Authority and freedom

skyblack

Yesterday I had a good laugh when someone mentioned “degree/credentials”, as if wisdom is manufactured in batches and in colleges. While the truth of the matter is, it has been observed, ofetn people can be educated out of their intelligence, their common sense, and even of a sense of basic etiquette and basic social skills.

Now, how does the lover of wisdom accurately learn about himself and the world? Certainly not according to some analyst, some philosopher, some guru, some formula, some method. If we learn about ourselves according to an “expert” then we learn about that expert and what his/her thoughts are, not about ourselves. Besides, one simply has to look at the lives, the conduct, of these dime a dozen so called experts to get an accurate estimation of the value, or in most cases the lack thereof, of what they espouse. Their real lives indicate their clueless-ness.

One wonders why we submit to authority. Why are we always on the lookout for handouts? Whether the handouts are from the government, some holy book, the newest intellectual gimmick, the newest ideas so on and so forth. Interestingly, again, yesterday I saw a post which might explain this briefly. We submit to authority because all of us have this inward demand to be safe, this urge to be secure, to have an easy life. Desire for comfort and convenience trumps over sweat of the brow. It seems so long as we want to be secure in our possessions, in our power, in our thoughts, we must have authority. We will always be followers.

But to learn about oneself, all psychological authority must come to an end, whether it be the authority of the church or of the local priest, or the famous analyst, or of the greatest philosophers with their intellectual formulas, and so on.

It seems there is a need for a psychological revolution within the person if he/she is serious. A revolution of our own psyche wherein, all psychological authority is uprooted and thrown out. This is very difficult, for there is not only the outward authority, which one can easily reject, but there is inward authority: the inward authority of one's own experience, of one's own accumulated knowledge, of the opinions, ideas, beliefs, which goads one's life. It’s harder to be free of the latter.

These are in brief some of the issues that confront an inquirer inquiring into freedom.

praxis

:razz:

Nils Loc

What about the authority of the original post? Does a great sense of humility and openness underlay this inquiry into freedom with respect to the often clueless/useless experiences of others.

Or can we reject it all, wholesale, because we ought to reject all authority. Upon what authority?

Is there no contradiction rejecting all sources of authority, whether inward and outer? What guides us then?

praxis

So shun all outer & inner authority and live by the bear necessities of life. Oh no, I feel a song coming on...

Mystic

@skyblack I agree with a lot of what you say.
Many folks will never give up appeals to authority and the worship of experts and fear.
But there are people who are intrinsically free,who accept no unwarranted authorities. These people should recognise their natural inclination toward truth and independence. I think if you overemphasise "psychological revolution" you end up with skepticism,and that's not a natural position.

skyblack

I agree with a lot of what you say.
Many folks will never give up appeals to authority and the worship of experts and fear.
But there are people who are intrinsically free,who accept no unwarranted authorities. These people should recognise their natural inclination toward truth and independence. I think if you overemphasise "psychological revolution" you end up with skepticism,and that's not a natural position. — Mystic

Good points. Let's look at couple of things. Both acceptance and "giving up" are usually done from the lens of authority (whether external or internal). There is action and then there is re-action. The OP isn't suggesting either. The OP is simply examining the nature of authority, it's effects on the human and his mind.

Regarding skepticism: you may be right, but, we want skepticism for the dull and the neurotic (perhaps even for all), because it seems through skepticism one arrives at irrevocable certitude.

Mystic

@skyblack Do you believe in intuitive or non discursive truth? Rather than authority let's say certainty. Do you believe in certainty?
I say yes to both,there is certainty in experience. Intuition being experience. Its the discursive/intrusive thoughts which are the problem. A problem that is reduced or eliminated by meditation or consistent Focusing.

skyblack

Do you believe in intuitive or non discursive truth? Rather than authority let's say certainty. Do you believe in certainty?
I say yes to both,there is certainty in experience. Intuition being experience. Its the discursive/intrusive thoughts which are the problem. A problem that is reduced or eliminated by meditation or consistent Focusing. — Mystic

That is a complex question. Many threads in one. One cannot comment on any "truth" without having first cleared up what we are talking about.

