Where did the quotation marks come from in respect of the "great idea"?

Please put me in contact with he who has penned these fine words! :grin:

The number one fan of an apparently great idea?

Indeed we are in disagreement, I see no way out of this; and indeed you have every right to think, not-think and write as savagely as you wish.

Warmest thanks.

Respectfully yours etc.

M

Again, your error is in assuming this instinct is necessarily expressed as theism. It can be expressed in many different forms. — praxis

Again you are applying a rather shallow and 'criticism-hunting' approach to what I write. I dont mind the criticism if it is a reflection of what I am attempting to say.

The same for hunger and eating, there is a primordial and instinctual basis for these practices and their associated beliefs, a primordial basis that is related back to human instinct. — Marcus de Brun

There is a primordial basis for these practices 'eating & sex'. That primordial basis is instinctual or related back to human instinct. I am not stating that the belief in God is instinctual, but rather that the theistic system, the expressed logic of Theism, has a primordial basis, similar to, but not the same as, the instinctual basis of belief systems constructed upon the instinctual imperatives towards sex and food.

Theism, as it is equally a belief system about a God-thing is constructed upon a thought construct a basis that is common to all men as it is essential to the mechanistic function of thought, and most importantly in the human context of meta-thought or thought upon thought. Thought as the practice 'suicide' indicates may not be entirely subservient to instinct.

It does not follow that ALL of our thoughts arise from simple instinctual imperatives (perhaps most do) I have not asserted this, (as you seem to suggest). The theistic logic, the belief system that all humans have, arises out of 'thought upon the immaterial', which in the human context begins with a consciousness of, and an awareness of ones thought. It is the basis of man's humanity and is the essential distinction between man and animal.

The theist therefore can only assert that he has a God (+) Theism and the atheist can only assert that he has a God (-) Theism. Both are wearing the same underpants but one believes the other is naked whilst the other believes his companion to be dressed in a ridiculous superfluity of sorts.
Both the assertions 'atheism' and 'theism' alike serve to reassert the underlying universal theism and render us blind to IT's; principles, mechanics, origins and trajectory. They and their empty distinction, are the fountainhead of philosophical and intellectual paralysis.

The basis of man's theism presently has, superimposed upon it, a rather silly debate about the existence or non existence of a God thing. Now the inclusion of a God thing into or upon the true theistic basis of human existence may well have an instinctual basis in itself , in that the God-thing might well be a consequence of man's; fear of dying, his materialism, his superior notions of himself, his cruelty etc. The God-thing (and the puff and smoke it entails) allows for man to be cruel to his fellows in the name of the presence or absence of the God-thing; and in this sense the God thing does allow for man to behave and think as a trousered ape. However this God-thing is merely an ephemeral flatulence that arises from a deeper universal base.


Philosophy continues to plead with man to extract himself from the God-thing (presence or absence etc), and think about himself in a reasonable and honest way. The God-thing is the child of philosophy let us help it mature rather than listen to the squabbling over the color of ones underpants.


M

Let me reiterate the point.

Theism, a belief in 'God' is a belief in an immaterial entity. This 'concept' like any other has had an origin, one that pre-dates the Judaeo Christian concept and that of all established religions. One who believes in a God or Gods as such, is termed a theist and one who does not have such a belief is considered an atheist.

The refined concept 'God/Gods' is a refined concept and it has been continually refined since it originated. However it has an antecedent or original unrefined basis, that is perfectly in tact. Just as the instinctual urge to procreate remains perfectly in tact but is refined into the conception of sexual function and the associated beliefs around sexual function. The same for hunger and eating, there is a primordial and instinctual basis for these practices and their associated beliefs, a primordial basis that is related back to human instinct.

So too does the concept God have a primordial psychological basis. Man will not engage in sex without the instinctual foundation. Man will not believe in God without the primordial basis for 'theism'. This primordial basis is likely to have originated from and be dependent upon 'thought upon the immaterial'.

Awareness of ones thoughts constitutes thoughts upon the immaterial, and as such all men maintain the fundamental basis for theistic beliefs... they are essential to that which makes a thinking man distinct from other animals. It is not surprising then that other animals do not (apparently) have beliefs and do not have Gods. God as a concept is dependent upon the capacity to believe.

Whilst an atheist and a theist clearly disagree upon the refined concept that happens to be a God, BOTH have a psychology that is dependent upon that which came before... the origin of the God concept, vis thought upon the immaterial.

We have no way of knowing what form or logical construct was before the emergence of the particular and ephemeral God-thing, however it is likely (if we survive ourselves long enough) that the God-thing will be dispensed with or replaced by a different or more evolved 'form' of the primary basis which remains in tact. Man cannot survive without theism or that which is the basis of theism.

The a-theist can deny God, but cannot deny or refute the instinctual or primary basis for the belief in God.
God is merely a somewhat fashionable refinement of mans essential thought. Beliefs come and go but their fundamental basis remains in tact.

All the very intelligent people who have made themselves feel great in the refutation of 'my point' should pat themselves on the back. Well done! I love you too.

