If this is what leaps to mind as a kind of “default” interpretation of human being, I think it’s just a mistake. — Xtrix

Might have just something to do with seeing humanity solely through the lens of biological evolution - which, of course, all sensible folk must do nowadays.

I've been reading from a master's dissertation on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion - Schopenhauer's Philosophy of Religion and his Critique of German Idealism by Nicholas Linares. He writes:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

In my view a lot of current philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world, denies 'man's need for metaphysics' - has lost sight of what that need is or why it exists. The rationale, as this passage says, is existential, not scientific. Boethius said man is the one creature blessed and cursed with self-awareness, and so with the foreknowledge of her death. No other creature carries this burden. Were it not for philosophy, he said, we would be the most miserable of animals. That is the sentiment Schopenhauer is echoing. It is curious that Schopenhauer is generally cited as a convinced atheist, yet in this respect he differs profoundly from what contempoary atheism often states.

What bearing does science have on this? Well, it's ameliorative - medical science obviously ameliorates physical suffering and pain, no question about that. But does it address the existential plight? I think not. As noted above, it basically says, hey, you're just another species, deal with it.

See also Thomas Nagel's Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament.

That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about our interested in something. I have a world, not an environment. — Xtrix

This is part of how we interact with the rest of the world, or universe (which for me is the environment in which we exist). It's part of how we live, which is to say survive. We have certain characteristics which come into play when we interact with the world and each other. Certain of those characteristics distinguish us from other living organisms, and thus we interact with the rest of the world differently than they do in many cases. Those characteristics may be physical. But not entirely physical--we desire certain things, need certain things, fear certain things, try to resolve problems or alter situations we encounter or discover to our benefit. But nonetheless we're living organisms and our lives are our interactions with the rest of the world we inhabit.

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

This is interesting and I see little to disagree with.

It is curious that Schopenhauer is generally cited as a convinced atheist, yet in this respect he differs profoundly from what contempoary atheism often states. — Wayfarer

Yes, because modern atheism has replaced Christina dogma with scientism, rationalism, etc. I still say that's an improvement in some respects, while a disaster in others. Nietzsche has interesting things to say about this as well, of course.

Might have just something to do with seeing humanity solely through the lens of biological evolution - which, of course, all sensible folk must do nowadays. — Wayfarer

I deeply respect science, and think it's currently the best we have if we want to understand various aspects of the world, from atoms to planets to living things to politics. But when it gets held too closely, it gets calcified into another dogma. There's a balancing act that needs to happen, and it's not easy.

the issue is that science is concerned as a matter of principle, with what is measurable. Interpreting science and scientific discoveries and powers is a different matter. So, for example, in respect of evolutionary biology, I think the scientifically-established facts are indisputable, but the facts of evolution do not add up to a philosophy of life.

Certain of those characteristics distinguish us from other living organisms, and thus we interact with the rest of the world differently than they do in many cases. — Ciceronianus

We're distinguished in that we're the only entities with a world. Animals don't have worlds, they have environments.

You're operating from a naturalistic/biological interpretation of being. It shows up in the various words and categories you employ in discussing this. Nothing "wrong" about it, necessarily, but it's not the whole picture. It tends to forget the human being doing the interpreting, and giving the answer "we are living organisms trying to survive." That very answer has a history, has developed over time, and is an outgrowth of natural philosophy. "Nature" and "physics" (you mentioned "physical") are words worth looking at closely -- their meanings have changed with time. What's "material" and "physical," for example, is very difficult to pin down indeed and rests on many assumptions.

So it may seem relatively obvious to you, as it once did to me as well, but it's always worth taking another look at.

We're distinguished in that we're the only entities with a world. Animals don't have worlds, they have environments. — Xtrix

I'm uncertain what this means. They're as much a part of the world as we are. We're peculiar animals, certainly, but animals nonetheless.

It's a naturalistic view, as you say, though I have a rather broad view of nature, as I include in it all we think and feel as well as what we do. I think we have much yet to learn about nature (the universe) and it may include more than what it appears to include to us now. Until we learn what that "more" is, though, we speculate and are inclined to wishful thinking.

I'm uncertain what this means. They're as much a part of the world as we are. — Ciceronianus

If we define "world" as "physical universe" or "environment," yes. I don't think it's close to that.

They have no worlds. They're part of our world, yes.

We're peculiar animals, certainly, but animals nonetheless. — Ciceronianus

We're also a bunch of atoms nonetheless. We're also the "rational animal." We're also "creatures of God." We're also "minds" and "selves." To pick one of these and say "Here is the REAL truth" is just nonsense. It's an interpretation. That doesn't make it untrue -- it just means it's not the only truth.

