Ah, yeah. That’s interesting.

I like the distinctions. But, intuitively, I’d put poetry, spirituality and religion under one banner - maybe under the term ‘the ineffable’. Of course, all categorizations bleed into each other a bit - politics and economics for example, but I think poetry and spirituality/ religion derive from the same impulses. Nice work!

Intuitively they do seem to go together. But I thought made an interesting comment about that.

["dex;431330"]Religion's genesis isn't much to do with poetry, but Art played a role in its expression. The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species. The faculty, which evolved into a genetic propensity, caused false inferences to be made when human events coincided with unexplainable phenomena, an obvious example being tribal rain dances.[/quote]

It’s trying to make sense of “the ineffable” and ends up contributing towards ideas of “the ineffable”

It seems to me that religion, the strongly held beliefs in God or Gods and their word has faltered or failed. Fewer people seem to take take part in religious practices. What they believe in I can’t be sure. But it’s influence has diminished I think. Then again it’s something one can practise internally.

We no longer have much of a connection with the unconscious mind, it’s the dark disturbing past, which is unmanageable.

Economics is removed from peoples’ control, it gives very few autotomy or sense of agency.

All that’s left is their original state; the political animal who acts. I think politics comes about through the sense of individuality people naturally experience. The irony is that Democracy, representing the wishes of the people, (who I regard as autonomous, political animals), takes their political nature, remodels and restructures it through professionals and institutions and then hands it back to them one vote at a time.

My feeling behind this OP is that politics is not about values. It’s originally a state of being, of viewing the world around one in terms of personal boundaries, what one has and doesn’t have, who has things and what they are, what’s happening around one and will they be affected by it and how to get what they want. — Brett

Some broader ideas on politics:

“ Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that "at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict",[27] while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of 'friend' from foe'.[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by the Irish author Michael Laver, who noted that "Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both." Wikipedia. — Brett

Your views seem to be in line. :up:

↪180 Proof

no arbitrary list of "pillars" is compelling
— 180 Proof

Why arbitrary and what would you add or delete? — Brett

"Arbitrary" in so far as any historically persistent features of human behavior can be substituted for any of the ones on offer in your OP. My initial post (p. 1) suggests 2 other quartets.

I wouldn't "add or delete" anything because I don't see a philosophical point of "pillars" - again, as I pointed out, it's pseudo-philosophical "essentializing" or "teleologizing".

I wouldn't "add or delete" anything because I don't see a philosophical point of "pillars" - — 180 Proof

Would you at least be prepared to admit that humans are political animals?

Well, all primates and most "pack" animals are "political" (i e. organized into "alpha" hierarchies), so I don't see where that human distinction gets us.

Well, all primates and most "pack" animals are "political" (i e. organized into "alpha" hierarchies), so I don't see where that human distinction gets us. — 180 Proof

:up:

Well I intend no distinction. So then I take it that you agree that humans are political animals. Would you agree they’re more political than spiritual?

most "pack" animals are "political" — 180 Proof

By the way I don’t think that’s true. Primates yes, but pack animals seems to be operating on instincts. I don’t see instincts being political.

Would you agree they’re more political than spiritual? — Brett

I don't know that there's a difference (Hegel).

I don’t see instincts being political. — Brett

Such as "instincts" to lead? or to dominate? or to reconcile? (Nietzsche)

When you can speak for yourself we’ll continue.

I’m interested in what anyone might have to add, change or clarify.

Poetry: the expression of human consciousness and the unconscious. Art is a product of this.

Politics: ideas of nationalism. Division. Ideas of opposition. Power, the rule of law and society are products of this.

Economics: value in things, profit and loss. Power and private property are the products of this.

Religion: metaphysics, belief, the unknown, the unsayable. The church, the priests and power are the products of this. — Brett

How is this claim philosophical? If we're asking what the four basic foundational pillars of humanity are, I'd suspect it'd be best addressed by an anthropologist with all sorts of references to the archaeological record and an analysis of various societies over time. I also find your definitions limiting and not really accurate. I see politics, for example, as existing as much in a family as a nation, and well before the concept of nationhood.

What religion is is variable as well. I'm not convinced ancient societies saw the gods as vague abstractions dealing with the unknown and unsayable. They were often human like entities doing battle with one another.

[ ... ] — Brett

How is this claim philosophical? — Hanover

:up:

I have. Don't bother.

Thanks for the reference re. the Sapiens book. It’s been very helpful in relation to what I’ve been thinking about. I’d discuss it further but it may not be “compelling” or “philosophy”. We mere monkeys must bow to the apes.

Nice. :grin:

Maybe post about it in the Currently reading thread?

I’m interested in what anyone might have to add, change or clarify.

Poetry: the expression of human consciousness and the unconscious. Art is a product of this. — Brett

Sounds good so far, if all of the arts are encompassed within this.

Politics: ideas of nationalism. Division. Ideas of opposition. Power, the rule of law and society are products of this.

Economics: value in things, profit and loss. Power and private property are the products of this.

I think these two things are inseparable and so belong as parts of the same pillar. You even say “power” is a part of both. These are the things to do with the value structure of society.

Religion: metaphysics, belief, the unknown, the unsayable. The church, the priests and power are the products of this.

Religion has two sides to it: the side that describes how the world supposedly is, and the side that makes moral prescriptions. The part that makes moral prescriptions belongs to the same pillar as economics and politics as part of the value-structuring part of society.

But the other part belongs more with the physical sciences as something that is all about describing reality, which is a missing pillar, opposite the pillar that most of the other pillars have now been rolled into.

Also missing, opposite “poetry” / the arts, is mathematics, which is a more structural and technical, less stylistic and expressive kind of language use.

So your four pillars then could be math, the arts, physical sciences and the descriptive parts of religion, and what we might call the “ethical sciences” (economics, political science, etc) and the prescriptive parts of religion.

But since all of your four pillars are value-related except maybe a part of religion, I think maybe what you’re aiming for might be more like the prescriptive analogue of “STEM”, which I prefer to re-order as “MSET”: math, (physical) science, engineering, and technology. The analogues of those, I would say, are the arts, the “ethical sciences”, entrepreneurship, and business (administration).

Looking back to that model with math, art, physical and ethical sciences, I’d say that engineering, technology, entrepreneurship, and business all fall within a fifth pillar: the trades. And opposite that, between math and art, is a sixth pillar of language itself, in a way prior to either math or art. And then right in the middle of it all, bringing everything together, is where I’d put philosophy.

And then right in the middle of it all, bringing everything together, is where I’d put philosophy. — Pfhorrest

I think that might be wishful thinking. It’s an interesting diagram and covers a lot, but I don’t really see people living this way with philosophy as the core of their behaviour. There are posters on this forum who feel that less than half the posts on this forum are doing philosophy. Is that really who we are?

My post as an attempt to find something that I could use to view the world today. My conclusion was that we’re political animals and most things, if not everything, about us springs from that. I’ve indicated previously what my idea of political is.

I was interested to see if other aspects of our nature confirmed that, like economics and religion. Banno introduced the idea of science, based, I presume, on the idea of developing stone tools. Whether it is or not is a difficult debate I think. Economics, to me, serves the political animal. Religion is the consequence of the political animal.

If we are foremost political animals then what does it suggest about what’s happening in the world today. If everything we do is done through the lens of that political animal then does that explain things a little more; the seemingly irrational behaviour, the division and aggression, the ideology behind things. Does it suggest that we only know of one way of doing things?

This is a bit of a move for me away from what I’ve thought so far. So far I’ve regarded humans as inherently moral animals but I’m beginning to think differently, as are my thoughts on relativism.