However it takes a little more courage and thought to go against the grain and think upon the idea in a constructive manner.. I am not posting the idea to cause people to get into a strop. I don't mind arguing a point, however not everything within the idea is false and little is gained by simply applying the sometimes angry boot.

When an idea is posted, the usual format is to point to all of its faults (great there are plenty) there is never a shortage of flies when there is shit.

However if Philosophy is to evolve we should also try to engage with the possible kernals of truth, in a manner that permits the 'idea' to evolve, and permits others to feel they are not entering the lions den.

There are a lot of lions about.

Take a chill pill, have a wank... relax.. we are here to consider ideas.. not savage them.

M

I believe our perception of the fathomable can grow as we grow. — Mind Dough

Nice piece, however I suspect the inverse to be true.

I do not agree that perception grows as we grow, rather the inverse is true. In order to see certain things we stop seeing everything.

As we become older brain cells die, a child has more than an adult, and a child sees and hears more than an adult. They probably think more than we do.

Learning is as much (if not more) about forgetting as it is about growth.

As we get older we do not invariably become wiser, (although Bitter Crank, is one of a handful of exceptions on the forum at least).

The body grows, but the mind almost invariably shrinks until it ultimately stinks.

M

You will never read it all, and if you havent read much then:

The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant, is a gentle read written by the last American gentleman.

If you're lazy there is also an audio book of the same, read by Grover ?Gardner, which is a really nice listen.

M

your back on the loop again.

debrun out :yawn:

:ok:

I hope that is an indication that the offending digit is soon to be removed from the place of little sunshine.

M

Sorry but its not going to come from me.

I am neither your jailer nor your judge. :)

You have posted it in a conversation with me on this topic. You can find it there if you have no luck with introspection.

M

How?? — Posty McPostface

By dealing with the initial central equivocation first, and by then constructing an honest self narrative on that basis.

M

What if I said, that consistency in formulating one's identity (having a narrative) is of supreme importance to an individual. What do you then say to someone that is depressed? Snap out of it? — Posty McPostface

Identity must precede the narrative; if the narrative is to have any meaning outside the 'endless loop' scenario.

So the short answer is No, don't 'snap out of it'.

Snap into it.

M

In many instances 'depression' can be willful in that its persistence is willed or is in accordance with the will and the self. The depressive, complaining about his symptoms and not engaging with them is akin to the fat person who insists that their fat is genetic or is someone else's fault (sometimes it is, mostly it isn't).

At the outset of this exploration into your depression, and depression in general you equivocated upon a question that strikes at the heart of human self identity.

If you wish to find the source of your depression. I suggest you begin at the heart of the matter. A logical or philosophical approach to the symptoms can then, and only then, be formulated.

M

"No, the atheist just claims not to believe in the existence of one or more deities."

You have missed the point entirely, and I apologize for having not made it clear enough for you.

M

Is it outside the realm of possibility that "depression" is the mind's way of dealing with the inability to adapt to being a prisoner of conscious experience?

The criticism I would have of this assertion (we almost always put criticism before thought here on the forum), is largely confined to the rather meek nature of the preamble to your idea: "is it outside the realm of possibility".

The gentle nature of the delivery is 'nice', however the thought which comes after is rather profound, and is in no way 'outside the realm of possibility', but rather (as I hope you know) strikes at the heart of the matter, and is closer to the truth of depression than most objective analysis I have encountered to date.

The idea demands sustenance and should be formulated into an essay (I would like to read same). You must expand upon the terms you have used. What do you mean by 'the minds way' the 'inability to adapt' and the rather beautiful phrase....'a prisoner of conscious experience'.

You have a kernal of precious ore here, and you owe it to Old Philosophy to refine this idea into gold.

To hell with the realm of possibility, strike at the impossible.

M

"When an atheist claims to be an atheist he isn't claiming not to have a pursuit or interest which he follows with great devotion; he is claiming not to believe in the existence of one or more deities."

I suspect you are missing the point.

The atheist has a 'godless' theism of sorts. One that is denied him through the impossible notion of atheism. Primitive man may well have had a godless theism of sorts.

Current and historical theistic notions of God have arisen from the mind of man, have been expressed verbally and through art, and have evolved concomitant with the evolution of the human intellect.

Theism therefore is the evolution of a process that represents the formal material and collective refinement of a primordial thought construct upon the immaterial.

These notions of the immaterial begin as thought constructs, arising from experience. They are then formalized into reasoned expressions of the original thought-construct, and are then transmitted to others, via language and symbols, following which they are collectively agreed upon (within the relevant cultural or social grouping) and become the basis of an established belief system.

What happens to the original (primordial) thought construct through this process evolution? We believe that it (the primordial thought-construct) has become more refined and more sound? But what if in fact it becomes more diluted and less refined as a consequence of the process 'evolution'? It is after all, thought upon the immaterial, and the immaterial may not be equally subject to refinement by progressive usage, on the contrary it might become more materially functional, and hence less immaterial, as the process continues its evolution.

It is therefore arguable that neanderthal man may have had a less refined but more valid or pure theism than modern man's general theistic notions.

