Are you serious?? In terms of writing style schop and Nietzsche both write similarly aphoristically and with a lot of polemic. — Swanty

Deadly. I see what you mean I guess. Just do not agree overall.

Both Kant and Hegel were attempting to be as accurate as possible. It makes their work hard to read. Plus, they were both writing for fellow philosophers they were not writing novels.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer share a bombastic tone.

I would argue that both Kant and Schopenhauer are far more practical and systematic in their approaches and have a pattern of thought and thinking that can be reasonably well mapped out. Hegel and Nietzsche on the other hand tend to use more obscure approaches, with Hegel offering up complex and highly intricate abstractions where Nietzsche opts for a text laden with metaphors and aphorisms that have repeatedly been misconstrued from one generation to the next due to the contrary and dense nature in which he writes.

If anything they are more different from each other than alike. The relationship between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is simply due to being interested in a similar area of human life at a similar period in history. Other than bombast I see nothing similar in writing styles.

As for the intended audience or how old the writing,it matters not if it can be read in English. — Swanty

You really should take into account the culture of writing at the time written and who was meant to read it. For example, Plato only a century or two after the Sophists whom were the first to start writing outside of poetry and first started departing from mythological metaphors. Then there is the issue of translation (mistranslation) alongside the bias of appropriating modern cultural norms on those who lived two and a half millennia ago.

Communication is timeless. — Swanty

This is not an argument. This is an empty statement that persuades no one other than yourself or whoever reads into it what they wish to be true - which is part of my point about subjectivity in reading texts.

I would certainly agree that some cultures are better than others. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. This is simple due to the fact that differences necessarily have different values. The obvious difficulty is measuring differing items against each other and this is why many abstain from commenting.

Whether the "Western" traditions are better than others is open to debate. Overall, I think yes. In many ways other cultural attitudes surpass more Western ideals. Undoubtedly there is an exchange where one set of views benefits another and so they assimilate or replace.

All cultural traditions have certain political prohibitions and taboos. Where the 'better' cultural traditions seem to excel is in how the breaking of these 'regulations' is handled.

Societies that expel or annihilate those speaking out against them generally fall. We need a Diogenes or a some form of courtly jester to humiliate us. I leave you with a poem I wrote some years ago:

Rompa Stompa

Aristotle chortles mimetic
a parody of a witless lick-spittle lampooned
comedy sculpts its laughter crafter
un-mastering the mastery of the masterly majesty.

Jesters gesture to the King
satire dripping they prance and fling
their sullied words in simian farce
un-mastering the mastery of their masterly majesty.

Chaplin clowns around his silent circus
flagellants of foolery slapped with wit sticks
raucously erupting Bacchus takes a bow
un-mastering the mastery of our masterly majesty.

Heads crack open with screams
beams split faces bringing to knees
the lesser man mocked and defrocked
un-mastered the master is regally flogged.

I find it bizarre that you equate Hegel with Kant OR Schopenhauer with Nietzsche.

It would make more sense to compare Kant with Schopenhauer and Hegel with Nietzsche (in terms of writing style).

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

You should take into account the time it was written in as well as the intended audience. Kant wrote COPR for fellow philosophers of the time rather than for general public consumption.

Example:

Addendum, Plato can be really clear and poetic,and then really abstract in some dialogues! And I feel that is deliberate. — Swanty

This was written 2500 yrs ago, in a world we cannot really fully comprehend, in an alien culture and in a now dead language.

If it says "foreword by Graham Hancock" it is certainly not a stamp of approval!

You can live what you preach or you can keep preaching. No skin off my nose.

There is 'being alive' and there is 'living'. It is unfortunate you have not seen the difference yet. If you keep digging down you may, perhaps, come to understand things differently.

The ineffable. Does the ineffable have a place in philosophy? Does talk of The Middle Way or The Dao/Tao really constitute a philosophical position we can do much with?

Would your next step be to listen to the music teacher and resort to Aristotle's ethics in passive pursuit of some golden mean?

So you see a difference between a willing will and a striving will? How exactly are you differentiating between "strive" and "will"?

One must learn to work through boredom, as the strivings against boredom aren't going to get rid of the underlying striving Will at work. — schopenhauer1

This could be interpreted as 'will against boredom' yet you use 'striving'. I hope you see the problem here as if we are 'willfully' working against boredom we cannot also 'willfully' embrace boredom.

So ...

One must learn to work through boredom, as the will against boredom isn't going to get rid of the underlying will.

Work through meaning willfully? Can we work through something without willing it?

Ah! It is the Ergot theory one.

