what is 'self' exactly... how do we make sense of this at all in a way which is useful and meaningful for us in life?

Personally, I've always enjoyed Kierkegaard's idea of the self, as a verb or an act of continual movement (being that the self is continually created and re-created throughout a lifetime).

Here, this idea of the self essentially posits it as a relation, that relates itself to a finite and an infinite aspect.

The finite aspect is the necessary, the relation to the concrete here and now, to the reality of living as a definite something in the world.

The infinite aspect is all about possibility, to create new thoughts, new ideas, to bring into existence new creations, to change oneself into becoming something new by choosing from an infinite number of possibilities.

A balanced self then, is a relation between these two aspects, to choose from infinite possibility, and then to make this choice concrete by actualizing it in the finite. This balance is a continual movement, as the self changes over a lifetime of experience. This idea of self also requires overcoming anxiety into a "leap of faith", that is, to have the courage, passion, and conviction to make a choice from infinite possibility and committing to it in our finite reality.

The loss of self then, Kierkegaard would say, arises from an imbalance in the relation to the finite / infinite - i.e. to be trapped in the current finite self relation, unable to actualize and to change, or trapped in infinite possibility, a dreamer, with no hope of making those dreams "real."

So, the self then - a verb, an act, a continual movement - an unfolding project of taking what we find ourselves with as beings in the world, and through a passionate commitment, or "leap of faith", relating to something outside ourselves to bestow our lives with meaning. One could say, a subjective meaning, or subjective truth - "to become what one is" - this choice / meaning, is all up to you.

Which books have had the most profound impact on you?

In no particular order:

The Sickness Unto Death - Søren Kierkegaard
Meditations - Marcus Aurelius
The Will to Power - Friedrich Nietzsche
Paradise Lost - John Milton
The Conquest of Gaul - Julius Caesar
Perdido Street Station - China Miéville
A Brightness Long Ago - Guy Gavriel Kay

Nuh. In Canberra, we pronounce the "L".

Blasphemy.

We ('merica, 'Stralya, Britain)

Straya*

"it's worth a try"

Fair. I'm all for trying too. Trying with one or both eyes open is better than trying blind though. What could go right for humanity would be revolutionary, what could go wrong however, would be catastrophic. I'd argue for the trying to be done with some solid foundations - or trying responsibly / with appropriate due diligence.

Either figure out a way to sustain them, on Earth or elsewhere.

Elsewhere would probably be the way to go. If we assume that everything that transhumanism is trying to do could be possible some day, then we can also assume that extraplanetary colonization could also be possible to sustain us.

Why would it? What is meaningfulness or beauty, and why would the inevitability of death add that to life?

It's a matter of perspective. We view these concepts in a subjective way, depending on a multitude of factors, for example, our unique historical, social and cultural contexts. So, how can a transhumanist approach then reliably take an objective stance on any of these concepts to then say, "ok, we can provide gradations of "bliss" in any number of ways "en masse" so nobody suffers, and we can all experience equal amounts of joy etc."

The way you view and experience joy or suffering, could be far different to how I view and experience joy or suffering. The human experience is uniquely individual in may ways. I don't see how transhumanism takes that into consideration.

We're talking about what to aim for, not the specifics of how to get there.

That's the problem, and what I alluded to in the final paragraph of my last point. It's idealistic to the point of being pure fantasy. Without tangible specifics on the how of doing things it's not realistically applicable. Let alone sustainable. It's basically just saying, hey don't worry about it mate, technology will sort everything out in the end for everybody. Don't worry about the nitty gritty, it's not important.

...I estimated about 12 billion. Pleasing that an actual data-driven estimate is so close, too.

The data driven estimate I provided arrives a state of unsustainability with out planet's natural resources. Some research suggests the Earth could only sustainably support roughly 2 to 3 billion people.

https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

https://worldpopulationhistory.org/carrying-capacity/

However, this number is contested. The article below suggests that the majority of studies settle around less than 8 billion (still well below the 12 billion suggestion).

https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support

So what do we do with all these extra people? Especially if they're immortal.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the evolution and progression of humanity as a species. To be all we can be. I just question schools of thought that don't provide specifics, and settle on blanket statements with questionable evidence to back up their claims.