During this process, the original thought construct is codified into a theology one that persists in time and is amenable to recording and a graphic historicity. This confirms the persistence of the original thought construct, but goes no distance to confirming its modern validity or continued purity. It may well have been entirely contaminated by the process.

The primordial or original thought construct persists in all men, it may be a fundamental ingredient to mans reasoning in toto.

God is merely a refinement of the original thought-construct and is non-essential to a Theism or belief system that is constructed upon a notion of the immaterial.

In the beginning there was only a private theism, that has since been socially refined into its various (often repugnant) forms. Atheism therefore, is simply a label applied to those who do not adhere to the collectively refined formal construct of a 'universal theism' that no man can escape. It cannot be escaped because thought itself is immaterial, and thinking or recollecting is an entirely immaterial or metaphysical experience.

To refer to one as an atheist, is simply to assert that he does not agree with a particular exogenous refinement of his own thought. There is no such thing as an atheist, as no man can deny the inescapable metaphysical experience of himself.

The only real atheist is a dead atheist.

M

God and Hell?

Completely compatible, and entirely deserving of each other.

M

If God=Panda. then Panda=God

Most religions would agree that the Panda is indeed a manifest form of God.

And indeed, from the perspective of the Panda (whatever that might be),

If a Panda could paint a picture of his God...., it would very likely look like a Panda.


M

The censorship, or particular attention to my "not enough philosophy"... contains a nice little validation and a 'little Philosophy'.


M

Mod question

Has this thread been closed or shifted as it is gone from, or not present under the heading All Discussions?

M

"cherry picking"

:(

Perhaps there is an element of the game of words in the distinction between theist and atheist. The point that is being attempted at is an engagement with the word game that is too often played at the expense of the a-theist.

That, he/she is somehow lacking in something or devoid of something when this is not the case. Atheists do not generally consider corpses as manure, and as such have a 'respect' for the dead and this "respect" is dependent upon a belief in some immaterial or extracorporeal quality within or associated with the material corpse itself. 'Respect' is dependent upon an established belief system it has an entirely moral basis, that is no different to the moral basis afforded by a scribbled theology.

The failure of modern philosophy has been its failure in the construction or formulation effective theistic reality that is the theism of all men; the functional basis of the atheist's intellectual, moral and philosophical life. This theism predates established religions and predates most religious formal God-constructs.

A-theists are often considered to have moral code that is distinct from the theist who has a substantive (usually cherry picked) theology to 'substantiate' his morality. Yet it is impossible for humans to exist upon absolute atheistic terms.

The athiest (more often than not) has a Philosophy, whilst the Theist has a religion or a belief in God, and then a subservient and (generally obsequious) Philosophy. The a-theist however is considered to be party to the (A) absence of a theism; when the contrary is in fact true; in that the Theist is the one with a contained and contracted view of the Universe, as a deduced product of his ridiculous God-thing.

Any notional concept of 'God' is borne out of or arises out of Philosophy; the inverse is NOT equally true. The theist's 'God' is the ne-plus ultra for the Theists Philosophy. The atheist does not suffer from an absence of a 'God' or 'Gods', but affords it/them, the greater possibility of 'a' Philosophy, which is unfortunately contaminated and contained within the 'God' thing.

As such the correct term for the Theist should perhaps be: the A-philosophical.

M

Perhaps your google is different to mine here is the entire definition:

religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation
"the right to freedom of religion"
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"


Why the semantics?

M

Respect for the dead. — Michael

Is that the same kind of "respect" that rappers often refer to?

M

"What a bizarre non sequitur. "

If the ritualistic burial of the dead, dressing the dead and furnishing them with jewels or material objects, is not a clear indication of a 'religious' or extra-corporeal belief system, then what does the ritual indicate?


It follows logically that the decoration of corpses (who have no religious or extracorporeal value or nature) is: nothing more than the practical decoration of manure; which is precisely what a corpse IS outside of some (religious) belief system.

M

Burying your dead isn't an indicator that you believe in one or more deities. — Michael

So up until the magical " advent" of religion (dates yet to be provided): the burial ritual should be considered as an irreligious exercise; one of empty futility? Decorating manure, or some primitive scatological practicality?

For real?

M

So everyone who existed before the advent of religion was... dead. — Baden

What kind of an odd-ball statement is that. Religion did not 'advent' at a given point in human history, it is essential to human history.

Neanderthal man buried his dead as a 'ritual'. He had a theism.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/

(Try to engage with the thread rather than your personal dislike of the poster... its more philosophically fun that way! :) )

M

What confuses me is that atheist have ethics they believe in. We religious people only work with them because we believe in the test (which if i explained i would be leaving the context of the subject)
but briefly the test is choosing what to do in specific amount of time. That's why there's evil (again can't explain it here). The test choosing to do or not to do what you're told, and "god" forbid us to do "evil" is because it's messing and effecting other people test. Which diminishes the test that is build on free will.
But why do atheists have morals?. Some people will say it's developed with the evolution of human being to survive, or it's necessary for social survival. But why does it care if it keeps the species surviving?. If there's really no God (and after life) then there's no meaning to life. So why hang on them?

