you are right. It is overwhelming and there is use and misuse. I guess the mass always wants panem et circenses

I just think that the information age makes it so easy to gather so much potential knowledge but there is so much it is like a philosophy supermarket. We can gather and hoard it on our devices, but, perhaps may be in danger of consuming it, like junk food, without gaining any underlying wisdom. I think that this may be the challenge before us, as we can access Wikipedia on our phones and share links so easily. However, it can also be extremely exciting...
,

I am sure that it is possible to imagine that the universe can be any shape at all. As for myself, I frequently wake up in the morning, dreaming that I have been reading and writing posts on this site, which don't exist. Life is becoming more and more surreal...

So, while knowledge may have been preserved, whether it was available to wider circles until much later times is questionable. — Jack Cummins

"Questionable" to whom?

At the beginning of the Christian era, Alexander’s City, Alexandria, had become the Western world’s chief centre of learning, with a world-famous library holding thousands of manuscripts and state-funded international scholars. Early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Dionysus the Great had studied philosophy there and became leaders of the influential Catechetical School of Alexandria which trained theologians and priests and whose curriculum included all the major Greek philosophers.

From Alexandria, Greek philosophy was later introduced at the Imperial University of Constantinople, the new capital of the Roman Empire, and became part of the curriculum of Byzantine higher education until the 15th century when The City as the Greeks called it, was taken by the Turks.

Of course, the higher forms of Platonism have always been available to a few initiates only. Hence the "unwritten teachings" (agrapha dogmata) of Plato, Plotinus and others. But that doesn't mean that the original texts themselves weren't available.

I am sure that it is possible to imagine that the universe can be any shape at all. As for myself, I frequently wake up in the morning, dreaming that I have been reading and writing posts on this site, which don't exist. Life is becoming more and more surreal... — Jack Cummins

Surrealists believed the dream state actually gets you closer to the nature of reality.

They analyze the cosmic background radiation to try to see if the universe is flat or curved. It appears to be flat, but it may be that the curve is so vast that we just haven't detected it. Yet.

The times of the Early Church were extremely interesting, and probably very heated because there was the whole over what was seen as Gnostic. My understanding was that even though Gnostic thinking was open to opposition there is some indication that Origen himself was Gnostic. However, I believe that the whole era of the Early Christian Church were full of controversy, especially the way in which earlier ideas were integrated with Christian ideas, particularly those developed by Paul's tradition. But, it does seem that Augustine and Aquinas incorporated Plato and Aristotle.

But, it does seem that Augustine and Aquinas incorporated Plato and Aristotle — Jack Cummins

Correct. Greek philosophy was the most developed and respected philosophical system at the time and had been for centuries. Everybody was influenced by it, including Philo of Alexandria. That's why early iconographic representations of Jesus and St Paul show them dressed in a philosopher's robe and holding a book, exactly as Greek and Roman philosophers were. Even Buddha got a Greek philosopher's robe in Indian statues.

I am not sure about cosmic radiation, but I am inclined to the surrealist emphasis on dreams. The Buddhists spoke of our usual waking reality as being 'maya', or illusion. That may be more of a metaphorical truth, but it is an interesting approach.

The whole world of philosophy described in the Greek world, teachings of Jesus and Buddha is so different to that of our times, especially the holy book. I think that in these traditions there was some kind of emphasis on there being mysteries. There were attempts to answer them but probably in a less definitive way. I am not saying that we should wish to go back, because I am sure that we have many advantages, but I do think that, in our current time, it has become too much of an emphasis on theories, as opposed to wisdom.

I do think that, in our current time, it has become too much of an emphasis on theories, as opposed to wisdom. — Jack Cummins

How do you differentiate "having theories" from "having wisdom"? Describe your conception of each and why you believe the latter is "opposed" by "emphasis" on the former.

For me, "to have theories" means using the best explanations for how 'a state-of-affairs or phenomenon (A) transforms into another state-of-affairs or phenomenon' (B) whereas "to have wisdom" means (something like) (in general) understanding of and (in particular) self-mastery over unwise (foolish), or maladaptive, judgments, conduct & relationships. These seem to my mind complementary, not opposed – not mutually exclusive, no matter which is more emphasized.