No.

Why not?

If so, that is another problem to be fixed. We’re talking about transforming the whole human experience for the better, not just prolonging it as it already is.

Fixed. How?

If so, that’s a good thing. Labor is undervalued right now..

Sure. How would that change with several billion immortals? - actually, if estimates are correct, about 11.2 billion at peak:

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

Not assuming one, but aiming for one. “Utopia” shouldn’t be a dirty word

Fair. So, what does this realistically achievable and sustainable technological utopia actually look like? How are the very real problems I've described (and others), going to be solved?

Personally, I find it difficult to see transhumanism being more than just a positivist, simplistic, model-driven, conceptual / analytic perspective on reality. Sure, models are great, but they lack a holistic, and therefore realistic, grasp of the complexity of our actual reality. Models after all, are full of assumptions.

Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence:

What if a demon were to creep after you one night, in your loneliest loneliness, and say, 'This life which you live must be lived by you once again and innumerable times more; and every pain and joy and thought and sigh must come again to you, all in the same sequence. The eternal hourglass will again and again be turned and you with it, dust of the dust!' Would you throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse that demon? Or would you answer, 'Never have I heard anything more divine'?

In this, I think that the answer of 'never have I head anything more divine' would be the ultimate expression of life affirmation. To want life in all of it's pain and joy, again and again and again. Would you not strive to live the best life you possibly can? So that you can re-live your best life, over and over again? Ties nicely into his overall philosophy of growth. Of becoming.

I wonder if cheating death is the answer though. Either by prolonging life expectancy further, or by extending life indefinitely.

There a many arguments for and against.

Couple of ones against here:

Does the threat of, and inevitability of death make the act of living life more beautiful / meaningful?
Or, would we eventually become bored and nihilistic immortals? What could that then lead to? Detachment? Desensitization? Would we "act out" because of said boredom? Would we "act out" in destructive ways?

Overpopulation would also become a major problem. We would need to look at expansion beyond one planet, surely.

Or, in the case of life extension as opposed to actual immortality, you'd have the problem of huge ageing populations. Couple of points on the consequences of an ageing population:

1. Creates a decline in the working age population and can have detrimental effects on the economy - e.g. decline in productivity, higher labor cost, reduced business expansion and reduced international competitiveness. Will a supply shortage also push up wages? Will this lead to wage inflation?
2. Increase in health care costs. This is already a major problem in many parts of the world, including mine (Australia). This is due to an increase in the dependency ratio as you get older, with all the co-morbidities and chronic diseases that may come along with it, compounded further by the shortage in the working age population group (point 1).

E.g. Population projections for Australia suggest that there will be four million people aged between 65–84 years by 2022 with rapid acceleration of some age groups (over 65, over 85) in the next ten years...The Government spends around $10 billion per annum on the aged care sector, with around two-thirds of this expenditure directed to residential aged care...due to population ageing, demand is expected to outstrip supply in the next 30 years. Irrespective of where or by whom aged care is provided, Australia is facing a serious workforce shortage..

Source:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/ageingpopulation

In my opinion, extending life expectancy further and / or prolonging it indefinitely has its fair share of philosophical and practical problems. It would be irresponsible to strive for this goal without planning for and resolving the issues that it would create. Or are we assuming a technological utopia here?

Society instructs us that if we peer deep inside our hearts that we will eventually find what makes us happy...There seems to be a strong correlation between depression and the ideology of “following” one’s heart.

As someone who almost died because of a deep depression, I can relate to what you're saying.