What is all this humbug about 'tests' and the like.

This testing business sounds a bit like a cult of some sorts, most tests have an asumed right and wrong answer to them and these must be presumed before the test.

There is no such thing as an 'atheist' this is simply a label that theists like to apply to those who present a challenge to their primary presumption. An atheist is equally a-theist in that he/she/it has a theism that is a-theistic.

The only real atheist is a dead atheist.

The pursuit of personal happiness is the objective of all human beings even the sadomasochist believes themselves to be 'happy' doing what they are doing.

What you refer to as a-theists (whatever they may be) are human beings trying to be happy and morality is essential to happiness on an entirely practical level outside of the 'God' realm.

The most happy life is indeed a moral life and all morals can be logically derived, and logical-morals are logically important to to the atheist.

If one needs a God to behave morally, one is either less moral than the atheist, or less logical,

M

What most of us do to remedy the conundrum of expanding gender identification is to associate only with those who share similar views and to think those outside our box are foolish. That's what I do. — Hanover

"The box"

The place where the herd lives.

M

There is so much error here on this thread that one does not know where to begin.

But all that is getting outside of what I was talking about, which was just a grammar-convenience matter. — Michael Ossipoff

Grammar is never a "convenience". It must be exact, in that it must be true, or as close to truth as possible; otherwise it is pointless and even deceptive in the attempt to convey truth via honest communication.

Because modernity is in lust with 'convenience', grammar should not fall prey to delusions of convenience.



M

"So in the end, if we want to reduce this polarisation, it would seem necessary to come up with a societal project where more people can believe to be a part of. That, to me, seems to be the main challenge for Western capitalist liberal democracies."

The polarization in western society can easily be defined as the distinction between 'stupid' and 'intelligent'.

I don't mean trivialize the matter, but it is as simple as that. We have not (yet) evolved a logical or philosophically validated definition of what intelligence is. Once appropriately defined and philosophically validated in the context of 'the good life' it might then have the social and political potential of becoming the aspiration of the majority. When this occurs, the polarity between left and right, republican and democrat will begin to naturally dissolve, and man can then begin to aspire towards the best form of government, which is the government which has the least need to govern.

M

Someone who rejects gender, implicitly rejects my gender as well as their own.

Gender rejection as such is little different to homophobia.

Notwithstanding that, the rejection of one's gender implies the existence of a dis-ease with ones genetic gender.

When we respect the choice of others (as we apparently must do) we also ignore the pain that lies behind the disassociation. People have the right to choose that their pain should be ignored by self and by others. However that which is ignored can rarely be ameliorated.

M

A small amount of kinetic energy contained within a shoe moving at a safe velocity, transferred in a single short sharp burst to the soft tissue about the anus, can sometimes help to initiate the mechanics of coping.

Q: It's always been there. Just haven't addressed it enough as of late. I still wallow around and feel some hope for the future. I guess you can call it a meta-cognitive belief about being depressed about being depressed. I wonder how you tackle those nasty beliefs?

A: Philosophy.

I get to use the 'I' when I philosophize, and in life it is not so much the body that is in need of masturbation, but rather the mind.

I know that ones psychology is the child of ones philosophy and the metaphorical house is in turmoil when the child is dictating to the parent.

Philosophy cuts with two blades. It brings awareness and awareness necessarily brings dis-ease. Stupid people are often as happy, and very often happier than thinking people. The only consolation to this human irony is the fact that Philosophy can at times bring a deeper more lasting and more profound sense of happiness and ease with the world than ignorance.

The state of unhappiness is the state of self destruction. This can only be tackled in two principle ways, one must fight the self and one must understand the self.

To fight, simply means to get out of bed in the morning and embrace the fundamental realities of life despite the pain. One must on occasion take a hiatus from the battle with self, the question of self, not by lying in bed and wallowing but rather by an escape into a structured simple plan for your day, this is the fight. Almost of Kant's magnificence was constructed upon and around the dicipline of getting out of bed in the morning and going for his walk.

You must ultimately win the battle against the self in order to understand the self and to do so you must arise from the bed and confine the demon to a somewhat disciplined routine. Arise, wash, put on fresh clothes, comb ones hair and move from the zone of pain out into the Universe and experience its horror and beauty whilst being the master of the self. One must satisfy the needs of the self but one must first understand what are the fundamental basis of those same needs.

One must bring order to the chaos of the metaphorical house, this is the fight. You have two allies in this fight, your first is the infinite beauty of nature, that remains unseen in the midst of struggle. Thoreau is your companion here. If it is raining outside your bedroom then go outside and whilst you are walking hear the drops upon your umbrella.

HEAR the DROPS, each one is the toll of a bell that was first rung at the birth of the universe. Each drop is united by inexplicable deeply mysterious forces of gravity and electrostatic attraction, each one contains trace elements of pollution, of gases liberated by the molecular decay of dinosaur flesh and bones, archaic forests a hundred million years old, melted into oil, drilled from the bowls of the earth and fired into the atmosphere from the exhaust of a car that is ferrying some other poor unhappy blind soul, into the endless drudgery of his own painful and imperfect existence.