I do not see an absolute distinction between theory or wisdom, and I think that your distinction between that your suggestion of wisdom as including mastery is useful for thinking of this. My suggestion about 'having theories' as not including wisdom is connected to the way in which such information does not really offer any underlying sense of values. It is not that I am wishing to say that philosophy should give a set of morals. In fact, I would say that even though Nietzsche opposed conventional morality, he offered a world view, even if some may not have liked it.

So, when I speak of a lack of wisdom, I am talking about some of the postmodern writers specifically and how it does not give any underlying source for inspiration. There is deconstruction and nothing arising in the collapse. Of course, we may turn to the arts, and I think that for many arts and literature have filled a void which has arisen within philosophy. In some ways, philosophy is becoming more like an offshoot of science, but I am not sure that is completely true because there are probably so many people who are developing ideas. However, there is so much information on the internet, but I am not sure that just finding the bare information is going to provide a basis for values and mastery. Perhaps, we need less rather than more, or it may be that we need to select carefully and pursue ideas more intimately. But, I think this is difficult in the information age.

I agree. Especially about the uninspiring – passively nihilistic – effect of p0m0 sophists (I choke on calling them "philosophers"). Since Schopenhauer & Nietzsche, let's say, there's been a significant undercurrent of substituting the arts, or cultivating aesthetic attentiveness, for 'lost religious / moral values or toppled political idols'. MoDo (modern) philosophy, it seems to me, has always been more or less modernist in this regard – grounded in aesthetic intensities of e.g. nature, theatre, poetry & music as critiques of mass commodification, industrial alienation, 24/7 infotainment & "hollywood", bourgeois myopism / solipsism ... which characterizes the technoscientistic age more and more since around 1800 CE.

Remember: Henri Bergson, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus & Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, were awarded Nobel Prizes for Literature and yet as far I can tell not a single p0m0 sophist who has been acknowledged this way as purveyor of 'aesthetic values'. I'm not convinced, Jack, that the majority of "educated" folks in your country or my own care one wit for wisdom, or even fine arts culture, and matriculating so many generations of good little Pavlovian consumers the best of the West academies, on both sides of the pond, have unfortunately of late adopted as their curricular motto (or mission statement): Clientem semper recta sunt, to which their tenured hacks conform quite effortlessly. Of course, with caveat emptor nowhere to be found in the syllabi or course catalogues (hardcopy or webpage). Satisfied swine, indeed. :mask:

It's sunrise here, Jack. Before my morning walk I'm going to have a listen so that I can grind through the rest this day without frothing at the mouth so much from all "the boredom and pain" ...


:fire:

I plan to read Bergson and many others. I have read some Russell. I am trying to find more time to catch up with my reading, so that I can talk through my ideas on the basis of knowledge. Coping with all the negatives: boredom, suffering etc is hard. I do find this site helpful. I struggle with stress more than boredom. I am trying to find a job and my mum is not very well. When I visit my mum she gets so cross when I am busy writing answers on this site on my phone. However, if life was too easy we probably would not end up searching for philosophies to make sense of it all.

See to your mum, get her well soon, mate. Btw, not that it's any of my business, but you ought to draft out a reading plan organized around topics or questions of deep concern and then stick to it. And CBT has a good record with stress management, so maybe that might work for you. Gotta take care of yourself too.

Some become mystics, and it is hard to know where to draw the line in interpretation, as we confront the ideas expressed in the various metaphors and models. — Jack Cummins

Interesting statement. Surely those who see everything as animated and those who are materialistic believing things are only matter, have very different consciousnesses. I would love to think as the "ice man" thought, closely tied to nature and very aware of his environment. I have been reading how the Greeks and Hebrews were aware of their physical being but at first, were not self-reflective and judgmental as we are today. It seems these people had not separated their minds from the bodies.

We know Christians had a war with each other. Those who thought Jesus was the son of God, killed those who thought Jesus was God and visa versa. The problem was largely the result of the Greek language having words that did have Roman equivalents. The concept of a trinity of God had no equivalent in the Roman language and had to be invented before the opposing sides could stop fighting.

Science is not possible until there is a vocabulary for classifying everything.

Today we live more in our heads than our bodies because we have so many words. Imagine having a very, very small vocabulary without words such as "concept", "psychology", "extraterrestrial". What if we had no word for "spirit" or "god" of "demons". Without words for the supernatural, there would be nothing to believe except the raw world and our own feelings.