I think this is where reflection comes into a play a bit. Peer deep into your heart with your head. A rational approach to your hopes, dreams, desires perhaps. And instead of "happy", reframe it to meaningful. What is meaningful? Well, what do you want to do with your life? What represents your dreams, your hopes, your desires, your ideals? A deep introspection here and potential removal of external influencers like society / culture and authority figures like parents for example, through that process of looking inwards here can help. Finding the "goal" then, the "why" of your life that you really want, once you identify it as meaningful and authentic to you through that introspection, can then help with your next statement:

As a lack of responsibility and structure in one’s life decreases the sense of purpose, depression increases.

Commit yourself completely to the pursuit of your goal. This then gives you a sense of responsibility, purpose, drive. And most importantly, hope.

Instead, society tells us to experiment with drugs (antidepressants) and chase false hopes instead of solving the problem. Shunning social obligations and familial responsibilities in order that one might increase a sense of individuality commonly occurs.

Depends how you view individuality in my opinion. If you think that being an individual involves "finding yourself" by relating yourself completely to the outside world for meaning without looking inwards first, then yeah, perhaps experimenting with drugs doesn't seem like a bad idea. Then you shun your obligations because you feel that sense of "loss". A false hope is only false if you believe it to be that way. I think it's a perspective shift. And that introspection and identification of the "why" of your life is key.

Maybe life isn't so much about finding yourself, but more about creating yourself, and actualizing your will to affirm the desire to create, and keep creating with all your being. You're your own canvas, and that journey of creation and re-creation is a growth that lasts a lifetime.

But I don't think magic tricks and insence would do the trick with our enlightened, rational and technocratic civilization still being around

I agree. The idea would be to create a new prevailing worldview that appeals to the enlightened, rational and technocratic individual within us (in the Western sense). Whilst simultaneously, providing the rapture we need for our spirit to thrive.

The Gods through technology is a good alternative.

My own additional thought is that consumer materialism may be collapsing, so what will come next, philosophically, politically and culturally? Where can philosophy take us and, play a leading role or pathway?

Unless there is a radical change to the Capitalist model in modern Western society, I don't see consumer materialism collapsing anytime soon. Rather, it is the current will to power. The current game to be played in order to survive and thrive. Within this economic model, for arguably, a prosperous life that minimises potential suffering, philosophy may have a duty here to help the individual thrive. Unfortunately, culturally, I personally can only see more division, apathy and ultimately stagnation. Unless of course, the status quo is continually challenged, and modern visionaries and artists inspire the culture to move forward.

It's tough to evaluate it all whilst in the midst of it. It may be that we will only be able to see what is, when it becomes what was, in hindsight.

In any case there is no control of our direction, we ride a huge wild wave without any meaningful way to influence its course.

An interesting take. We have only really been able to evaluate in hindsight. We can see where the wave hits the shoreline, but we don't see the wave coming - or, we see it too late.

Instead there is a kind of mock-"Christianity" as fashioned by Capital: brutal and non-compassionate sanctioning all sorts of moral sacrileges... Athens, I suppose, remains at the core: the rebellious idea of emancipation and personal liberty. But without the influence of Jerusalem it was a savage, barbarian creed - narrow to the very point of meaninglessness...there is nothing inherently impossible in achieving a rational balance.

I think here is where the crux of it lies, if we are to interpret it in this way. If we see Christianity as the prevailing worldview, one of rapture / awe, its dying or death has left a vacuum of spirit. Yes, I think emancipation and personal liberty (or these Greek / Athenian values) are vitally important, but with the vacuum of spirit, an imbalance occurs.

This imbalance has to do with our connection to the infinite, as Kierkegaard would put it. The vacuum of an infinite (God / Awe), has left us in a loop of hedonistic despair that has arisen from an imbalance in our self relation (to the finite / infinite). We now end up searching for the infinite in finite things and lose ourselves. What's missing is a new connection to the infinite, one of rapture and awe. Nietzsche suggested that this could potentially be our connection to growth itself. To act as bridges for the elevation of our species, growth as the essence of life. To feel ourselves grow in strength and power in the struggle for growth itself. Interesting proposition, but does it bring the same rapture that a "God" might? Perhaps not. Unless we see ourselves becoming gods.

there is little chance of complacency because trends and developments are so rapid.

