I assume that there is something like a collective consciousness happening at some material level to be sure.

@Pantagruel

Ah, okay so you take it that (in reference to later comment) socially-reinforcing 'right' actions are those which are reinforced by virtue of being aligned with that collective unconscious/conscious?
Doesn't this just make it a transcendental relativism?

I think that is the key is that it is defined by practices, practices which are in concert with the most enlightened goals of humanity. — Pantagruel

Just to be sure, this is how you're defining "spirit"? As a connotation of certain actions over time? Or as teh source of those actions?

Just to be sure, this is how you're defining "spirit"? As a connotation of certain actions over time? Or as the source of those actions — AmadeusD

No, that is just my best effort at a pragmatic ethics consistent with a healthy humanized spirituality. I don't think I need to be able to understand or define the nature of spirit minutely in order to be aligned with the overall process of spiritualization I grasp as the inherent positive energizing force of the cosmos.

Possibly there is no one underlying big plan. But human plans are constantly coming into being and altering the universe in significant ways. And if there can be plans of human scope, there can be plans of other scopes as well. It's kind of unlikely that humanity is the best possible mirror of the universe in the universe.

the overall process of spiritualization I grasp as the inherent positive energizing force of the cosmos. — Pantagruel

Ok, this is certainly a clearer handle. Thank you for that.

True atheism has nothing to do with the materialistic. And as I mentioned, putting value into the only life that we have and thinking about our moral legacy can produce a much deeper moral thinking than believing your consciousness just continues.

You can easily apply a nihilism to such afterlife ideals as well since if there's an afterlife, then this life doesn't matter that much. These are the same principles that much of the islamic extremists operate under, enforcing a deep and soul crushing nihilism to the actions in this life, in order to reach paradise.

If people viewed their existence in this life as the only thing that will exist for them and that the moral legacy of their life will be the only thing people remember them by, then the drive for better moral behavior can increase since the life right now must be the one to be good and if all treat others well, then all will benefit from this only life.

It's the lack of correlation between a lack of an afterlife and good morals that I find is the problem here. And that the materialistic is a nihilistic behavior, when it's rather operating on another type of belief system. — Christoffer

A nicely phrased summary of the matter. Religious nihilism is a real concern.

The materialistic lifestyle is a lifestyle that appears throughout society, regardless of religion. — Christoffer

A critical point. I spent significant time with what can loosely be called the New Age movement in the 1980's - assorted mystics, Gnostics, Buddhists, theosophists, progressive Christians, etc. Amongst them were exactly the same greedy appetites for status and stuff - cars, real estate, holidays abroad, swimming pools and fashion. There is really no necessary connection between a belief in the transcendent and good stewardship of the environment and/or moderation. I did however see more restraint and considered behavior exhibited by atheist Epicureans.

Yes, there are nuances and flavours, but I do believe the essence of the reasoning holds. I agree, if you see your offspring as a continuation. I'd argue that is a form of transcendentalism. I think the only form of transcendentalism that would be responsibility-immune would be some kind of crazy-Calvinistic notion that salvation is pre-ordained. If you keep it simple, to the belief in an "ongoing," it is hard to escape the burdens and benefits of accepting full responsibility for the ultimate consequences of your behaviours. — Pantagruel

I can see how the story goes. That makes sense in a way, but let's consider another case of a materialist below.

From a practical perspective, whose ethic is the more trustworthy? Materialists seem to lose interest in the consequences of their actions, inasmuch as they will ultimately not be around to see them. So present measurability governs their imperatives. While Transcendentalists, who think of themselves as ongoing, commit to the idea of themselves as being around to reap the consequences of their actions. All things being equal, would you rather trust the ethic of someone whose actions are premised around the belief that, when you're dead you're gone. Or someone who believes in the idea of an ongoing responsibility for deeds? — Pantagruel

In answering the question directly I'm saying that I don't have a strong preference either way with respect to their metaphysical beliefs.

Some materialists are just naturally inclined towards doing good things because that's what you do -- it's simple. Some transcendentalists, in spite of believing in eternity, are fairly selfishly involved, as human beings tend to be, and the metaphysical beliefs don't matter too much to what they'll do.

So my preference has to do with the sort of person they are, ethically, and not the beliefs they hold about metaphysical reality, and having met too many good people on either side of that spectrum of belief, at least if self-report is to be believed. If transcendentalism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, and if materialism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, but it's the ethical that matters and is what I would base my preference on.

If transcendentalism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, and if materialism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, but it's the ethical that matters and is what I would base my preference on. — Moliere

:up:

From a practical perspective, whose ethic is the more trustworthy? Materialists seem to lose interest in the consequences of their actions, inasmuch as they will ultimately not be around to see them. — Pantagruel

Hmm really? The population ethics boom and subsequent altruism movements stemming out of Oxford seem purely materialistic to a fault (my view).
The claim generally held there that morals are objective is a doozy in this sense...