It's a naturalistic view, as you say, though I have a rather broad view of nature, as I include in it all we think and feel as well as what we do. I think we have much yet to learn about nature (the universe) and it may include more than what it appears to include to us now. — Ciceronianus

And what is "nature," then? If we include all phenomena -- all beings whatsoever, including feelings and thinking and processes and forces, matter and energy and justice and mineral baths -- then what exactly distinguishes "nature" from "God's creation"?

... 'man's need for metaphysics' ... — Wayfarer

:roll: A cognitive defect, or bias, for 'philosophical suicide'. (Zapffe, Camus, Rosset, Brassier). Preferring to be a 'satisfied swine' rather than a sad socratic. To wit:

The meaninglessness of suffering, not suffering itself, was the curse that lay over mankind so far — and the ascetic ideal offered man meaning! It was the only meaning offered so far; any meaning is better than none at all ... this fear of happiness and beauty, this longing to get away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, wishing, from longing itself — all this means — let us dare to grasp it — a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life; but it is and remains a will! And, to repeat in conclusion what I said at the beginning: man would rather will nothingness than not will. — On the Genealogy of Morals, 3rd Essay, 28.

(Emphasis added.)

:death: :flower:

Every time I hear Nietzsche I’m reminded of his brilliance. Thanks for the reminder — that’s a good one.

Never a Nietsche admirer. Ironic that he's a sacred cow in secular culture. There's something he could never see, but there's zero use debating it.

Never a Nietsche admirer. — Wayfarer

No longer a fan. I gave up on him a while back.

I don't get why Nietszche is quoted as 'the last word' on anything in these subjects. I studied comparative religion at Honors level, as well as anthropology of religion, and the evidence of discoveries of the expanded 'horizons of being' in those domains is voluminous, from across many different cultures and traditions. This often (though not always) has nothing to do with religious dogmatism or upholding a specific doctrinal creed. And I don't see any reason to believe that Nietszche had an insight or training into what ascetic practises are supposed to open up and why anyone would pursue them. I do know that his apparently approving writings about Buddhism (which was barely known in the Europe of his day) was completely misguided, taking Buddhism as the 'sigh of an exhausted civlisation'. (There's a book about it, The Cult of Nothingness, Roger Pol-Droit.)

To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing; it would be like an alien visitor from a planet where there's no sound arriving on earth and witnessing an orchestra. What are all those people doing? What are those things they're holding?. And how would you explain that to this visitor. 'Well, there's this thing called 'hearing'....'

So, meh. Philosophy from the outset had one side facing towards the numinous, another towards the practical. The former has been practically extirpated in today's culture.

:lol:

:up:

It isn't conceit that creates "haunted heavens." If Heaven is whimsical, it's only because we don't have a way to quantify the meaning of humanity. We haven't quantified the personal identity, nor can we. Vacant tombs...placing living man at the forefront of everything and human endeavor on a pedestal...now that's conceit. The pot doth call the kettle black, methinks.

And I don't see any reason to believe that Nietszche had an insight or training into what ascetic practises are supposed to open up and why anyone would pursue them. — Wayfarer

Because you ‘follow’ and ‘see’ nothing.

“Genuine - this is what I call him who goes into godforsaken deserts and has broken his venerating heart.
In yellow sand and burned by the sun, perhaps he blinks thirstily at the islands filled with springs where living creatures rest beneath shady trees.
But his thirst does not persuade him to become like these comfortable creatures: for where there are oases there are also idols.
Hungered, violent, solitary, godless: that is how the lion-will wants to be.”

- Thus Spake …

So I cannot possibly agree with our point because it is blatantly wrong.

Like I said - sacred cow. The irony.

placing living man at the forefront of everything and human endeavor on a pedestal...now that's conceit. — theRiddler

Conceit as in intelligence? ;)

Where’s the irony? Do you not understand what he is saying here. This is basically a description of ‘asceticism’ that he is praising.

You take it that I worship Nietzsche because I quote him mentioning something that is clearly about ‘asceticism’? Is youur ‘sacred cow’ buddhism … I don’t assume that but I could have been petty and threw such nonsense at you if I wished to.

He actually praises it (‘asceticism’), so I gather you both agree and disagree with this. I don’t see how this isn’t about the use of ‘asceticism’.

Ignore the derogatory remark of you not ‘seeing’. I’m interested how you can read this and not appreciate it as a direction reference (and understanding of) ‘asceticism’.

I guess if you view the view of the Dionysian as ‘indulging’ then you can easily mistaken his point as being opposed to ‘ascetic’ living. That is a fair stance I guess but I don’t think it can be justified fully or stand up to the test of other points put across by him and others.

That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about or interested in something. I have a world, not an environment. — Xtrix

This may well be true of humanity today. Humanity in the depths of prehistory could justifiably be framed as only concerned with survival having (possibly in some cases) more interest in basic sustenance.

