I suggest we discuss this phenomenon if this topic resonates with you. — Astorre

A TV series is about emotion, pulling us into dilemmas and relationships that keep us guessing, speculating, and wanting more. The best ones show us something new and unexpected, exploring situations we hadn’t considered. In that sense, Breaking Bad, as a multi-layered, expectation-defying narrative, achieved exactly what it set out to do.

There are many possible explanations for Breaking Bad’s story choices. The main one, I think, is that 'bad guys' are simply more interesting to watch than 'good guys'. Good guys are dull, and television has spent decades telling anemic and improbable stories about heroes triumphing over villains.

By contrast the character arc of an ordinary person (like us) sinking deeper into questionable activities and behaviours, becoming trapped by his choices is just more compelling and inherently dramatic. Welsh actor Anthony Hopkins once described the show as a Shakespearean or Jacobean tragedy. This is not a new narrative convention (Macbeth, Richard III, Titus Andronicus).

That said, it’s not a show I particularly enjoyed, I never got past season three or four. I tend to lose patience with most long-form TV; I prefer stories that reach their conclusion in a tighter, more contained form.

The idea of most people today of what it means to be philosophicallly ‘up to date’ is regressive with respect to the above thinkers. Most are still living in the world envisioned by, at best, certain early 19th century writers and , at worst, much older thinkers. So before we can talk about the need for creative innovations in philosophy we have to make sure we aren’t reinventing the wheel. — Joshs

If it isn’t already, this is a great idea for a thread.

Quick question on this. Who will catch up first - mainstream philosophy, or culture?

I remember the book but not this particular event.

So is your focus on the function of trolling rather than following the money?

Yes, I think your intuitions are reasonable. I’m not sure if there’s a single truth to be had here, most phenomena are the product of a confluence of factors.

Strip it all back and what it's down to, probably, is tribalism being marketed thorough emotion.

The question for me in all this is where do we go from here?

It seems to me that when the President of the United States posts a video of himself on X defecating on his opponents, then our culture has crossed over some kind of event horizon.

The OP is an attempt to explore this event horizon.

So yes, trolling, whether it is a symptom or the cause of the culture, is very much central to my cynicism. — Colo Millz

Got ya.

Perhaps we need to consider Trump as a maverick and a new way of inhabiting the role. He's simply behaving like any other grubby mainstream media figure.

My quesion is has the paradigm been changed - is this US politics from now on, or is it unique to Trump's style?

Is the cause of all this the anger sparked by neoliberal reforms in America, which have hollowed out communities, industries, and infrastructure, or is it the backlash against “woke” culture, or is it simply the inevitable descent of all culture into a form of showbiz?

If the prevailing mode of bullshit in our society is advertising, then trolling represents what happens when that mode becomes self-aware. Advertising teaches us to value attention over truth; trolling celebrates that condition. It marks the point at which we are no longer merely susceptible to manipulation - we have become addicted to it, fascinated by the power of provocation itself.

If bullshit ignores truth for the sake of impression management, trolling ignores truth for the sake of spectacle. The troll’s goal is not to appear credible or admirable, but to elicit a reaction, often at the expense of any meaningful communication.

If bullshit marks a disregard for truth, trolling marks a disregard for dialogue itself - a symptom of a digital culture that values power more than understanding. — Colo Millz

I'm not quite sure what your plans for this OP were. I've never taken much interest in lying or in bullshit.

From what I see, the world is primarily about marketing a perspective. For some, this is lies; for others, Frankfurt’s bullshit; and for others still, it is truth.

Are you arguing that the world lacks trust and has become cynical because of trolling and bullshit? Is this a factor in the West's meaning crisis?

I find the accusation of ‘trolling’ to be most often used as a dismissive weapon to delegitimize the reasoning and justifications of those who we disagree with. — Joshs

Totally agree with this. Often expressed as, 'You're either lying or a troll..."

The multitude of options is illusory. — baker

I guess we disagree on this.

I wasn’t just talking about religion; also beliefs, lifestyles, and choices. I know so many people who drifted from socialism to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to cultural Christianity, to New Age, to hitchhiking, to fruit picking, to unemployment, to drug use, to university, to sexuality, to military service, to music, etc, etc, and none of these things provided any real satisfaction. They were always looking to see what else they could explore what other beliefs were open to them. In the modern world (here at least), in the absence of certainty and clear pathways of tradition everything is "open". Even for those less wealthy, the cities are full of poor country folk who left their towns to experiment with different lifestyles and options.

