I think you're neglecting an important distinction. I understand secular culture to be a (sort of) neutral background for working out one's own salvation. But you probably mean the global humanism common among atheist/agnostic intellectuals. If so, I can see that there's something shallow in all of it. It is basically a vision of a united world of healthy, amused monkeys who are satisfied with that. I'll be impressed if we can get that far. — syntax
For me, that itself is the narrative. It's one I relate to. Every nice little autobiographical tale feels wrong or false. I see that that is implied in your original impressionistic portrait, but only in retrospect. The abstract statement of your situation is far more revealing for me. — syntax
However, over time the meaning of ‘secular philosophy’ changed, in that it is often taken to mean or imply that it’s a philosophy that is consciously non- or even anti-religious. That stance is obviously writ large in the writings of so-called ‘secular humanism’ although that spans a wide spectrum of views; but there is a strongly anti-religious strain of that kind of thinking [e.g. everything published by Prometheus Press]. But one consequence of this is, again, anthropological, in the sense that it has implications for ‘the human condition’ or what it means to be human. — Wayfarer
I find, on this forum, almost everyone will fiercely defend the view that humans are essentially animal.. — Wayfarer
So the upshot is that what often is said in the name of secular humanism IS philosophically barren. But it’s also true that it doesn’t have to be. Actually it’s got nothing to do with ‘secularism’ as such - what it comes from is taking methodological naturalism as a metaphysical principle, which it isn’t. That’s the problem in a nutshell. — Wayfarer
I will reply more at length, but while the thought is with me - have you ever run across Horkheimer’s book The Eclipse of Reason? It’s about the only ‘Frankfurt school’ text I’m familar familiar with and says a lot about this theme. — Wayfarer
Yes, exactly. From my perspective, this vision of yourself of lacking a meta-narrative is indeed the kind of thing that I mean by meta-narrative. For me it's an abstract identity. Obviously I understand that my perspective is not binding for you. We can drop it, if you like. I intend no offense. — syntax
I think anti-religious feeling largely comes from a sense that returning to old-style religion would be a regression. It is a 'religious' or 'theological' rejection. Since traditional religion is often publicly allied with conservative politics and a repression of intellectual freedom, this suspicion is not absurd. — syntax
I find, on this forum, almost everyone will fiercely defend the view that humans are essentially animal..
— Wayfarer
Is it really that simple? I do see an stronger emphasis then before on the animal foundation. But the simple fact that we worry about being virtuous and good in abstract terms already suggests that we hold ourselves to different standards than the other animals. — syntax
It has struck me that what Sloterdijk is talking about in the text that's been quoted is not too different from what I'm saying, is it?
— T Clark
Right. You and I and he all seem to understand the value of a kind of 'nobodiness.' — syntax
The mania for "identity" seems to be the deepest of the unconscious programmings,
so deeply buried that it evades even attentive reflection for a long time. A formal somebody, as bearer of our social identifications, is, so to speak, programmed into us.
Well, a major part of my meta-narrative is 'institutional religion getting it wrong from the outset'. — Wayfarer
When I studied comparative religion and history of ideas, I was struck by the fact that there seemed to be no obvious equivalent to the Indian understanding of mokṣa (spiritual liberation) in the Western religious traditions. — Wayfarer
What has been lost in the transition to modernity, is the sense of the basic fallibility of human reason, corrupted as it is by the 'original sin'. — Wayfarer
It's one thing to conceptualize this nobodiness, it's quite another to embody or realize it. Nobodiness can easily be written into the fabric of our personal narrative. — praxis
The 'problem' is that this 'nobodiness' easily becomes another sophisticated ego-narrative. Has this or that person achieved a sense of personality being an illusion? Something like the 'noble savage' seems to reappear. — syntax
[Rorty] paints of vision of clinging to nothing, of no longer reaching for foundations, of a centerless creative culture where love is pretty much the only law. — syntax
I generally agree, but I don't know about technology 'cutting through all the noise'. (Although, that said, I'm writing this on a brand spanking new PowerBook, and by gosh I like it. :smile: ) — Wayfarer
An artwork may or may not say anything of importance. A Thomas Kinkade painting may appeal to norms of beauty and generally be perceived as pretty but it may not really show much. The subject matter of a Kinkade painting, the little cottage in the woods or whatever, may have special meaning for the artist, and he may therefore feel that the subject matter says volumes about him. He is privy to a narrative that the audience lacks.
— praxis
I don't buy that, but thanks for giving me a chance to bring out one of my favorite quotes from Emerson. I seem to use it in some post every week or so
— T Clark
"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,—— and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment."
— Emerson — T Clark
Shame on you for intellectual dishonesty. — praxis
I have to trust that the connections I see will be understandable to others whether they are rational or intuitive. — T Clark
I've envisioned your list as a field of dots on a canvas (cuz you've framed it as art). I can connect the dots with lines and make a shape. Will the connection you see form the same shape? No. Do the connection you see comprise a form of something that I've sensed but haven't cognized yet? No. Is it possible that I might have this sense in the future? No. I don't believe the Emerson essay applies to personal meaning. — praxis
There is nothing unconventional about showing your favorite food or whatever. Social media is replete with stuff like this. There's nothing the least bit against the grain about it. I can hear the hooves as they march down the well trodden path in perfect sonance. — praxis
Applying the Emerson quote, you’re essentially claiming that your list expresses self-reliance. How does it do this? — praxis
We often don't have a lot of time to get to know people: to ask them open-ended questions and listen. We just want the whole thing summed up quickly and easily so we can understand and move on.
Isn't it true that a sort of pre-made identities are out there and there's reason to grab one and wear it just because not having a proper tag makes it harder for people to process you? — frank
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.