Although it is unfair to compare hunter gathers today’s world with those of prehistory, there are some signs that with limited resources people don’t really have any course to care for anything other than basic needs. When asked about what is important the reply is often ‘meat’ not ‘god’. When asked about death their imagination has no real time to convey an answer much further beyond some vague hint at a myth followed by ‘I don’t know’ in reference to any ‘otherly realm’.

In argument against this there must’ve been times where resources were plentiful and then as time kept by more ‘cultivation’ of time was open to them to explore and compare and contrast the inner experience with the outer impressions of existence.

As mentioned above the stresses and strains on the human body do lead to some quite extraordinary experiences. These are most likely where religious practice stems from. If you have been through an experience where you haven’t slept or ate for a week or so (or some other form of stress/strain) you might well appreciate what I’m saying here.

Every religious practice has some form of ‘abstinence’ within its rituals and practices. I generally view them as being tied up with some weird idea of ‘otherly realms’ though. I think somewhere the experience of the individual just tried to frame this lingually intangible experience as best they could and perhaps viewed it as ‘other’ or knew of no other way to express something other than through framing it within some ‘fantasy’ realm.

I was listening to Yuval guy recently talking about the mystery of patriarchy. He suggested something I have been looking at a lot over the past decade. He was suggesting that in smaller groups matriarchy can exist yet in larger social groups (nations and such) something else happens. I’m curious as to whether humans, like locust, go through physical changes once a certain population threshold is met. Obviously we don’t look physiologically different (like locust) but I think the effect could show in our neurological state - hence the lack of matriarchal societies. Given the present state of the species with mass communication this may be revealing itself more now (if there is anything to ‘reveal’).

I know it’s very speculative but I have found it an interesting premise from which to view social change. Rather than the obsession with the abstract ‘cultural’ exchanges maybe the issue is a matter of physiological changes due to reaching a population threshold.

Um...I'm not calling you unintelligent at all, but also not not saying you're conceited.

I just think we're seeing this all wrong. We know it's futile to grapple with abstraction, abstract as life forms are, so some try to quantify them by saying their personality is an illusion. Or something. I'm a big dummy, but that's how I see it.

To put in a different way, the consensus has steered away from viewing each other in a classical light.

He actually praises it (‘asceticism’), so I gather you both agree and disagree with this. I don’t see how this isn’t about the use of ‘asceticism’. — I like sushi

How I interpreted that quote, is that Nietszche is criticizing asceticism, on the grounds that asceticism is

fear of happiness and beauty, this longing to get away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, wishing, from longing itself... — On the Genealogy of Morals, 3rd Essay, 28.

I interpret that to mean that he associates sensory experience as the source of 'happiness and beauty' and the attempt to deny that through asceticism with the wish to escape all appearance, becoming, and so on.

But the context in which it was given was as a response to a passage I posted from Schopenhauer, who can scarcely be accused of piety. Schopenhauer is saying that both religion and philosophy are an attempt to address the existential plight of suffering, as he sees it, which arises from man's being subject to 'the will', which is a blind striving that animates every living thing.

I used that passage to illustrate Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion, which admits that religion answers a need, but then asserts that philosophy is superior to it, because it demands knowledge, not simply submission to a belief system.

How we get from there to Nietszche criticising asceticism, I don't know. I guess the implication is that anything 'religious' is ascetic, or something.

simply put Nietzsche was remarking about how people adhere to ‘moral principles’ as if they are rules to live by. The axe he ground was about how to make our own ‘morals’ rather than live comfortably by adhering to whatever societal principle we were expected to live by.

‘Asceticism’ as a ‘moral principle’ he would no doubt mock. As a principle arrived at (beyond societal dictates) he wouldn’t. This is why there are a number of seeming contradictions in Nietzsche as he doesn’t lay out ‘rules’ only comments on the problem of creating rules when old rules are disposed of.

I guess it wouldn’t be too far fetched to equate his ‘overman’ with buddhist ‘nirvana’. Neither is to be possessed or attained. They are ‘the reaching for’ or ‘to strive’.

The western world isn’t buddhist it is judeochristian. The judeochristian principles cannot be ‘removed’ without replacing them with something other. The whole point of ‘god is dead’ is the problem of taking responsibility on ourselves rather than shifting it away from ourselves. But we’re all weak and pathetic and will continually keep clutching at ideas of ‘morality’ in the shadow of Christian Virtues. The very same exists in buddhists doctrines with dos and don’ts and Nietzsche would rile against those just as ardently if they happened to fall into his western world.