Now, am I saying that this is true for everyone? No. It is just a noticeable part of contemporary society and, in my view, a significant factor in unrest and anxiety.

That, alone, is interesting. I have no formal philosophy background, but perhaps naively came here looking for a new way of looking at current events. "After Virtue" is the one recommendation here that has shaped my understanding of real-world issues today. — Jeremy Murray

I have no background in philosophy; I’m here to see what I might have missed and to find out what others think. This is fascinating in itself. Philosophy is far too complex and fraught a subject for an amateur like me. I’ve done plenty of reading in other subjects. I tend to think philosophy is most appealing if you’re trying to shore up a belief system, if you’re searching for truth or a foundation for morality, or if you’re unhappy and looking for consolation. I’m a fairly frivolous and cheerful person and more of a simple-minded pragmatist, so those sorts of big themes aren’t of significant use to me as I go about my business.

Freedom becomes crippling when acting on it cripples one. For example, one has the "freedom" not to have health insurance. But what kind of freedom is that? — baker

Again, different cultures have different attributes. Health care in Australia is mostly free and accessible to everyone. It’s not perfect, but the homeless and the middle class share doctors and hospitals.

What I see are people faced with a smorgasbord of choices: religious, political, and social, with almost no barriers to access because, for the most part, everything is permitted. That abundance of choice seems to make people freeze: what do I do in a world where culture is so varied? How do I focus my life when there’s a multiplicity of choices, faiths, and lifestyles all available to me? All potentially true or rewarding or superior.

The groups for whom this isn’t always a major problem tend to be hardworking, thrifty migrant communities that still have a dominant culture and a unified worldview. I know quite a few people from the Nepalese, Indian, Afghan, and Vietnamese communities. But their children sometimes come adrift because they don’t really know whether to accept proscribed tradition or embrace all the freedoms available to them.

Issue-wise, I am most worried about free speech, as we see both the left and the right using the topic politically, while refusing to commit to principles, and with social media and AI further muddying the waters. Do you or others have recommendations for philosophers on the subject of free speech, in particular that can shed light on free speech in our online world? — Jeremy Murray

I’ve never found a book of philosophy that’s assisted me with any real-world issue, to be honest. But philosophy is not my go to. I’ve read a bit of Chomsky on power, imperialism and freedom, but I’ve mostly preferred novels: Swift, Eliot, Orwell, Bellow, Dickens, Flaubert. I’m more interested in culture and have never taken much interest in politics. Apart from this site, and youtube I don't do social media. I think once people become radicalised by their social media bubble, it’s probably all over.

like I've been saying all along: Speaking up, when one is the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, can have grave consequences for one. Like your food delivery guy above: he's very lucky if he didn't get arrested for saying what he said to a policeman. — baker

Like I've been saying all along: it's different here. You would be unlucky to be arrested for that or other behaviours of putative disrespect.

Interesting. I'm not sure I believe in human nature, but I’m open to changing. I can see how Rorty’s notion of solidarity is a tempting alternative, and in some ways it mimics the role of a telos. Solidarity does give direction to moral thought: it tells us to care for others, expand empathy, reduce cruelty. But it doesn’t claim that this is necessary in the way a telos would. Nussbaum, by contrast, in her Aristotelian Capabilities Approach identifies certain human capabilities that are essential for a person to live a fully human life; essential for flourishing. I understand the attraction of this, but I struggle to get behind notions of universal capabilities. They sound so middle class and well-meaning. But I'm clogging this thread up with unrelated bullshit. Sorry @Wayfarer.

It's possible you didn't parse my sentence correctly. There was no comma after "from" in my statement: — Pierre-Normand

Ha! I'm not sure why that's there.

I view Sam Harris's account of "the moral landscape" to be completely incoherent and so grossly misinformed as not being worthy of much attention, — Pierre-Normand

People seem to love or hate The Moral Landscape.

My claim was purely negative. It was reiterating Putnam's point (to be distinguished from Harris' insistence for collapsing values into the folds of "scientific" facts) that you can't derive what makes a human life good (or an action just) from some sort of factual/scientific investigation into what "objectively" is the case about us. — Pierre-Normand

Got it. I’ve never been overly preoccupied by the is-ought problem. I know Rorty regarded the fact/value distinction as ill-founded. Presumably, it becomes more pressing if one views metaphysics as the ultimate grounding for normative claims, but not if, like Rorty, you see moral reasoning as just form of human conversation, where moral “oughts” emerge from the ways we live together rather than from some deeper metaphysical truth. He might agree with Harris about that point as both seem to be telos free.

