Whoa. You can't be serious. This reduces the importance of agency in our lives and assumes some fatalistic psychological stance, much like the one Freud and other psychologists covered, which leads to an overwhelming sense of futility and pessimism in one's life. — Posty McPostface

Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed.

Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic.

Nietzsche professed a philosophy that entices and encourages the rise of delusions, with his appeal to psychological needs as the only motivating force in a man's life. — Posty McPostface

I agree entirely here and I think that what Nietzsche was calling for in respect of a 'Philosophy of the Future', is a philosophy that is based upon an absolute understanding of what mans psychological needs actually are.

These 'I' maintain are all derivatives from the instinctual imperative towards belonging. Belonging does not arise out of Nietzsche's 'will to power' rather the will to power is a derivative of the need to belong. How much different the world might be if the Nazi's have been moved by the inclusive dictates of belonging rather than the derivative 'will to power or supremacy'

This 'fact' has yet to be successfully established, because Philosophers are busied (for the most part) with self-preservational delusions vis the disproving of induction, or the disproving of determinism etc. The desperate and pathetic attempts to cling to the "I".



M

Therefore it would seem that the problem of psychology is (upon a fundamental level) ultimately a problem of instinctual imperative. Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives.

Drives are inherent in us, they are part of the Id, headless as such. They are different than desire, but become mixed up with desire typically reinforcing them, giving them direction.

“In biological functions the two basic instincts operate against each other or combine with each other. Thus, the act of eating is a destruction of the object with the final aim of incorporating it, and the sexual act is an act of aggression with the purpose of the most intimate union. This concurrent and mutually opposing action of the two basic instincts gives rise to the whole variegation of the phenomena of life”

Freud

I accept what you have written. What is the point you are making?

Apologies sometimes I'm a bit slow on meanings.

M

Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? — Marcus de Brun

I don't know. If you want to appeal to emotions arising from emotions themselves, then you're going to get stuck in a loop.

This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. — Marcus de Brun

On the whole of it, people are generally good. It's the strange philosophers that paint with a very broad brush that are to be suspect.

The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, Socrates died from the hands of the 'herd'. What about it?

Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic. — Marcus de Brun

How are you so sure of all this?

I don't quite understand why you said "Freud approached this issue but encountered a problem in respect of suicidal or self destructive drives." He seems to have set up a vital relationship between them.

I don't know. If you want to appeal to emotions arising from emotions themselves, then you're going to get stuck in a loop. — Posty McPostface

I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free.

On the whole of it, people are generally good. It's the strange philosophers that paint with a very broad brush that are to be suspect. — Posty McPostface

We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad.

Yes, Socrates died from the hands of the 'herd'. What about it? — Posty McPostface

Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same.

How are you so sure of all this? — Posty McPostface

Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics.

M

so are the only answers to being "condemned to freedom" a selection of false faiths ? Is it a false faith that we have the ability or tools to arrive at any truth of real value ? Are we in effect only left with some belief in some god based on faith - or an acceptance of the absurd ?

should the post really be Camus' question that the only real philosophic question is why don't we all just kill ourselves ?

Because Freudian 'todestrieb' is ridiculous and is the point at which Psychoanalysis begins to fail. There is no death-drive. Human beings do not subconsciously wish to die.

Freud created death drive to reconcile instinctual imperatives that he failed to prioritize correctly. He borrowed this concept from a contemporaneous research paper published in 1912. It (death drive) is one of the few examples where the father of modern or practical thought-analysis, was wrong.

It is easily dispensed with by deductive reasoning alone without even resorting to the empirical.What is important instead, is the priority of instinctual imperative, and if this is understood correctly the need for todestrieb is then negated.

M

I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free. — Marcus de Brun

I understand that; but, I don't agree with the Hume'ian sentiment being professed here, if that is the case of reason being the handmaiden to the emotions.

We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad. — Marcus de Brun

Yes, I agree. Intentions are always a mystery if one assumes that psychology is the sole motivating factor for morality/ethics.

Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same. — Marcus de Brun

Yet, progress is possible and has been made. We're at the most peaceful time in human history... Think about that.

Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics. — Marcus de Brun

This is too much for me to address adequately. So, I'll just pass.

Because Freudian 'todestrieb' is ridiculous and is the point at which Psychoanalysis begins to fail. There is no death-drive. Human beings do not subconsciously wish to die. — Marcus de Brun

You are taking Camus' point a little too literal - Sure you know - it is about the why, the purpose. Why push the rock up the hill one more time , if there is no purpose. And as I am sure you know he included all kinds of philosophic suicides as well.

So is yours, mine - and others search for some real truth, as much a form of philosophic suicide as a belief in a supernatural purpose. Should we accept the absurdity that we feel some need for purpose, and don't have the tools to find it? Put a smile on our face - find the things that provide us personal meaning and enjoyment - maximize them - and push the rock back up the hill.