There are just so many voices and it is probably not a case of a deadend, but of being overwhelmed in the cacophony of them all.

I'd say it's likely a bit of both. The trends and developments are indeed rapid, however this leads to more voices, as well as less. You get those that want to be heard, and those that grow complacent simply because they don't want to deal with the cacophony.

Your homiletic position is all about virtue. I care about results.

Fair. We can only really assess these results (and the success or failure of the initiative) when we have sufficient data.

Many of them became 'The Man' in the end

I suppose that's the thing with counter culture, you rage against the machine until you end up raging with it. Then a new counter culture emerges.

If they are hopeless and despairing enough, they might blow up the factory, office, or the store--and then where would we be?

Or, they might buy into more governmental intervention - when this intervention is sold as hope and happy talk. Why work, when we can pay you a basic income, and we can give you all the drugs and porn that you want to tune out and live out your life as cattle. Don't think about it man, don't worry, let us shoulder all your burdens. You go back to sleep now.

It takes too much effort to blow up the local factory or store, wouldn't it be better if you could just stay at home on the sofa, eating your potato chips, and getting paid for it?

Yes, I think having the ability and courage to challenge the status quo is essential to growth. Complacency is what leads to stagnation. I think philosophy will still have its place, as long as the ideas keep coming and we don't give up the conversation.

part of the problem may be that many people get lost in making their way through all the jumble of ideas.

This is true. I think that because information is so readily available, it can be challenging sometimes to navigate the murk.

Agreed. I suppose the sense of cultural decline depends on what part of the culture you're looking at. Although, I sometimes wonder about the very real possibility of the meta-narrative being controlled and manipulated by a technocratic / corporate elite through the media. If that narrative is one of hopelessness and despair, then it seems like the potential for us (the masses) to be influenced negatively is quite plausible.

Of course, not all of us are so easily misdirected, but those a probably in the minority. Perhaps we are being divided and conquered, and are being "nudged" in the direction of government intervention and control, by making it seem as though we were already lost and divided to begin with.

More Huxley's Brave New World, rather than Orwell's 1984 though...

And yes, those darn evil spirits. Can't rule them out either.

People need a sense of what is real and where to find out reliable information.

This. This is key.

Do they have a purpose and meaning?

Maybe. I suppose that comes down to us, trying to interpret them and then creating meaning where there may be none. In my experience, some dreams can be quite random.

Some would argue (Steven Pinker, a primary example) that the world is safer, healthier and happier today than ever before in history.

I'm unfamiliar with his work, but will take a look now, thanks.

There has been minimal collapse of meaning... Shared meaning does not bring with it contentment, despite what some commentators believe. What we have seen for the past decades is the common good, education and jobs undermined by corporatism and a very unhelpful media. For my money, a lot of social problems in the West stem just from this.

This statement is something I thought about and can agree with. However, when corporate / technocratic elites and the media control the prevailing narrative, if that narrative is one of division, woe, apathy and hopelessness, then what does that mean for us, the masses? Of course, some of us see it for what it is and know better, but for many, this fear and the threats it implies seem all too real. The flow on effect from these giants shaping the discourse and public opinion could very well be overwhelmingly negative, an insidious psychological manipulation. Disturbing.

Society is always in decline, always being renewed. Culture rises and falls like waves on the shore. How's the cultural climate? You can't tell in the middle of it.

This I very much agree with, however, I often wonder if we are in the decline phase. Suppose we'll find out.

So it's all very much in the air at the moment. God only knows what's coming our way next.

Well, Aliens, apparently :brow:

It needs to be said that much of the famous Renaissance and Baroque artwork that the video's creator describes were commissioned by the church or wealthy individuals, so it is understandable why so much artwork in this time depicted a famous biblical scene or a idealized individual or "transfigured human being", etc.