Thanks, I have never been list orientated but I may need one for reading because I leap from book to book. I sometimes have too many books on the go at once. I have not had CBT, but do find reading the techniques helpful, because it does seem as if it is like philosophy technique on a practical and personal basis. Anyway, I will log off, as I was planning to try and stay off this site today, but as you can imagine seeing that someone had created a thread on Jung drew me in...

Your statement about, 'those who see everything as animated and those who are are believing that things are only matter, have very different consciousness' is profound, because it encompasses questions of consciousness, ranging from dualism and panpsychism. Perhaps, it would even be worth you starting your own thread, because this one may be on its last legs now, because newer ones are being created daily.

However, what I think is especially interesting in your statement is how the views are bound up with consciousness itself. I do believe that in many metaphysical discussions the actual role of consciousness, and its role in perception, is ignored in its distinct role, in the generation of our ideas about reality. It possibly goes more into the scope of phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Of course, all these fields overlap, in an extremely complex way.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that you should try to answer it, or create a thread, but I hope that I have at least drawn out your question for potential further consideration by you, or others, rather than letting it got lost and buried amongst the buried aspects and threads on the site.

Today we live more in our heads than our bodies because we have so many words. Imagine having a very, very small vocabulary without words such as "concept", "psychology", "extraterrestrial". What if we had no word for "spirit" or "god" of "demons". Without words for the supernatural, there would be nothing to believe except the raw world and our own feelings. — Athena

I agree. But as we can see from the way people can be emotionally manipulated and mobilized for political purposes such as in rallies and mass demonstrations, perhaps the "raw world and our own feelings" is still very much with us, only perhaps hidden under a veneer of "civilization" and "progress".

'Today we live in our heads rather than in our bodies because we have so many words' you said and I can recall having a supervisor when I was on a student placement who told me that I seemed to him as if I was living only in my head. He also told me that I was 'full of words'.

I was lying in bed last night thinking how I had answered 10 pages of replies on this thread and how if some new person on this thread began reading, they may feel let down, thinking that I had not really said much at all. Even though we have words and we string them together as the best we can, they do not necessarily form into answers to the mysteries. I think language goes a long time but we are still only left with models and metaphors.

Obviously, some develop fully fledged systems of thought but even these are open to being challenged by opposing ones. Perhaps, I think too much and should just contemplate more. The mystics come up with the best answers which they can and probably don't keep thinking and thinking. Could it be one possible problem inherent in philosophy, that it is possible to spend a whole life going round in circles, thinking?

If you have read my previous post to you, you may be wondering why I mentioned panpsychism, and I can explain that came from reading a book a couple of days ago, 'Ancient Wisdom' by Annie Besant, which suggested that all inanimate matter have some rudimentary consciousness. I am not sure if that is true, but it did get me wondering about it.

I am definitely wishing to explore more of the ideas of some of the more ancient thinkers because I do think that they were able to get in touch with truths on a more intuitive level than we who so caught up in rational thinking may be able to. I am not wishing to throw rationality aside but do think that Western philosophy has become too dominated by it. Jung spoke of the importance of integrating reason, feeling, sensation and intuition as means of knowing. I do believe that the way in which philosophers of this century and the last one have become so 'in their heads' may be why many people are looking outside philosophy more, to texts, such as 'The Tao de Ching'.

It may be that it is because Lao Tzu and the Greek philosophers were able to use words in a deeper way, rather than just providing rational arguments. In our own times, for many, the arts, especially literature, may offer deeper insights than possible within philosophy. Of course, I am not just wishing to dismiss philosophy, but just think that we need to widen our imagination rather than narrow it down too much.

I am interested to know in what way you think that the 'raw world and our feelings' are hidden amidst an emphasis on progress and civilisation. I am inclined to believe we are sometimes in a bit of a wasteland as a culture, with a lot of fragmentation of thinking behind the scenes, in the aftermath of postmodernism and scientific reductionism. Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else?

Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else? — Jack Cummins

There is a lot of anger and frustration in the current climate of the pandemic and its material and psychological impact. As shown in one of my other posts, there is some evidence that this is being exploited by political groups and even foreign powers.

More generally, the decline of religion has created a spiritual vacuum that many attempt to fill by turning to activism for all sorts of causes that only serves to polarize and fragmentize society, exacerbating the underlying problems that remain unaddressed.