Regarding foundations for eudaimonia, I am also, like Putnam and Rorty, an anti-foundationalist. — Pierre-Normand

I’ve found Rorty pretty interesting on this, and I’ve enjoyed some of the Putnam lectures I’ve heard. I have anti-foundationalist intuitions.

Is it your view that Alasdair MacIntyre is right or wrong when he argues (in After Virtue) that facts about human nature already imply norms about how people ought to treat each other, and that the is–ought problem only arises if you remove teleology from the conversation? Interesting: I guess I haven’t really thought much about this until recently.

MacIntyre, as we know, arrives there through Aristotle, while Rorty comes at it via pragmatism and anti-essentialism. It fascinates me that MacIntyre sees the structure of human nature, its inherent purposes, as providing the basis for moral norms, whereas Rorty takes the oposite approach, grounding morality in social practices rather than any inherent human purpose. Which one you endorse will depend on what you believe in - like most philosophy. Thoughts?

I interpret the take home message of your post to be that, when assessing the value of the Enlightenment project itself, and what lens it provides for recovering the views of the ancients, one can go Bannon's way or Taylor's way. And we've both seemingly chosen to go the same way :wink: — Pierre-Normand

Are they the only two ways?

I have discovered there was quite a lot of common ground between the perennialists and reactionary politics, which I don't want to be associated with. (I was also dismayed to learn that Steve Bannon used to quote Guenon. — Wayfarer

David Bentley Hart is disparaging of perennialism and proudly announces himself a syncretist. That’s not always the best path either - religious appropriation and incoherence being the most obvious. No doubt Hart would be a fastidious exemplar.

The failures of, say, some contemporary virtue ethicists to recover Aristotle's conception of the good life, and of the ultimate good — Pierre-Normand

Do you count Nussbaum as one of those failures?

Eudaimonia cannot survive the surgical operation that separates understanding what we are from what it is that we ought to be and do, and this can justifiably be viewed as a loss of immanence or transcendence depending on which side one locates themselves in Taylor's immanent frame. — Pierre-Normand

What’s your foundation for eudaimonia? It often strikes me that the most vociferous groups in the human flourishing space are secular moralists of the Sam Harris kind.

How would we demonstrate (in your words) what we are from, what it is that we ought to be and do?

Yes, the experts deserve my respectful silence and deference to their judgments and opinions. — ucarr

I agree for the most part. But who counts as an expert on the transcendent?

Good point, it's not just me, it may be "we".

Right, but I would ask if to approach this primarily as a matter of "appeal," enjoyment, or usefulness, etc. is to simply refuse to step into the opposing frame, since it normally includes epistemic and metaphysical claims, and not merely claims about enjoyment or aesthetics. As a contrast, if one was told that one's brake pads had worn out, or that one's air conditioner was destroying the ozone layer, one should hardly reply: "I see the appeal of those claims, but I feel drawn to think otherwise." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I realised I didn’t properly respond to this.

I suppose what I’m saying is that if Vervaeke were my mechanic and told me my brake pads were worn out, I’m not sure I’d trust his judgment and I’m fairly certain his proposed solution would be difficult to follow. So I’d probably get a second opinion. Of course, in a simple matter like this, it could readily be demonstrated empirically that the claim was true or not; I could see the worn pads for myself.

But comparing Vervaeke’s ambitious tour through contemporary psychology, world philosophy, cognitive science and religion, to a brake-pad problem doesn’t really fit. The epistemic and metaphysical claims involved are less ambitious.

In other words, I’m not sure I agree with Vervaeke that there is a meaning crisis in the way he describes it, nor do I find his proposed remedies particularly clear or convincing. I can, however, see how many unhappy or anxious people might find aspects of his work comforting or useful, much as others might be drawn to existentialism or the Catholic Church. I also think Vervaeke might particularly appeal to those who already believe that the West is going “to hell in a handbasket”. But not everyone is a customer for such a message, and a limited appetite for it does not necessarily indicate a personal deficiency.

I think he’s mostly right on this one. I like his framing of this traditional problem, and I agree that we’re often just reinforcing our own comfort, whatever we believe. Sometimes, there’s even comfort in discomfort.

I would tend to agree with Charles Taylor though that the epistemic and metaphysical presuppositions that leave people "spun" open or closed to "transcendence" are themselves largely aesthetic (which is not to say unimportant; the idea that Beauty is of secondary importance is of course merely the presupposition of a particular sort of Enlightenment "world-view.") I think you can see this clearest in people from a solidly materialist atheist frame who nonetheless recoil from the difficulties of the "sheer mechanism" doctrines of the eliminativists and epiphenomenalists, and find themselves open to the notions of God in Spinoza, deflated versions of Hegel, or—most interesting to me—a sort of bizzaro-world reading of Neoplatonism where the One is a sort of "abstract principle" in the same sense that the law of gravity might be (suffice to say, I don't think this reading survives contact with the sources in question, which is why it is interesting that it arises at all, or why the material must be transformed as it is). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I probably agree with Taylor on transcendence and have made similar points myself. We mostly settle on beliefs because they are emotionally satisfying. Interesting points about materialist atheists. I haven’t had contact with any folk like this for years, so I couldn’t say if you hit the mark. But isn’t one of the great cliches of our time the declaration, “I’m not religious but I’m spiritual. “ Spiritual here generally means an interest in crystals and swimming with dolphins. Or is that too harsh?

I can see the appeal but I don't personally feel a need for it.
— Tom Storm

Right, but I would ask if to approach this primarily as a matter of "appeal," enjoyment, or usefulness, etc. is to simply refuse to step into the opposing frame, since it normally includes epistemic and metaphysical claims, and not merely claims about enjoyment or aesthetics. As a contrast, if one was told that one's brake pads had worn out, or that one's air conditioner was destroying the ozone layer, one should hardly reply: "I see the appeal of those claims, but I feel drawn to think otherwise." Or likewise, "I see the appeal of treating people of all races equally, but I find holding to stereotypes to be more illuminating for myself." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. I can see the appeal but I don't personally feel a need for it. I don’t personally find Vervaeke or Jordan Peterson (who has a similar approach) sufficiently compelling. I do enjoy Krishnamurti, however and could easily sit through a few hours of him. Perhaps it's because I am not sufficiently unhappy or restless to devote much time to deep discussions of meaning. I’m a fairly superficial, easily contented individual.

My takeaway from your statement goes as follows: a) your experience of the world, being down to earth, shuns pettifogging trivial details; b) being a fan of uncertainty, you like to roll the dice; you're a gambler; c) you like to keep things simple as much as possible (does c conflict with b?); d) you think over-analysis of things is a folly in abundance here; e) you give a wide berth to pretentious fools who would be wise men. — ucarr

I’d say that’s an exaggeration of my position, and the wording you’ve used is full of judgments I wouldn’t normally make. I wasn’t referring to “pettifogging trivial details.” Also, expressions like “roll of the dice” or “you’re a gambler” don’t fit — I’m not a risk-taker by inclination. I do sometimes wing things, yes, but that’s different. I’d also be unlikely to use terms like “folly” or “pretentious fools.” Are these word choices AI?

If I had to sum up the paragraph of mine you sited I would describe it like this: I’m skeptical of grand narratives and the tendency to claim certainty or authority in areas where we lack real expertise. When I say I am a fan of uncertainty, I refer to being content to say, "I don't know".

Thank you, that's an interesting take. Appreciated.

Been on a 3 hour Vervaeke kick. Interview with him about his atheism which he prefers to call “non-theism”. On reflection I've been unfair to Vervaeke. He's not nostalgic.

this leads to a question: is it possible to believe that religions are all not wrong, without believing that they are all right? Or is the idea that they are neither wrong not right, but are merely helpful or unhelpful stories? Then we might ask how a religion could be helpful or unhelpful. — Janus

Seems to me to be a more highbrow version of Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists thesis; the idea that we need to set aside space for reflection, a sense of the numinous, the cultivation of wisdom, and a connection to the sacred, which Vervaeke describes as something that awakens us to reality, awe, and a reconnection to life. I can see the appeal but I don't personally feel a need for it.

If you've crippled a bird's wings are they still free to fly away simply because you've opened the cage door? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, but a crippled bird still knows precisely where freedom lies.

'Orwellian' is over-used for MAGA, but it really is. — Wayfarer

It reminds me of the Stasi and East Germany.