The quote above from The Genaelogy of Morals is how he first started to address the problem of human values and how to replace and rethink how human value systems can be replaced and/or reconstructed (in the west) in light of the disintegration of Christianity’s appeal due to the age of science. The recognition of humans as animals (less substantiated in his time than now) is something many, including myself, find hard to hold to having lived a life in a culture that regards humans (as someone mentioned) as on a ‘pedestal’ compared to other animals. The crazy thing is we have been trained to deplore our animal self because we’re able to see ourselves as apart from nature. Our images of godhood are our images of our future selves … but we have no idea how to attain them. The Greek gods were more human and lived for war and to murder and torture, to gain the upper hand over each other. The monotheistic god destroys human nature, impedes the capacity to use our ‘animal nature’. It sets up rules that ‘evil’ is a thing rather than Fortune.

I certainly don’t agree with @Xtrix that ‘religion’ came before ‘philosophy’. They are the same thing but the division made in human cognition - socially impelled for unknown circumstances/reasons - most likely allowed the concept of ‘religion’ to congeal more readily in the public eye than the concept of ‘philosophy’. Underlying the Weltanschauung (‘world view’), that has always given us ‘presence,’ was the catalyst for all items of division whether we like it or not.

I’ve tried to frame ‘time’ before through use of the symbolism of Prometheus and Epimetheus. I think it makes sense to look at (speculatively) how ‘time’ (now atomized) sat quite differently for prehistoric humans. Without a conceptual adumbration of ‘time’ I don’t see how ‘religion’ or ‘philosophy’ can gain a good foothold. Maybe they can slightly through use of narrative that exists independent of history.

Pierre Hadot on 'Askesis of Desire'

For Pierre Hadot the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research.

However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (Philosophy as a Way of Life p84). Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life.

For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.” They also utilize rhetoric and imagination in order “to formulate the rule of life to ourselves in the most striking and concrete way” and aim to actively re-habituate bodily passions, impulses, and desires (as for instance, in Cynic or Stoic practices, abstinence is used to accustom followers to bear cold, heat, hunger, and other privations) (PWL 85). These practices were used in the ancient schools in the context of specific forms of interpersonal relationships: for example, the relationship between the student and a master, whose role it was to guide and assist the student in the examination of conscience, in identification and rectification of erroneous judgments and bad actions, and in the conduct of dialectical exchanges on established themes. — Pierre Hadot, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

?

To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing; it would be like an alien visitor from a planet where there's no sound arriving on earth and witnessing an orchestra. What are all those people doing? What are those things they're holding?. And how would you explain that to this visitor. 'Well, there's this thing called 'hearing'....' — Wayfarer

So what does it mean?

You should be able to explain it to us because we’re not aliens. Even our cultural differences are not that great. You said there is meaning so tell us what that meaning is. What does it mean for you? Make use of simile if need be. I for one am all ears.

That’s not how I live, nor how anyone I know lives. We can think it and say it, but an “organism trying to survive” isn’t my experience. First and foremost I’m engaged with someone or something, I’m moving towards something, I’m caring about or interested in something. I have a world, not an environment.
— Xtrix

This may well be true of humanity today. — I like sushi

What does "this" refer to?

Not living merely for survival. I then went on to show instances where ‘survival’ could well have been the only real focus for prehistoric humans and argued against that too - as we don’t know either way and should guard against transferring modern perspectives back into the past.

This is a speculative thread you’ve started though but I was just playing around with the ‘what if’ of merely ‘trying to survive’ as the be all and end all of prehistoric human’s existence. I would argue to some degree that ‘surviving’ is probably closer to ‘living’ than merely ‘existing’ (meaning ‘going through the motions’ rather than engaging directly with life in some capacity).

:up:

Yeah, it really comes down to how we want to interpret or talk about human activity. It's perfectly fine to put on our biological/evolutionary glasses -- that's a powerful perspective and it explains a lot, and a lot of patterns emerge and questions answered when you do so.

But to argue it's somehow the "basic" perspective, or that we've stumbled, at long last, upon the Truth -- all else being quaint nonsense -- is a mistake.

I know it’s very speculative but I have found it an interesting premise from which to view social change. Rather than the obsession with the abstract ‘cultural’ exchanges maybe the issue is a matter of physiological changes due to reaching a population threshold. — I like sushi

Another interesting perspective, yes.

To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing; it would be like an alien visitor from a planet where there's no sound arriving on earth and witnessing an orchestra. What are all those people doing? What are those things they're holding?. And how would you explain that to this visitor. 'Well, there's this thing called 'hearing'....'
— Wayfarer

So what does it mean?

You should be able to explain it to us because we’re not aliens. Even our cultural differences are not that great. You said there is meaning so tell us what that meaning is. What does it mean for you? Make use of simile if need be. I for one am all ears. — praxis

@Wayfarer

Nothing Waywarer? Have a smidgen of intellectual honesty and say what it means to you, please.

I don't get why Nietszche is quoted as 'the last word' on anything in these subjects. — Wayfarer

Cause of the Antichrist.