Because he also makes this remark:

When men of the better class form a society for promoting some noble or ideal aim, the result almost always is that the innumerable mob of humanity comes crowding in too, as it always does everywhere, like vermin—their object being to try and get rid of boredom, or some other defect of their nature; and anything that will effect that, they seize upon at once, without the slightest discrimination. Some of them will slip into that society, or push themselves in, and then either soon destroy it altogether, or alter it so much that in the end it comes to have a purpose the exact opposite of that which it had at first.

This alongside strengthening oneself against 'boredom'. The 'vermin' are trying to avoid 'boredom'.

Why does he promote 'boredom' as a means to fortify against 'boredom'? So as to better handle the inevitability of 'boredom'?

But here you are saying that boredom is something 'negative'? Schopenhauer said the opposite. I am confused as to what you mean?

Are you saying that our instinctual drives - as conscious existential beings - drive us away from boredom? You are talking about 'boredom' as a lack of 'satiation,' is this in your view taken from Schopenhauer's view or your own?

I understand that Schopenhauer has a somewhat contrary approach to boredom, saying that we should condition ourselves to it, yet also saying things like:

As soon as we are not engaged in one of these two ways, but thrown back on existence itself, we are convinced of the emptiness and worthlessness of it; and this it is we call boredom. That innate and ineradicable craving for what is out of the common proves how glad we are to have the natural and tedious course of things interrupted. Even the pomp and splendour of the rich in their stately castles is at bottom nothing but a futile attempt to escape the very essence of existence, misery. [...] That boredom is immediately followed by fresh needs is a fact which is also true of the cleverer order of animals, because life has no true and genuine value in itself, but is kept in motion merely through the medium of needs and illusion. As soon as there are no needs and illusion we become conscious of the absolute barrenness and emptiness of existence. [...] No man has ever felt perfectly happy in the present; if he had it would have intoxicated him.

It is amusing to see he assumes this last point. Clearly he has not felt this or he would be 'intoxicated'. Maybe he was not 'intoxicated' by boredom enough? Maybe he did not heed his own advice for long enough?

He discusses the Mysteries and also (from memory) their relationship to the ancient proto-Indo-European mystery cults that spread across the ancient world with the original Aryan peoples. — Wayfarer

I do not believe he covers this at all in The Sacred and The Profane. He certainly covers this kind of thing else where. Probably in A History of Religious Ideas?

Read it many MANY times already. I am familiar with Eliade's other work too - especially Shamanism.

What I read recently is a recent scholarly summation: Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. It focuses on Greco-Roman cults.

There were several other mystery cults too. Many mention the Mother of Gods ... am I starting to wonder if this may have been a reference to Mnemosyne in some cases. I am trying to work in my own views of what this was originally all about though.

Just fishing for info really.

It would be unusual for someone to have NOT partaken in the Eleusinian Mysteries as a citizen of Athens. It was common place. I imagine it would likely have been mentioned if Aristotle had not, so I also speculated that he may have taken part but just that it had no real effect on him.

Well, I am not sure there is any clear evidence that Plato did either, but it is obvious enough to me he did (Cave Analogy).

Any hint at this either way is what I am interested in. It will be speculation either way.

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon

Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence.

It looks very much what you call "Will" is what I framed above as "Self".

The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking".

What is one attains 'enlightenment'? Is life bleak then?

In the mean time I think you might find this relevant:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-149797920?source=queue&autoPlay=false

Will do.

"Other" I guess. We demarcate ourselves by how far our sense of authorship extends. We are novelty and pattern seekers. The regular "thing" that steers through sense is "self" I guess?

What do you think?

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

By definition it implies everything else? So, yes.

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though.

But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence? — schopenhauer1

What does this mean? To guess at what you are asking, all existential beings operate under a system of values - in some form or another.

A subsidiary role at best I would say. The whole "opiate of the masses" idea is dubious, but not without effect. Undoubtedly anything that falls into the realm of politics will be bent to serve some means of controlling others - it is hardly specific to religion nor any more significant.