I think this is a tad more up to date and not at all speculative:

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World

Review by me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXgb2EIi7o&t=2s

Have you?

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says — Gnomon

It is worth NOTHING.

The paths to heaven and the paths to hell all lead beyond both.

Trust me. He goes on to say that we should strengthen ourselves against boredom rather than end up as lone trumpeters only able to play one note, forever seeking comfort in the company of others to make music. Whereas if we stick to boredom we learn to make music alone and become an orchestra.

Because he also makes this remark:

When men of the better class form a society for promoting some noble or ideal aim, the result almost always is that the innumerable mob of humanity comes crowding in too, as it always does everywhere, like vermin—their object being to try and get rid of boredom, or some other defect of their nature; and anything that will effect that, they seize upon at once, without the slightest discrimination. Some of them will slip into that society, or push themselves in, and then either soon destroy it altogether, or alter it so much that in the end it comes to have a purpose the exact opposite of that which it had at first.

This alongside strengthening oneself against 'boredom'. The 'vermin' are trying to avoid 'boredom'.

Why does he promote 'boredom' as a means to fortify against 'boredom'? So as to better handle the inevitability of 'boredom'?

But here you are saying that boredom is something 'negative'? Schopenhauer said the opposite. I am confused as to what you mean?

Are you saying that our instinctual drives - as conscious existential beings - drive us away from boredom? You are talking about 'boredom' as a lack of 'satiation,' is this in your view taken from Schopenhauer's view or your own?

I understand that Schopenhauer has a somewhat contrary approach to boredom, saying that we should condition ourselves to it, yet also saying things like:

As soon as we are not engaged in one of these two ways, but thrown back on existence itself, we are convinced of the emptiness and worthlessness of it; and this it is we call boredom. That innate and ineradicable craving for what is out of the common proves how glad we are to have the natural and tedious course of things interrupted. Even the pomp and splendour of the rich in their stately castles is at bottom nothing but a futile attempt to escape the very essence of existence, misery. [...] That boredom is immediately followed by fresh needs is a fact which is also true of the cleverer order of animals, because life has no true and genuine value in itself, but is kept in motion merely through the medium of needs and illusion. As soon as there are no needs and illusion we become conscious of the absolute barrenness and emptiness of existence. [...] No man has ever felt perfectly happy in the present; if he had it would have intoxicated him.

It is amusing to see he assumes this last point. Clearly he has not felt this or he would be 'intoxicated'. Maybe he was not 'intoxicated' by boredom enough? Maybe he did not heed his own advice for long enough?

He discusses the Mysteries and also (from memory) their relationship to the ancient proto-Indo-European mystery cults that spread across the ancient world with the original Aryan peoples. — Wayfarer

I do not believe he covers this at all in The Sacred and The Profane. He certainly covers this kind of thing else where. Probably in A History of Religious Ideas?

Read it many MANY times already. I am familiar with Eliade's other work too - especially Shamanism.

What I read recently is a recent scholarly summation: Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. It focuses on Greco-Roman cults.

There were several other mystery cults too. Many mention the Mother of Gods ... am I starting to wonder if this may have been a reference to Mnemosyne in some cases. I am trying to work in my own views of what this was originally all about though.

Just fishing for info really.

It would be unusual for someone to have NOT partaken in the Eleusinian Mysteries as a citizen of Athens. It was common place. I imagine it would likely have been mentioned if Aristotle had not, so I also speculated that he may have taken part but just that it had no real effect on him.

Well, I am not sure there is any clear evidence that Plato did either, but it is obvious enough to me he did (Cave Analogy).

Any hint at this either way is what I am interested in. It will be speculation either way.

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon

Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence.

It looks very much what you call "Will" is what I framed above as "Self".

The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking".

What is one attains 'enlightenment'? Is life bleak then?

In the mean time I think you might find this relevant:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-149797920?source=queue&autoPlay=false

Will do.

"Other" I guess. We demarcate ourselves by how far our sense of authorship extends. We are novelty and pattern seekers. The regular "thing" that steers through sense is "self" I guess?

What do you think?

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

By definition it implies everything else? So, yes.

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though.

But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence? — schopenhauer1

What does this mean? To guess at what you are asking, all existential beings operate under a system of values - in some form or another.

A subsidiary role at best I would say. The whole "opiate of the masses" idea is dubious, but not without effect. Undoubtedly anything that falls into the realm of politics will be bent to serve some means of controlling others - it is hardly specific to religion nor any more significant.

Stories are not just stories. They are meant to teach not necessarily comfort.

Literacy is a relatively recent invention. This is something I do not believe the OP addresses nor sees as significant?