Agreed. I thought that too while watching it. I'm sure if it was the common folk of that era commissioning paintings, the work itself would be very different. I suppose the thesis of the video does still raise interesting questions (at least to me), and it's exciting to read all the wonderful replies and analysis on this Forum.

An interesting take, I too have often wondered about a kind of intellectual stagnation in the contemporary West. It will be interesting to see how this will evolve (or not), in the coming years.

Haha, yeah, big fan of Fight Club :ok:

An interesting idea. I've also often pondered this. Our death being the death of the physical body, however, all our molecules, particles and spirit returning home, or, becoming part of the greater whole of the universe. A beautiful idea.

Well. Agree to disagree then. Which is ok. Thanks for the chat.

Ok. So. Firstly, I think we are still in the collapse of Christianity as the prevailing worldview (at least from a Western perspective). Essentially, it takes time, and effort, to kill God. In saying that, Nietszche I think predicted accurately, the nihilistic wake that is left by the death of God, in the absense of another, similarly rapturous worldview to keep us all in awe. I think it was Rollo May who made a similar inference, that we are now in an age of the transient, where we have nowhere to anchor our ships so to speak, and have lost our connection with ourselves and others, or our "love", with violence now manifesting itself as the most desperate attempt for connection with others in the wake of this sense of loss, apathy, and hopelessness.

I'd like for you to expand on your idea of nihilism being a philosophical danger / red zone?

I think most if not all schools of thought have some merit and are worth investigating. Of course, with a critical eye and the insight to recognise extreme views for what they are to avoid them haunting you.

I also think that the questions that you ask, through your references to art and poetry are questions that have no easy answers. And whilst science can definitely lead us to more probable causes, outcomes and "answers", these can just as easily be replaced again with stronger science in future. Where old theories are disproven and new ones emerge to take their place. As such, I think philosophy will always have its place. As some of these questions have no easy answers, and given the limitations of our humanity, I don't think they ever will be answered with absolute certainty.

This, however, does not mean we should stop asking and searching. That's the essense of both science and philosophy I think, and in this they are aligned.

Sorry Jack. I will reply, I always do! I'm just in between shifts at the moment and I work a rotating roster. I've been replying to lots of comments (more than I expected, which is a pleasant surprise) when I can.

I think we would be examining the same or a similar topic from different perspectives. I trust we will have lots to discuss.

Who knows? I was just trying to use the contents of that one video to spark conversation on the overall topic, or I should say, my original question.

"God, Buddha, the Tao, and all those guys are always right here. I can see them in my peripheral vision."

A beautiful thought.

You have provided nothing of the sort. As 180 proof has further demonstrated, all you have done is shown your ability to use discursive reason and language to create an argument based on a premise (your point number 1 and 2) that cannot be proven unless you accept 1. and thereby 2. as true. Changing the content changes the conclusion, yes. This demonstrates that I can use the same discursive reason to flip your argument on it's head and "prove" the opposite, thereby not actually proving anything. Ultimately, the brute possibility that it may not be valid, is still a possibility. A possibility that you have not sufficiently disputed in any convincing way.

Also your comment of "how can we know anything" is misguided. Obviously, context is important.

The conclusion here is that both examples are ultimately meaningless and do not qualify as any truth or any proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a God existing or not existing. Just as your prison theory is an interesting idea, an idea is all it is.

I've also not once said that I did not like your conclusions. You assuming my position and inferring as such is ignorant, and makes me wonder what you're projecting. Your entire idea is very interesting, and I've enjoyed exploring it with you. But that's all it is. As for self-indulgence, I see no difference on your part.

Could very well be the case. I guess as a very rudimentary starting point, perspectives here on the topic would be interesting to read, especially if they are backed up by accounts in your own cultural / societal contexts of what the climate looks like to you.

Let's go back a bit...