I am trying to find a way to make the concept of absurdity and the concept of a supernatural reason somehow co-exist. I am not sure they are mutually exclusive. But it is a very incomplete thought.

Rank A

That is a lovely phrase "condemned to freedom".

Is it a false faith that we have the ability or tools to arrive at any truth of real value ? — Rank Amateur

.

No I don't see how this can be the case. To deduce that if determinism is true and we are unfree, does not fully imply that thought is not free in other ways. The relation between thought and the execution of the material function that is our life, is not as fixed and rigid as determined doomsayers like to insist.

I may cut the lawn and think upon Socrates at the same time.

Whilst all the atoms in the Universe were compelled to cut my lawn, from the very dawn of time, my thought or meta-thought (thought of something whilst effectively doing/thinking something else) cannot be as easily aligned with the materially determined nature of my cutting the lawn.

To have regret is to impose a moral judgement upon ones determined behavior yet having regret does not necessarily mean that the material (determined) behavior will or can be avoided in the 'future'. We may not have the freedom to avoid behaving stupidly, but we may have the freedom to become wise.

Indeed wise people behave very stupidly at times.

M

That is a lovely phrase "condemned to freedom". — Marcus de Brun

Sartre - assumed you knew - no stolen glory here

No I don't see how this can be the case. To deduce that if determinism is true and we are unfree, does not fully imply that thought is not free in other ways. The relation between thought and the execution of the material function that is our life, is not as fixed and rigid as determined doomsayers like to insist. — Marcus de Brun

My point is not determinism - quite the opposite actually - it is existential - i think we have complete freedom - and that is enormously scary - so we are in general happy to find some "false faith" to relinquish our freedom to. From something as simple as " I have to do this job because it is all I can do" to the much more esoteric.

But this existentialism runs into the problem of OK, so I exist, and I get to freely establish the entire essence of my existance - but why ?? What is the purpose ??

And that is the "false faith in your post I was referring to - Is your stated purpose " to find truth" really a "false faith" if the absurdist is correct and we lack the tools to find any meaningful truth.

Don't read any value judgement into "false faith" by the way in the way I use it. To me it is just anything other than an acceptance of the absurd. Which I don't buy.

I understand that; but, I don't agree with the Hume'ian sentiment being professed here, if that is the case of reason being the handmaiden to the emotions. — Posty McPostface

This is interesting. There are two views from separate perspectives.

1) On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason.

2) Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts. What allows a philosophy to endure is the fact that it might survive when its emotive content has faded.

The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis had their phrenologists and anthropologists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm.

Determinism is equally assailed by reasoned-reasons and these are appealing and become the paradigm because they satisfy emotional attachment to things like "I" and 'free-will'. This is as I have said previously the 'Century of the self'.

Yet, progress is possible and has been made. We're at the most peaceful time in human history... Think about that. — Posty McPostface

Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption.


It is impossible not to despair, unless one removes ones gaze from ones fellow, and looks; to enduring thought, to the stars, to the sea, or to the smiling faces of children, and creatures not human. Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry.

M

On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason. — Marcus de Brun

Not really. People aren't only reflexive in nature. We can reason our way out of problems and dilemmas.

Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts.

The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis have their phrenologists and anthropoligists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm. — Marcus de Brun

Your drawing a false equivocation between the faculty that reason is and on the other hand, rationalization, I think.

Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption. — Marcus de Brun

We will survive. That's just our instinctual imperative.

Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry. — Marcus de Brun

Dark.

nd that is the "false faith in your post I was referring to - Is your stated purpose " to find truth" really a "false faith" if the absurdist is correct and we lack the tools to find any meaningful truth. — Rank Amateur

It may be ultimately a false faith. However within the context of my existence as a functional expression of thought, I am driven by a deep desire to reconcile that thought via my processing of it. I think that through me 'thought' seeks to reconcile itself with itself.

Me: the 'I' thing, might well be the sole example within the entire universe where this thing called 'thought' has 'the' or 'an' opportunity to consider itself before it dies (if indeed it is destined to die).

Without question 'thought' is the most amazing 'thing' within the Universe. I am part of it and the Universe may well be part of it, and strangely I appear to have some control over it, as it manifests itself through me. This is truly the miracle of me.

The falsity or truth of my wanting to find truth is of no real concern to me. What is of concern is the truth or falsity of my thought. If I can manage to reconcile my thought, to bring it into harmony with itself then I feel I have completed my 'purpose' I will have given my life meaning beyond the material within the eternity of existential thought.

M

perfect - and i agree with you. And always have disagreed with the absurdists - freely finding our own "false faiths" is to me anyway - superior to acceptance.