Stories are not just stories. They are meant to teach not necessarily comfort.

Literacy is a relatively recent invention. This is something I do not believe the OP addresses nor sees as significant?

If you don't dig deeper you miss the entire point. "Religion" is not a solid concept. If you wish not to engage in my point no need to.

Why religion exists (as per evolutionary explication) has been examined in numerous ways. I mentioned a book that covers a lot of it, and have rad some of Dunbar's ideas too.

The underlying point as to why it exists is because it has developed from useful functions that were not necessarily about woo woo, but more or less about passing on knowledge effectively and reinvigorating the conventions of social groups to allow for adaptation through playing with taboos and generally seeking out novel experiences (exploratory drives).

While this theory remains speculative, it offers a compelling perspective on the intertwined evolution of religion and science. I think further research should investigate correlations between intelligence, existential awareness, and religious/scientific development. — ContextThinker

I think a helluva has already been looked into. Undoubtedly people will look to this or that idea to fortify their sense of reality. Modern religious traditions can offer this by steering away from cold hard facts that serve little to no purpose to those who care more about things like beauty or love. Science is useful.

You might be interested in reading a book called "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion," by Scott Atran. It offers a reasonable survey of many common ideas put forward about how religion has developed.

This is a super simplistic view. All 'religions' stem from specific instances of alter states of consciousness. Experiences in these states are felt as being more real than what was previously regarded as reality.

It is from exposure to these experiences that all religions developed. The question of why religion exists now in its current state has clearly branched off into many areas. The fundamental features of all religions orbit these experiences though.

What they are and how they alter out perception of reality is a more important question for me personally. Although it is interesting looking into the various lines of inquiry into how religion has manifested in different environments and how it has adapted to social needs.

What we call 'religion' today has inevitably sprung forth for a variety of reasons including animism, memory, literacy, population explosion, etc.,. The list is almost unending. The very concept of God is of no real significance to some 'religions' whilst being at the heart of others (eg. Islam and Daoism/Taoism). Confucianism is also loosely defined as a 'religion' in modern parlance, yet God is irrelevant. Many traditions in Buddhism have no concern with Gods either.

Also, some cares more about 'souls' and other far less so. The same goes for a whole array of views surrounding religion, such as afterlife, rebirth, scripture, ancestors and connections to nature in general.

The only common feature I have found is in traditions that involve altered states of consciousness, initiation and mnemonics (lost mostly through the advent of literacy).

You therefore believe in the axial revolution as coming about due to cognitive development? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

Understanding can undermine meaning. Lack of meaning can cause anxiety.

For starters, just because the Western traditions are obsessed with an existential threat (death) it does not mean other traditions are. They are not. The Japanese and Chinese cultures had to invent a term to refer to the Abrahamic traditions because they had no equivalent word for "religion" - this was in the latter part of the 19th Century.

When faced with existential threats our sense of individuality is brought into sharp focus usually because unconscious mechanism begin to rise into conscious awareness in a rather unfiltered manner (eg. NDEs and other general ASCs).

I was just stating that newborns are often overwhelmed by stimuli because they lack the ability to filter. There are parallels with cases of autism. That is all I am saying.

I think whether you see it as an adaptation depends upon how you read adaptation. Whether a given person stims or does not stim seems relatively innate, as do the senses which the person stims with, but the specific stims used are unlikely to be predetermined. — fdrake

Infants do this to understand their environment. Infants are hypersensitive.

Every creature does this to some degree. The sensations are painted onto the experiential landscape in splashes and dabs. We just happen to be able to paint our pictures more vividly and with attunement specifically to temporal projections.

One dab is a 'train whistle' and another is 'a table'. For a child 'a table' is not 'a table'. It is a hidden place upon which object are placed out of eyeshot and grasping reach - in most cases.

I am by no means autistic but I do stim to some degree. Many people see it as a form of comforting oneself (and some evidence backs this up), but it is more or less about a need to process and interact with the environment I believe. Primarily stemming from early childhood adaptation and learning regarding items like cause and effect, and the need to focus on specific actions over others (to enable walking and talking).