So, yes, a return to "saner" times, or at least some form of refocusing and reorienting ourselves seems strongly advisable. And this is where the study of Platonic philosophy, for example, may be useful. Particularly helpful would be for philosophy to be presented in a concise, easily understandable form and balanced by some form of practical application. Practice and theory or, in Christian terms ora et labora, "prayer and work".

Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else? — Jack Cummins

To answer a question that wasn't addressed to me: yes absolutely. It seems to me that nihilism is the defining character of postmodern Western society. This existential meaninglessness is directly linked to the current dominance of science as an epistemological mode and the notion that science has undermined beliefs about reality, beliefs which (true or false) provided an ultimate meaning. A return to saner times would be the overcoming of nihilism.

This existential meaninglessness is directly linked to the current dominance of science as an epistemological mode and the notion that science has undermined beliefs about reality, beliefs which (true or false) provided an ultimate meaning. — emancipate

Correct. Science itself seems to have no definite "truth", just provisional theories that can be replaced with new ones any time.

Not only that, but scientific perspectives are often useless in the context of everyday life.

For example, in the scientific view the earth goes around the sun, but in everyday experience it is the sun that goes around the earth.

As another example, science has it that the human body consists of small particles of energy, or, in medical terms, of blood, bones, muscle and other tissues. But this is not how we look at ourselves and our fellow humans in daily life.

I could go on and on but this is why a less scientific, more "human" view of things is necessary in order to halt the accelerating trend toward dehumanizing society and culture.

Nihilism is not a pathological exacerbation of subjectivism, which annuls the world and reduces reality to a correlate of the absolute ego, but on the contrary, the unavoidable corollary of the realist conviction that there is a mind-independent reality, which, despite the presumptions of human narcissism, is indifferent to our existence and oblivious to the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ which we would drape over it in order to make it more hospitable. Nature is not our or anyone’s ‘home’, nor a particularly beneficent progenitor. Philosophers would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity. Thinking has interests which do not coincide with those of living; indeed, they can and have been pitted against the latter.

*

Nietzsche saw that ultimately the problem of nihilism is the problem of what to do with time: Why keep investing in the future when there is no longer any transcendental guarantor, a positive end of time as ultimate reconciliation or redemption, ensuring a pay-off for this investment? Nietzsche's solution - his attempted overcoming of nihilism - consists in affirming the senselessness of becoming as such - all becoming, without reservation or discrimination. — Ray Brassier

(Emphasis is mine.)

:death: :flower:

Fortunately Brassier doesn't get to decide what philosophy is/isn't allowed to do/be! He would strip it of everything that makes it worthwhile. Whether he likes it or not, philosophy has provided a means to explore the deeper questions of life, including the search for existential meaning, and it will continue to do so for "pathetic sops" like me and many others. Sops who haven't fallen into the illusion of viewing their existence as merely mechanical happenstance.

Satisfied swine rather than sad Socrates – I get it. Camus calls that stance "philosophical suicide." After all, the blue pill always goes down so easy. Or as Thomas Ligotti says:

Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd; discouraging truths disperse it.

:yawn:

socrates sad? He is known for his equinimity, his acceptance of death was stoical even. He also had beliefs that you would consider wooo-wooo (maybe he isn't the best choice to illustrate your point). Anyway, what I'm talking about is not opium of the masses. Meaning-making is an individual pursuit, ultimately.

"Meaning-making" isn't any more objectively meaningful than not "meaning-making", thus its arbitrary (merely subjective), or as you say "an individual pursuit". And my mention of Socrates is not about Socrates. :roll:

And my mention of Socrates is not about Socrates. :roll: — 180 Proof

That was just an alliterative flourish? 180 Proof painful poet.

Meaning-making" isn't any more objectively meaningful than not "meaning-making", thus its arbitrary (merely subjective), or as you say "an individual pursuit". — 180 Proof

Do you imagine that any other being on this Earth has made sense of the world, has formed a terrain of meaning, identical to the one which you are continually constructing? No one else has your particular historicity, associations, insights, experiences, etc. Your ultimate meaning is absolutely unique, in your terms "merely subjective", regardless of how much data you have drawn from the réservoir of objectivity. The final product (which may be comprised of subjective and objective parts) is a tapestry you alone have weaved, it is your final interpretation of existence which is subjective and unique. This is your meaning-making. Your personal blue pill.