If you don't dig deeper you miss the entire point. "Religion" is not a solid concept. If you wish not to engage in my point no need to.

Why religion exists (as per evolutionary explication) has been examined in numerous ways. I mentioned a book that covers a lot of it, and have rad some of Dunbar's ideas too.

The underlying point as to why it exists is because it has developed from useful functions that were not necessarily about woo woo, but more or less about passing on knowledge effectively and reinvigorating the conventions of social groups to allow for adaptation through playing with taboos and generally seeking out novel experiences (exploratory drives).

While this theory remains speculative, it offers a compelling perspective on the intertwined evolution of religion and science. I think further research should investigate correlations between intelligence, existential awareness, and religious/scientific development. — ContextThinker

I think a helluva has already been looked into. Undoubtedly people will look to this or that idea to fortify their sense of reality. Modern religious traditions can offer this by steering away from cold hard facts that serve little to no purpose to those who care more about things like beauty or love. Science is useful.

You might be interested in reading a book called "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion," by Scott Atran. It offers a reasonable survey of many common ideas put forward about how religion has developed.

This is a super simplistic view. All 'religions' stem from specific instances of alter states of consciousness. Experiences in these states are felt as being more real than what was previously regarded as reality.

It is from exposure to these experiences that all religions developed. The question of why religion exists now in its current state has clearly branched off into many areas. The fundamental features of all religions orbit these experiences though.

What they are and how they alter out perception of reality is a more important question for me personally. Although it is interesting looking into the various lines of inquiry into how religion has manifested in different environments and how it has adapted to social needs.

What we call 'religion' today has inevitably sprung forth for a variety of reasons including animism, memory, literacy, population explosion, etc.,. The list is almost unending. The very concept of God is of no real significance to some 'religions' whilst being at the heart of others (eg. Islam and Daoism/Taoism). Confucianism is also loosely defined as a 'religion' in modern parlance, yet God is irrelevant. Many traditions in Buddhism have no concern with Gods either.

Also, some cares more about 'souls' and other far less so. The same goes for a whole array of views surrounding religion, such as afterlife, rebirth, scripture, ancestors and connections to nature in general.

The only common feature I have found is in traditions that involve altered states of consciousness, initiation and mnemonics (lost mostly through the advent of literacy).

You therefore believe in the axial revolution as coming about due to cognitive development? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

Understanding can undermine meaning. Lack of meaning can cause anxiety.

For starters, just because the Western traditions are obsessed with an existential threat (death) it does not mean other traditions are. They are not. The Japanese and Chinese cultures had to invent a term to refer to the Abrahamic traditions because they had no equivalent word for "religion" - this was in the latter part of the 19th Century.

When faced with existential threats our sense of individuality is brought into sharp focus usually because unconscious mechanism begin to rise into conscious awareness in a rather unfiltered manner (eg. NDEs and other general ASCs).

I was just stating that newborns are often overwhelmed by stimuli because they lack the ability to filter. There are parallels with cases of autism. That is all I am saying.

I think whether you see it as an adaptation depends upon how you read adaptation. Whether a given person stims or does not stim seems relatively innate, as do the senses which the person stims with, but the specific stims used are unlikely to be predetermined. — fdrake

Infants do this to understand their environment. Infants are hypersensitive.

Every creature does this to some degree. The sensations are painted onto the experiential landscape in splashes and dabs. We just happen to be able to paint our pictures more vividly and with attunement specifically to temporal projections.

One dab is a 'train whistle' and another is 'a table'. For a child 'a table' is not 'a table'. It is a hidden place upon which object are placed out of eyeshot and grasping reach - in most cases.

I am by no means autistic but I do stim to some degree. Many people see it as a form of comforting oneself (and some evidence backs this up), but it is more or less about a need to process and interact with the environment I believe. Primarily stemming from early childhood adaptation and learning regarding items like cause and effect, and the need to focus on specific actions over others (to enable walking and talking).

I crawl around on the floor, and lie on the floor wriggling around, at least once a month. It absolutely makes you look at the world differently and allows you to tap into perspectives you have neglected since childhood.

Look at Lynne Kelly. That is a major part of how religion developed.

There is a lot more to mnemonic techniques that people realise because literacy changed things and the internet more so.

In this thread I was speculating about another possible factor. The oneupmanship is more or less an idea that could have also had a wider effect on theological and ethical discussions. If I am looking at a particular point where it was most significant I guess it would be pre axial revolution maybe? Because theological debate did not really exist - I mean it as a significant factor as possible precursor to true theological discourse.

It is speculative, but not blindly. Make sense?