One drop of rain is all you need to embrace the infinite joy of Philosophy. If you do as old Philosophy bids, arise from the bed and go for a REAL walk.. you will encounter more than one beautiful drop of rain.

Life is a beautiful horror, WE are life.

You must fight the horror and live the beautiful.

Philosophy is the walk of life.

M

But, what about disidentification?Doesn't that seem like a solution to the meta-cognitive depressive realm?

No NO NO!

I suspect that your depression is getting worse since you have contaminated your wonderfuly capable and kind brain with this muck.

I will say it again for the last time.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DISIDENTIFY WITH YOURSELF

On the contrary.

I suspect that you quite simply do not know things about yourself. (Rumsfeldian things... things that you don't know that you know) You need to figure these things out and embrace them because THEY do not really matter (and unless they are criminal things) they need to be embraced!

You have a great mind and you are (it seems) a kind person. Remove the offending digit from the dark place, find out who and what you are and embrace it, (warts and all) before you are old, or before your depression deprives you of more life!

Would the real slim-shady please stand up!

M

Posty

Depression is the manifest form of self loathing or self dislike, it is the conscious or unconscious yearning for an alternative self, one that seems empirically unattainable. If the reasoning or deeper motives behind the dislike AND the yearning are not understood, the depression is impossible to treat via a metacogntitive approach, as you have suggested.

Because: Depression is the consequence of an established dysfunctional metacognition upon the fundamental dialogue between the pure essence, the entire truth of the self, and the external world that (appears to) contain that self.

One cannot think appropriately about the 'depressive thinking' if indeed the first order realm (the dialogue between self and reality) is not properly understood.

This secondary realm of depressive thought exists as a meta-cognitive state in that one is already thinking negatively about ones thinking. The application or process evolution of the depressive feelings, is a metacognition of the primary (self-reality) dialogue. The depression is a metacognition in that it is thought upon the interface between reality and the self.

This dialogue produces 'evidence' that is used to logically to initiate and or potentiate the depressive state vis; I am a bad person, I am unkind dishonest, unworthy, I do not fit in the world, I dislike people and the company of others, I do not wish to engage with the world today, life is pointless, meaningless and worthless....etc. All this sentiment arises out of a dysfunctional metacognition upon the dialogue between the self and the sensory inputs that are arriving from outside the self. One can assume that the primary inputs are de facto intact (as long as one is not having delusions) and therefore it is not the input but rather the primary self that is being misunderstood by the depressive. Vis a poorly constructed secondary (meta) notion of self.

One has called this thinking 'ones depression' and therefore the recognition of ones depression as an undesired experience, confines the depressive dialogue with himself/herself to one of a metacognition upon a poorly defined primary self, as that self is perceived to interact with external reality.

The solution is not to create a meta-meta-cognition but rather to collapse the first meta-cognition upon the primary dialogue between self and reality, and this can only be effected through guided or self directed introspective analysis of the self. (Not necessarily of the Freudian variety)

If the metacognised reasoning is exposed via successful introspection or analysis, they can be encountered and potential rationalized in keeping with the survival instincts. And this will go some distance to collapsing the initial metacognition, as depression is contrary to survival and is self destructive.

Once the initial reasonings (within the primary metacognition are rationalised) they almost invariably become weakened, and less effective as causative logical points around which the depression orbits simply because in recognition they are then exposed to reason, and reason is generally in conformity with the instinct for survival.

Reason tells us that we have rights to live and be happy, if the exposed reasonings at the base of the self loathing/depression are subjected to logical impartial reason, they invariably begin to weaken.


It is OK to fail
It is OK to be gay
It is ok to be "just" a waitress
It is ok if ones parents consider one to be a failure... etc
It is ok to be the truth of the self.

The primary dialogue between the self and input from without, must be subjected to a logical analysis by the self and in doing so the depressive metacognition of this dialogue will then begin to collapse. One engages with the world in harmony with self. One begins to find peace.. not with the world but first with the self.

Know thyself, and then know thyself some more... wisdom is to be at peace with the world.

M

BC

You are a brave and kind soul, and I admire the fact that you choose to engage with the 'horrible' OP, rather than join the chorus singing the old psalms of self righteous indignation.

I wonder if part of the reason you can afford to be courageous or independent in your thinking is because you have the immaterial wealth of the Philosopher, and you occupy the esteemed position of having no "car and one suit". You are as much a candidate for the Thoreau prize as any of the others you have mentioned, and your austerity (whether by accident or design) contains more environmental potency and philosophical validity than an army of cappuccino quaffing, economist reading, electric car driving, moral and environmental 'Philosophers'.

It is a pity that kindness is an essential ingredient to wisdom, or you might then prefer to ram the truth of Thoreau, (foie-gras style) down the throats of the assembled choir, (as I would like to do). I am not as kind, and am not so wise as to simply smile, or sing with my fellow parishioners.