Anyhow, I wouldn't say the "crisis of meaning" comes down to "too many choices," or "too much freedom," in the minds of critics at least, but rather something like: "all the myriad choices are bad, and I'd rather have fewer and good choices than an ever increasing menu of the inadequate," and "this is an ersatz freedom that simply amounts to freedom to become a bovine Last Man—when AI learns to mindlessly consume I'll have no purpose left," or something like that. To reduce it to anxiety over modernity is to ignore the strong positive thrust that often comes alongside it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It’s my view that for the most part the “meaning crisis” is a case of too much freedom. For some, that freedom is crippling. It fits with my sense that we’re in a transition period where no single dominant worldview can readily function unless it’s imposed by authoritarian figures (MAGA?). But I might be wrong.

I’ve just rewatched Vervaeke’s opening lecture in his Meaning Crisis series. In his outlining of the problem, I don’t see anything he describes (increased cynicism, anger, futility, alienation, bullshit) that can’t be explained by capitalism and social media. Increasingly people live in bubbles of doubt, paranoia, and reactionary energy, so I can understand why some might struggle to find meaning, and why some academics believe there’s a meaning crisis that is more significant than our habitual questioning and despair. Within the current communication and technology frameworks, it’s easy for ambivalence to intensify into paranoia and extremism. The internet is a great place for doubts to be radicalised. The rest of us manage well enough with family, friends, work, hobbies, and planning for the future.

I’m not surprised to hear that Vervaeke comes from a fundamentalist background. Breaking away from that often leads people to try to build a system they can confidently believe in; one that preserves a sense of transcendence without the reductionism of fundamentalism.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this meaning crisis. Do you think that, if it exists, it’s because we’re in a transition period, still haunted by the old beliefs and struggling to adapt to new ways of understanding? What are projects like Vervaeke’s trying to accomplish? It feels to me like they’re trying to put the genie back in the bottle. But as someone who isn’t looking for his kind of answers, it’s perhaps easy for me to misread the material.

Most people are deeply immersed in meaning: love, relationships, work, friends, goals, children, hobbies, future planning, concern for the environment. We are filled with purpose, engagement and transformative experiences.
— Tom Storm

In which case, they will probably have no interest in this kind of discussion. — Wayfarer

And rightly so, I would have thought.

Do you think that full reflection is possible for a person who is inside a paradigm? — Astorre

Well, Vervaeke argues that there is a burgeoning obsession with people looking to find meaning outside of the paradigm, so the answer must be yes. But that doesn’t mean they are right. :wink:

The salient question is what makes an argument convincing to some and not to others? The answer may not be located in paradigms so much as shared beliefs and subcultures.

There’s so much dumb shit on here…..well, everywhere, actually. — Mww

And probably more dumb shit from me.

The traditional religions did address existential dilemmas, but then, they didn't arise in today's interconnected global world with all its diversities and the massive increase of scientific knowledge. The problem is, trying to retrieve or preserve the valuable insights that they arrived at. That's why I think a kind of interfaith approach is an essential part of the solution, something which Vervaeke does in his dialogues. — Wayfarer

Good. I would have to agree with much of this. But it sounds virtually impossible, these things can only happen gradually, not by design, I would think.

But overall, the crisis of modernity is a really difficult challenge to deal with. I don't feel as though I've dealt with it at all successfully, although at least I recognise that there is a challenge. — Wayfarer

There's two issues here; describing the problem and suggesting remedies.

I think you describe the problem well enough, but I find it hard to relate to as a concept, probably because I don’t perceive a lack of meaning in my own life, and I can’t speak for the West as a whole. To me, the West seems to be grappling more with pluralism than with a lack of meaning. No one knows who should be in charge anymore, and culture no longer rests on a set of shared values.

...since the Scientific Revolution, modern culture tends to see the world (or universe) in terms of a domain of objective forces which have no meaning or moral dimension, in which human life is kind of a fortuitous outcome of chance events. Prior to that, the Universe was imbued with symbolic and real meaning, in which the individual, no matter how lowly their station, was a participant. — Wayfarer

I know this is a prevailing narrative. I’m not certain that this is how the West actually sees reality. Figures for atheism around the world remain relatively low: Pew says 10% across 42 Western countries. Perhaps 24% self-describe as no religion. I don't think this suggests burgeoning nihilism.

Does Vervaeke's view romanticise pre-modern culture? Wasn’t it an era of imposed hierarchies, powerlessness, and widespread pain and brutality? Was it really qualitatively better? Was it not spiritually bereft in other equally detrimental ways?