I crawl around on the floor, and lie on the floor wriggling around, at least once a month. It absolutely makes you look at the world differently and allows you to tap into perspectives you have neglected since childhood.

Look at Lynne Kelly. That is a major part of how religion developed.

There is a lot more to mnemonic techniques that people realise because literacy changed things and the internet more so.

In this thread I was speculating about another possible factor. The oneupmanship is more or less an idea that could have also had a wider effect on theological and ethical discussions. If I am looking at a particular point where it was most significant I guess it would be pre axial revolution maybe? Because theological debate did not really exist - I mean it as a significant factor as possible precursor to true theological discourse.

It is speculative, but not blindly. Make sense?

Like I said. They can decide.

Children who are deaf will, if put together in groups, develop sign language just as they would regular language, in the same way, along the same developmental axis, and with the same resulting richness of potential expression. — Baden

This is also speculation. No one has been cruel enough to test this out. The one comparable instance in Nicaragua has since been looked at more closely and showed that many of the children had already been exposed to sign languages and simply passed on their knowledge.

I guess people can either believe me or you.

Or they can just look it up and see that I am correct :D

Just look. It is not hard. There is some disagreement, but many linguists are fine with it.

See above. Some linguists are happy to use the term more broadly. I see no real problem with this if it is made explicit.

Some linguists are happy to say bees have a language. I guess others insist on this or that definition. Even Wittgenstein fell prey to saying there can be no private language, after defining language as not being private. For some reason people took that hook line and sinker.

I think the application of Logic to language has perhaps made ideas about it more rigid.

I would suggest not bothering if you are young. Just go and think about stuff then come back to it in a few years.

I say this because it can be easy to fall prey to this or that idea from this or that person. Just try and figure out stuff on your own by asking questions. Mull them over, leave them alone, come back to them, throw them away, pick them up again, think what else may be true, explore your world and life.

In the meantime, paint some pictures, make music, learn some mathematics and science and explore in general. :)

And it's plain to me this is thinking behavior we're talking about. When I gaze up at the night sky, I'm surely engaging with what I see thinkingly, but it's not always accompanied by thoughts in words, or even by specific feelings. Sometimes there's a definite "sense of wonder," but sometimes I just look and it doesn't have to be anything else, but it's still a sort of thinking. — Srap Tasmaner

I would call this "language" it is just not as prominent and familiar to many because we are told what "language" is and what "grammar" is. I can absolutely think without words and form ideas and images in my head that play out without any need for worded thought.

People can communicate extremely complex ideas in other forms than worded language. It just so happens that worded language is extremely efficient. Writing is something we learn, but we do not really 'think' about it once the skill is acquired.

It seems to me that some people who are more sensitive are simply more directly tapped into sensory input others have filtered out since childhood. Ironically, in some ways, it is the 'normal' people that are more narrowly tuned into the world than those we often regard as fixated. I think in many cases they can just 'see' what we no longer can.

I have not watched it yet for a reason ;)

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

I have not watched the video. The answer is it is massively important. We live in the world not apart from it. The reason many feral children cannot develop language to the same degree is because they do not see the world like other humans - they see it from a wolves perspective if raised by wolves.

The Man with No Language grew up around humans, travelled across an international border and got a job gardening before he learned what a language was. He did this because he had exposure to the human-lived-world.

What is in the video?

Hence "fantastical nonsense" and not "fantastical"?

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden: https://youtu.be/GMXgb2EIi7o

Pretty good reference book packed with information covering ancient Greece and Rome. Not recommended if you are seeking some fantastical nonsense. It just provides facts.

Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena such as sickness and say, lightning. — LuckyR

A common theory. Maybe there is something in this, but I am not convinced it is as big a deal as some make out. We know for a fact that stories were told to pas on knowledge and that mnemonics with fantastical beings helped retain such memories. For this reason I think the heart of the matter of the God concept is due to a break in the means of passing on knowledge and/or uninitiated people misconstruing the stories - basically mistaking the map for the landscape.