You mention Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience, which I read many years ago, and also love. Not to get side tracked, but I despise the term 'Transcendentalism', when it is used to describe Thoreau and even Emerson. The use of terms and labels, is perhaps a powerful tool for learning, but it is a powerful tool for the enemies of Philosophy, and it is more often used to imprison truth into a cubbyhole behind lock and key, where it is safely contained, lest it interrupt the choir of angels singing.

That is what the label 'transcendentalism' does to Thoreau's thought, it locks it behind a name-tag that can then be filed away upon the book shelf of philosophy so that the herd might continue to enjoy the self-salvation of 'indignation'.

Thoreau's thought is not a 'branch' of Philosophy, but instead contains fundamental truths that should be administered to the singers 'al dente', via the same mechanism that their staple fois-gras is generally prepared.

America, to coin an analogy that the choir is familiar with, began as a Garden of Eden, her wealth was 'bequeath' to mankind with the same inviolable imprecatio that Adam was presented with. A single rule that would transform paradise in to a hell hole. That apple-eating dictate has been elucidated clearly by Thoreau and is the missing caveat to the American Dream: materialism is the antithesis of true wealth.

The absence of this 'maxim', its imprisonment into 'Transcendentalism' has broken the dream and broken man's potential to be more than himself.

If we cannot murder the Christian when he has the audacity to stop singing the same old prayers, we can simply lock him into a cubbyhole and sentence him to obscurity upon Old Philosophy's book shelf. If Thoreau could have been a Hitler and if Hitler could have been a Thoreau, the choir of angels would perhaps be singing a different tune.

To return to Civil Disobedience. You rightly point out that Thoreau took his stand upon the basis that he would not contribute to the Mexican war, through the proxy of taxes. This is technically correct, however on a more fundamental level what Thoreau was trying to protect was the 'independence' of the American 'individual'. However to enjoy Thoreau's independence one must also be an individual in the Thoreauean sense; an individual who is capable of independent thought, and an appreciation for the real and true wealth of the immaterial. This is the single greatest characteristic of 'relative poverty and the manifest absence of individuality is the very basis of its self-imposition.

It is this Thoreauean notion of independence that is truly at issue here. Of course when we look at a refugee from the perspective of our own wealth it is hard not to feel pity,

However, that same pity is in truth an inversion of something rather sinister and grotesque (the deeper truth of self); it is an inversion of the reality of our own causative role in the suffering that we are ostensibly indignant about. It is an ugly validation for the preservation of our own wealth when confronted with the distant privation that it has caused. There is nothing more human and more vulgar than the indignation of the rich (us) at the suffering of the poor( them.) This indignation is little more than a validation of ones private faith in ones own relative poverty, and as such, it serves as the ultimate cause of the real privation that is to be experienced by the distant other.

When the indignation is dispensed from the comfort of the arm-chair with folgers in hand, it reminds one of the conscientious slave owner, who tried to think of ways to be kind to his slaves. There remain many 'conscientious' slave owners, who insist upon 'kindness' to the slaves of today. One hopes that their God (if they have one) will be equally kind to them. Philosophy on the other hand has little time for their genuflections ,and must preserve itself from their kindness.

And if a Christian soul attempts to undermine the self indulgent pleasures of the indignant, he shall suffer the wrath of the choir. in the form of whatever mud can be found at their feet; poor spelling, points of inaccuracy, wrong dates, wrong photo, wrong color... any wrong whatsoever must be flung into the air to protect the herd from the truth, and let the choir sing louder in mellifluous indignation.

We MUST preserve the true horror of the self, and conceal it behind the usual song of pity.

Let the choir sing louder, and let old philosophy laugh (or cry) at the crucifixion.

M

Thanks for the note on diction BC, poor English corrected.. I'm tempted to blame the spell check on my phone but in truth I often make this err with the same word, It is an old bad habit that I frequently stumble on and in doing so afford my erudite critics with a stick to beat me with. I am ...all too human.

By the by "high calorie fat and sugar is cheap" would be more correctly stated as "high calorie fat and sugar are cheap" :)

Thanks for the reminder on what poverty and deprivation are, however having worked in Africa I am most familiar with the realities of real poverty, and am (ashamedly) intimately familiar with the meaning of 'depravity'.

In a remarkable essay called "The soul of man under socialism" Wilde makes the profound observation that we are far more inclined to have sympathy with suffering, than we are inclined to have sympathy with thought'

Unfortunately the thought in the OP is being missed and rather is being used as a platform to offer some moral guidance on the point of our collective obligation to feel sympathy for impoverished peoples.

Tim has generously and honestly pointed out that his own misunderstanding of the OP, and his sympathy for poverty, is being dispensed whilst he reclines in his arm chair and enjoys a folgers coffee.

(fair play to ya Tim)

There are two points of clarity that need to be made.

Firstly the OP is referring to the subjective experience of poverty in that this subjective experience (if it is outside of actual real privation, real hunger disease and squalor etc.,) is a poverty that is derived from self-appraisal: my view of my place in the world, and of what I should have, relative to what others appear (to me) to have.

If indeed I have enough to eat and I have the basic requirements to sustain myself in a reasonably healthy manner I cannot lay claim to the status of real poverty or real deprivation, hunger, squalor... etc. My poverty is of an entirely 'relative' nature.