Second, certitude, or for that matter anyhing that falls under the label of 'truth' cannot be a matter of "belief. (a word you have used)

Third, in my previous threads i have briefly looked at "experience" (a word you have used). Perhaps taking a look at them will clarify OP's take on experience. Experience is the known, the past. It's an accumulative process and always limited. It's one of the psychological lens's.

skyblack

Here is something i had wrote on certitude:

Somewhere along the way,

if one is ever blessed with certitude,

that blessing is understood as being incomplete.

For that certitude to flower into completeness,

even though there is no guarantee it ever will,

it has to be put to test in it's very antithesis.

One puts aside the complete-incomplete certitude,

and takes up an equal, if not more,

dose of complete-incomplete skepticism.

If the previous certitude does not pass the test,

then it is known as being a delusion.

If it does pass,

then one is left with absolute * certitude,

that has no opposites.

Naturally and easily.

* not relative

Mystic

@skyblack Truth and certitude can be regarded loosely as similar.
I'm using the word belief in a non technical way. Substitute know if needed.Can truth be known,can certitude be known.
Experience is also the present and the future.

Mystic

@skyblack Dialectics miss the immediate intuitive certainties of life. Dialectics are a sign of uncertainty and wanting to conceptualise/control life's flow.

skyblack

Experience is also the present and the future. — Mystic

It's one movement. The past meeting the present and becoming the future. But it always is and always will be the past, unless there is a mutation in psychological time.....but that's a different subject.

Mystic

@skyblack Always the past? Mutation in psychological time? Could you clarify these two a little?

skyblack

Always the past? Mutation in psychological time? Could you clarify these two a little? — Mystic

I will again refer to OP's previous threads on his take on the "past". But briefly, aren't we a living past? What we are now is what we were before. Maybe slightly modified, slightly disguised but if one looks deeper the offshoots are from the past. Our entire base of knowledge, experiences included, is the past. The lens from which we look at the world, people, things, ideas etc. is made of the past, so on and so forth. I am sure you see this, this is so simple to observe. Our language is the past. Our thoughts are the past....i mean everything is the past.

As to mutation, i would like to reserve that for another time if you don't mind.

skyblack

But to quickly clear something, in order to understand the mutation of psychological time one has to understand first what psychological time is. It's nature and it's movement.

Mystic

@skyblack You could change the word past to Soul and I think this would be clearer and less abstract.
Other than psychological time,the other time is mechanical time. But time is only perceived by living beings,so in a sense its all psychological,no?

skyblack

You could change the word past to Soul and I think this would be clearer and less abstract.
Other than psychological time,the other time is mechanical time. But time is only perceived by living beings,so in a sense its all psychological,no? — Mystic

On the contrary, the word soul has abstract meanings, which mean different things to different people. However most of us know what the past means. It is actual and factual.

As to psychological time, yes. But one has to be very clear on how time moves. How the human mind moves in time. Like i said, i would rather not go into this. Thanks.

Mystic

@skyblack The word Soul carries a lot of baggage.
Personality then. Everybody should know what that is.
Past is known as a term but in this context is still too impersonal.

skyblack

The word Soul carries a lot of baggage.
Personality then. Everybody should know what that is.
Past is known as a term but in this context is still too impersonal. — Mystic

Well, i don't see a reason why we should substitute the word past to something else like soul and personality, when that word accurately represents what we are talking about, that is time.

Mystic

@skyblack But we are talking about psychological time,so it should be personalised. We are time,are we not?
Better still,time is us.

skyblack

But we are talking about psychological time,so it should be personalised. We are time,are we not?
Better still,time is us. — Mystic

Yes we "are" time, that's why OP said we are the past. The "person" is the past.

Mystic

@skyblack I get you. But still much prefer person to past.
It's more...personal!

Authority and freedom

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions