron. So he doesn't believe. Nonetheless, sometimes he does draw an ace.

The athlete who doesn't believe he can win sometimes does win.

The notion that "If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it" is incorrect. So is the inverse ("If you believe you can do it, then you can do it.") Belief may have some impact on performance -- but not as much as herfacleitos suggests.

[GE Morton]

Long story short, it is not possible to determine anything on the matter by experimentally testing it.

It could be experimentally tested, as I suggested above.