When Thoreau moved to Walden pond, he did so with practically nothing, and yet he lived for some years, a life of great pleasure and great intellectual achievement. He did not consider himself poor, but quite the contrary.

When one examines the claims of 'the poor' in Western societies it is clear that for the most part the poverty described, is one of a relative nature. In general terms the 'poor' in western societies are not starving and totally deprived of access to emergency medical treatment, clean water, basic education etc. There are rare exceptions, but in general this is true, and the contrary would not be tolerated in a civilized society on any large or appreciable scale.

The poverty in Western society is predominantly of a 'relativistic' nature., and most 'poor' westerners if they are mentally stable and in reasonable physical health, are far wealthier than Thoreau was in his cabin. Now of course it is unfair to compare the mass of men to a man like Thoreau, however in practical terms the poor of Western societies are not really poor but rather they are relatively poor.

In the social and self assignation of relative poverty one's philosophy of life, one's world view, or ones view of ones place in society is crucial to the application. There are many relatively poor people who are much happier than wealthier people and, this is generally down to the fact that these 'happier' poor people do not in fact consider themselves to be poor, but rather consider themselves rich in other ways that are often entirely alien to their un-happy wealthy counterparts.

To the great loss of Western civilization, the thought of Thoreau is not universal, but is almost entirely alien and academic. Yet Thoreau's wisdom is both timeless, logical and philosophically sound. One does not need to purchase a cd of the latest music, if one can hear the inimitable song of the blackbird. The later being far more or at least equally precious and beautiful, yet it is a currency that has little value for the relative poor and rich alike. This song of the blackbird or the beauty of nature, hold little social currency for the mass of men, because the mass of men do not know the relative value of the simple and generally free things in life.

British Philosopher Allain de Botton has a very interesting documentary called Status Anxiety, [ https://youtu.be/edX7hdpKdbQ ] which looks at American society through this same relativistic lens.

Status is an entirely relativistic notion and is the basis of much relative poverty.

The thrust of the OP is to point to the reality that Thoreau's notion of wealth and independence are the real and only viable antidote to relative poverty.

The usual soap-box and high moral ground stuff that is shouted out, when someone points to the distinction between real and relative poverty, produces nothing but puff and smoke and creates an opportunity for the ostensibly moral, to gather a herd about them, and begin the predictable mud sling. My point is not being made for the benefit of the tired and vulgar game of mud.

Now (the second point) why all the opprobrium at the recognition of relative poverty? Well the main contributor to the continued existence of 'relative poverty' (second to the lack of philosophy in the individual who considers himself to be a victim of relative poverty) are the apologists for Capitalism, people who believe that their own personal accumulation of wealth is their right and entitlement... because they have worked hard, earned it etc etc and so on.

I might for example choose to buy a new car as it is my right and I have earned it etc etc. However when I exercise my right... what am I effectively saying to my neighbor? I have inadvertently or covertly informed him that his car is 'old' relative to mine. I have in essence contributed to the 'relative' poverty of my society. I do this (impoverish my peers) each time I buy something new and discard something old. In western societies the primary reason things are discarded, is not because they no longer function, but rather and quite simply because they are 'old' or no longer fashionable etc., they are discarded primarily because of the notional construct of relative poverty.

As such relative poverty is not only a principal cause of environmental destruction, it is a cause of human unhappiness on a massive scale. A scale that enlarges via the collectivization of thought that is consequenced by media and the internet. Indeed the real deprivation that occurs in Sub-saharan Africa for example may be considered as a consequence of the wealth that is hedged and wasted in western societies in order to feed the voracious appetite of OUR 'relative poverty'.

The media, television and the internet have resulted in a contraction in thinking that is often referred to as 'globalization' We in the west can show our new cars our relative wealth to populations in relatively poorer countries, and thereby increase the relative poverty experienced by our neighbours further and further afield.

Oftentimes we do not like the notion of 'relative poverty' because if we are to accept it as real, we must then take ownership of its cause, not just conceptually vis 'the poor man who is not really poor but simply unenlightened,' but also WE the not so poor are a cause in that we feel it is our entitlement to become richer in a material sense.

We solve much more poverty in the world by simply taking what we need from it and nothing more. How to determine what one needs has been explained in much detail by Thoreau, however his point is absent from the dialogue on poverty. His point can no longer be heard above the usual and predictable hue and cry that is raised by the herd, as soon as one suggests that real poverty is actually caused by imagined poverty.

M

Thoreau would have said the same as what Rand has asserted here. — Marcus de Brun


"Nope. Not at all. Thoreau wanted an empowered individual through the means of democratic rule. The idea that altruism was antithetical to progress would never have been accepted by an admirer of Hinduism and Bhouddism."


OK lets examine the facts here and see if your 'nope' has any basis.

Firstly what is it that Rand has stated that Thoreau would or would not agree with:

RAND:

"It is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster, because we are now moving towards complete collectivism, or socialism. A system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody, and we are moving that way only because of our altruist morality."


