Erik — Erik
Gerald47 — Gerald47
— Gerald47
3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways. — Gerald47
...Our societies tell us that everyone is free to make it if they have the talent and energy. — Gerald47
any perceived lack of success is taken to be not, as in the past, an accident or misfortune, but a sure sign of a lack of talent or laziness. — Gerald47
It is funny how these views become established as "the way society is". Perhaps it stems from the circles we are used to running in. I know a lot of people that are at, or just above, poverty level that would completely agree with that statement - how are they magically excluded from the "society" that states otherwise? When "society" is mentioned in this context, it is usually the case that the elements of "society" making the statement then simply attribute that view to the rest as a truth about the whole.The cure is a strong, culturally endorsed belief in two big ideas: luck, which says success doesn’t just depend on talent and effort; and tragedy, which says good, decent people can fail and deserve compassion, rather than contempt. — Gerald47
Telling that the choice of words here are "cult" and "proper appreciation". The cult tells us what the proper appreciation is. Without a proper appreciation by the individual, the cult retaliates. Using the word cult is a good choice in that it is the perfect analogy for the group mentality come-unhinged, and where it is only within the power of the individual to break themselves (and maybe then others) from the destructive power of the group. Perhaps the antidote to this would to simply not adhere to either pure individualism or communism, and to stay away from all ideological extremes by recognizing and addressing them for what they are - limited and simplistic.The cure is a cult of the good ordinary life – and proper appreciation of the pleasures and quiet heroism of the everyday. — Gerald47
One of the most tired, worn out, and in-itself meaningless phrases ever uttered. Also, I would say statistically, usually uttered by those who, in their appeal to imaginary consequences, state that the effects of the absence of religious belief structures mean that any belief not religious in its nature or essence is suddenly "empty of meaning", self absorbed, or leads us to the path of fatalism, nihilism, and whole host of other "isms" thought up through history. If one finds meaning in religion and another doesn't, how weird is it that suddenly the non-religious ways of being are small, shallow, and uninspiring?Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. — Gerald47
What history of human beings have you been reading? Were there not a long list of human societies shaped, sometimes solely, by "status battles" and "petty ways" engaged in with, and using, religion as the engines of those conflicts? And if not the engine, then they were definitely the gas poured into the existing conflagration.Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. — Gerald47
Like "God having a special purpose for you"? The creater of the entire universe is personally engaged with you as an individual and whose very simple actions can consign one to heaven or hell. Doesn't that, by design, make our triumphs and mishaps, the end all be all - for the reward or punishment promised for each?But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. — Gerald47
Is it the indivual that gets to decide which source of transcendence will be used? Or the cult? Does "society" need to be reminded of this? Or doesn't the bulk of individuals have their own, or even parochially shared, sources in use or development? From the post about secularism being higher on the list - what point to the sky is there unless it isn't hung by a deity to give us, personally, something to look at?A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways. — Gerald47
Did it? I am not an expert on Romanticism as a period in philosophy, but I am hard pressed to come up with any actual philosopher of the time that told us that we have a "soul mate" that makes us unquestioningly happy. I think it did seem to have the theme, roughly, and correct me if I am wrong, that the passion of the individual should not be muted, that it is a source of inspiration and action, and that one should not settle for that which does not enflame our passions and robs us of our awe in life and to make sure that we understand how we emply that passion. I believe it was the newspaper romance advice columns starting in the 60's that introduced the idea of not "settling" for less than interesting prospective romantic partners. Maybe we should be railing against romance advice columns instead, leading us to "media".The philosophy of Romanticism tells us that each of us has one very special person out there who can make us completely happy. — Gerald47
Can that be proven as a fact? If it were true, how is the issue presented in "individualism" affected by "media"?The media has immense prestige and a huge place in our lives – but routinely directs our attention to things that scare, worry, panic and enrage us, while denying us agency or any chance for effective personal action. — Gerald47
One of the goals of journalism, I thought, was to cover the news. The goal of media is to entertain. Here we have a mixing between concepts of "journalism" and "media". Perhaps, instead of forcing the environment of the news or media to comform to some Platonic ideal, the cure would be focus in the individuals capability to tell the difference between "news" and "media" and how it can all interacts.The cure would be news that concentrated on presenting solutions rather than generating outrage, that was alive to systemic problems rather than gleefully emphasizing scapegoats and emblematic monsters – and that would regularly remind us that the news we most need to focus on comes from our own lives and direct experiences. — Gerald47
Do "we"? Even if "we" do, maybe it isn't society, maybe that is individual psychology doing that. Also, which "modern societies" do this? The U.S., UK, China, Russia, Syria, and/or Argentinian "modern societies"? Straight society or LGBQT? Wealthy elite modern society or middle class modern society? There are so many modern societies to choose from. "Society" is become a cognitive construction that abstracts the web of people and their interactions into one simplistic narrative - like taking the many and reducing to one individual construct that we then label with the term "society". We look at a million people - then based off of one perception all million get reduced to "a society", which has traits like an individual.Modern societies stress that it is within our remit to be profoundly content, sane and accomplished. As a result, we end up loathing ourselves, feeling weak and sensing we’ve wasted our lives. — Gerald47
Didn't you ever watch Friends? (just dated myself...) Also, my current mental illness is writing really long Internet forum posts...please embrace me.A cure would be a culture that endlessly promotes the idea that perfection is not within our grasp – that being mentally slightly (and at points very) unwell is an inescapable part of the human condition and that what we need above all are good friends with whom we can sit and honestly discuss our real fears and vulnerabilities. — Gerald47
When can't that be said by any living human being in any time in our history? Making the "modern day-ism" scapegoat is simply elevating our own current troubles over and above the troubles of all others at all other times. I am sure if there was an Internet forum for philosophy during the Mesolithic, it would be filled with the same "sources of mental illness" found in the OP, but listing the negative psychological effects of things like the near constant threat of injury and sickness, predators, famine, status, and conflict (sounds familiar...)We deserve tender pity for the price we have to pay for being born in modern times. — Gerald47
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.