There are imperatives of reason. A demonstration is itself an appeal to one. For instance, it is an imperative of reason that arguments of this form

1. If P, then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q

entail their conclusions. And moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason. And imperatives of prudence are imperatives of Reason. So, logic, prudence and morality are all made of imperatives of Reason. They cannot reasonably be doubted (their content, yes, but not their existence). So, this premise cannot reasonably be doubted:

So, lets say I just simply follow your line of thinking above, then, it looks like I'm doubting the content of the imperative of reason you have posited. Not its existence. For, in my previous reply, using the same formula, I've posited its exact opposite.

Therefore, neither of these examples of an imperative of reason, can conclusively prove the existence of a God. What follows in your further examples of the imperatives coming from an existent mind and that mind being omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and therefore are from God, only follow if you accept that the content of your formula cannot be reasonably doubted. However, you can, using the same formula, reasonably argue for the exact opposite, and come to the conclusion that no God exists.

:chin:

:smirk:

Fair.

And the universe continues to function as it does.

That it most certainly does.

I think most spiritual paths lead to a cessation of effort, surrender.

Indeed. Personally though, I feel this position untenable. The hard or brutal facts of our existence demand an effort from us to continue living. I think a balance between the brutal act of living and a spiritual or transcendent source of connection (finite/infinite) to potentially be a more realistic solution (if the problem we're addressing is spiritual despair). I too accept the responsibility for my life, and yet cannot deny the facts of existing in a finite body within a concrete reality.

I suppose we could sell everything and live in the mountains to be as close to nature as possible, but the brute facts of survival in the natural world also require effort. Surrendering to a spiritual path is an attractive thought, I just see it as difficult to properly apply in practice. The Ego always makes itself known, even in the deepest states of meditation, it fights to be recognized. Wouldn't it be a better alternative to find a way to integrate them both?

Philosophers are an unhappy bunch.

True :lol:

To find out what is right and what is wrong - so, what we are bid do, and what we are bid not do - one uses one's faculty of reason, the mechanism whereby Reason gives us the opportunity to reform

Ok, so let me give you a scenario. Say we were at war. You had a choice to go to war and fight for your country, and let's assume here, your belief in that it is the "right" thing to do to protect your freedoms. At the same time you had your old mother at home, who needs you to help her with her day to day activities of daily living. Using your powers of absolute Reason, which choice is the morally correct one, to go to war, or to stay at home and look after your mother?

I didn't mention eternity. Why would it be eternity?

Fair point. Eternity seems like a long time.

So, living well and enjoying yourself are not always good - sometimes they're bad. A good person helps others, but they don't help a burglar to jimmy open a window. A good person does not help others indiscriminately. So, good people are not opposed to all suffering and in favour of all happiness. It matters whose happiness it is.

This (and your following statement) I can agree with. Context is important for good to be good. So why are we all in this prison then? We've all been lumped in the category of depravity then?

Ah, the self-indulgence rears its head again. The premises are all self-evidently true. It's not in your gift to make them false by just denying them. That's got a name - it's called 'the idiot's veto'.

So, what if there is no God? Your premise seems logical if God exists, but your premise does not prove absolutely, His existence:

1. If God exists, she would not permit innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world
2. God exists

What if we flip this over to:

1. If God does not exist, then innocent creatures can and do live in ignorance and in a dangerous world.
2. God does not exist.

Then:

3. Therefore, the absence of God means innocent creatures do live in ignorance in a dangerous world
4. We are living in ignorance and in a dangerous world
5. Therefore, innocence and depravity are irrelevant, as is the judgement or actions of a fictitious deity, we are simply creatures living in ignorance in a dangerous world.

What happens to the prison idea here (?)

And you can just reject a premise. But that won't make any of them false. They're all true. THey just lead to a conclusion you dislike. And you think, mistakenly, that your attitudes determine reality and thus that your dislike of the conclusion is evidence that a premise is false. Yes? You're not reforming your ways at all! You, like so many others, prefer to listen to yourself than to Reason. Oh well - that's why you're here!

Prove God's existence. What makes your premise true when the logical opposite can also be argued for with the same use of Reason?