Now as we are speaking in General terms of Rand and Thoreau we should ascertain what is the sentiment or meaning behind Rand's words HERE.

Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism and complete COLLECTIVISM , by this she means extreme socialism and NOT ALL socialist values or political socialist exigencies such as caring for the sick, clean water, policing education... none of these institutions can survive outside of some form of socialism where the majority are compelled to contribute towards the maintenance of the state and the welfare of all citizens.

Rand is talking about COMPLETE socialism. Nowhere in Rand's philosophy will you find her asserting the belief that handicapped people should be deprived of wheelchairs and the sick should be left to die in pain etc. In not denying this reality, Rand has LIMITED socialist leanings like any moral human being.

When socialism becomes extreme and provides for ALL of mans needs, man has little to do himself and little to live for himself, and as such has a very limited potential for self actualization and or the identity-construction that are essential to personal happiness and mental health.

Socialism in giving a man a fish, rather than teaching him how to fish.. dis-empowers and fosters individulal dependence which is the opposite to the self effective independence that is at the core of Rand's philosophy AND Thoreau's Philosophy. In this sense complete socialism results in near complete paralysis of the individual, which is akin to stating that Complete Socialism is completely destructive and is part of the reason that mega socialist projects often result in mega failures, and actually deprive the recipients of freedom.

NOW what does Thoreau say about freedom. Here is an example:

“I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of. Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?”

Here Thoreau is talking about enslavement to the Capitalist social system, yet the concept of slavery to the established system is complete in both ideologies (but for slightly different reasoning's). Complete capitalism and complete socialism effect the same form of individual paralysis and enslavement.

Both Rand and Thoreau's antidote to this enslavement or paralysis is INDEPENDENCE. Thoreau offers the beauty of nature and self reliance as the counter compensation to Capitalism (the alternative non money reward)

Rand offers the release of individual potential and the joy of self expression as her counter to both Capitalism and COMPLETE socialism. She identifies BOTH as the enemy, but her focus is upon the collective, as the immediate threat to the individual.

Both capitalism and socialism/collectivism have corrupted and destroyed the American Dream, because each in their own way have destroyed individual freedom.



M

Rand's genius is that she creates the uncompromising alternative of a celebration of the self, as a counter argument to the success that is associated with material wealth.
— Marcus de Brun

Where is your evidence of this? The pursuit of wealth is based on self love. — Andrew4Handel

I am assumng from this question that you have not read much Rand. Another poster here on this forum has offered an opinion on Rand and never read anything written by her!

If (as it seems) you are unfamiliar with her work then you might start with The Fountainhead. The protagonist Roark elucidates Rands notion of selfishness quite succinctly with the addition of many all too human personal flaws.

Roark in Rands portrayal is not a materialist and indeed has little interest in money or material wealth. His antagonists in the form of Touhey or Keating are devoted to material and populist 'wealth'.

You assert that the pursuit of wealth is based upon self love, this statement declares that you have missed Rands meaning entirely. Even outside of objectivism the pursuit of wealth is NOT based upon self love, it is based upon self loathing and an amelioration to that self loathing through a worship of wealth in that it can afford the creation of an alternative wealthy fashionable self.

The love of wealth is the veil of self loathing.. It is not self love which requires only; love and a self.... and perhaps a few modest philosophically valid possessions... nothing more.

I think you need to read Rand or at least read her more thoroughly.

M

I don't doubt that. But, what is this grounded on? The satisfaction of wants and needs? Again, psychologism.

Is there something more to the world... other than your own wants and needs?

M

In that sense, I think the subject is simply too stark and obscure to discuss at length. It's heavy, dark, and conclusive. It just has no real appeal in social gatherings, any more than one's bowel movements would.

I disagree, I think death has only lost its appeal because technology removes us from its reality.

Ones bowel movements are very interesting, but equally removed from the general dialogue because of a delusion of human sophistication that is bourne out of technology.

The ancients had a great respect and enthusiasm for bowel motions and the Druids or Shamans of old Ireland once practiced the noble art of 'gastromancy' predicting the future and communicating with the spirit world through and interpretation of flatulence and bowel sounds.

When our 'sophistication' and romance with technology comes to an end... when it is recognized as the cause of our undoing.. we shall return to a worship of the natural.. a dialogue with death... and we might well listen to the wisdom of our bowels.

M

I don't think its a question of hedonsim.

Death (imop) is only difficult when there are regrets that pertain to ones life. If one has few real and few deep regrets about ones life one is less likely to fear death and if one fears it less the experience is going to be less unpleasant.

Now the thing about life is that no matter how we choose to live it... we will have regrets, so the key to a 'good' death is having as few regrets as possible.

Not sure about the importance of ethics? An adherence to certain ethics is important.. but I think the universal ethical code of 'do no harm to others' is good enough for me.

I regret that i am not a vegetarian (animals are 'others') and this might make my death more unpalatable and hence more difficult, but I will take that on the chin because I love a rib-eye with a glass of cab-sav.

I don't think hedonism is an answer to the question.. but a love of self, a love of nature and as few regrets as possible are (I think) the personal ingredients for a relatively nice death.

M