Did the Scientific Revolution strip the world of meaning? Could it not be said that it freed humans from superstition and arbitrary authority, allowing us to explore reality, exercise agency, and create purpose through reason, creativity, and shared endeavour?

Does it follow that we've become decadent and hollow and lacking in connective spiritual values? Is there something inherently wrong with our time? I couldn’t tell you. Maybe that’s why I struggle to get on board.

I do think that our old problems are more urgent because the impact of technology is so powerful today. But this isn't a new problem, just a new power.

We live in a strangely fragmented lifeworld. On the one hand, abstract constructions of our own imagination--such as money, "mere" facts, and mathematical models--are treated by us as important objective facts. On the other hand, our understanding of the concrete realities of meaning and value in which our daily lives are actually embedded--love, significance, purpose, wonder--are treated as arbitrary and optional subjective beliefs. This is because, to us, only quantitative and instrumentally useful things are considered to be accessible to the domain of knowledge. Our lifeworld is designed to dis-integrate knowledge from belief, facts from meanings, immanence from transcendence, quality from quantity, and "mere" reality from the mystery of being. This book explores two questions: why should we, and how can we, reintegrate being, knowing, and believing? — Wayfarer

I don’t think this passage resonates. Most people are deeply immersed in meaning: love, relationships, work, friends, goals, children, hobbies, future planning, concern for the environment. We are filled with purpose, engagement and transformative experiences.

Can you give me two concrete examples of how dis-integrated knowledge is causing problems.

What are your takes on usefulness and uselessness? should one be pursued more than the other? I mean, lets consider for a moment that i am a god and i tell you that i can give you a choice to make the world as efficient in any and/or every area, wether it is artificial (man-made) or natural doesnt matter, you can make it work as efficiently as you want. What areas would you make more efficient? less? — Oppida

One issue for me is: what constitutes useful and useless, and how do we determine which is which? So isn’t our initial problem how we determine our values?

I consider myself a pragmatist. Usefulness is the primary standard by which I judge knowledge, truth, beliefs, and actions. I see the primary question that philosophy has to answer as not what is true, but what do I do next? What do I do now? — T Clark

I think I am in full agreement - in as much as I understand usefulness.

AI has had an obvious impact on efficiency in a lot of areas on life, and there are clearly ethical questions involved, but my main concern was (i think) and existentialist one. Say that, for instance, we humans are suddenly, magically implented with infinite knowledge; we are now omnipotent and omnisapient. What the hell would we be doing? there has to be a certain limit for our current brains to break trough, otherwise we'd get bored and simply go insane or at least thats what i -in a VERY summed up way- think of practicality, that it has to be present in some level. — Oppida

This seems a bit muddled to me. What would we do if we were omnipotent and omniscient? How would we know if we were not either? This strikes me as one of those inherently unanswerable questions.

AI is one thing; is the possibility that humans might have infinite knowledge, another? What exactly is infinite knowledge, and what would it look like for humans to have it? Do you mean having direct access to it through something like AI? There are likely inherent limits to human cognition—not so much in terms of acquiring knowledge or information, but in the conceptual frameworks we can grasp and the structures of epistemology we can operate within. Certain ways of understanding reality may appear profoundly alien at first, potentially requiring a generation or more to fully assimilate and integrate into our collective thinking.

So many of the debates here, especially those about the hard problem, actually revolve around this very point. It seems clear as crystal to me. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. What do you think is going on for those who don't see this?

the sense that the world is basically meaningless. — Wayfarer

Do you think this is a direct belief, or more of a practical outcome of other beliefs, a kind of implicit assumption?

But I don’t think it’s a matter of becoming ‘Muslims or quakers’ or members of a movement. Anything of value in any religion, is only because it points to some reality which is more than just a matter of belief or personal conviction. — Wayfarer

Yes, that’s kind of what I was trying to convey. But wouldn’t the meaning crisis, strictly speaking, be resolved if everyone became, say, a Muslim? I’m not claiming that this particular manifestation of faith is inherently valuable, but the reality is that the issues Vervaeke highlights: meaning, relevance realization, transcendent purpose, insight practices, enchantment, ritual, and awakening of attention, would all be addressed.

Hegel's ideas accrued a lot of fame overtime, but what exactly can we make of such a complex and multi-dimensional proposition? For me, to really get this, i would have to break it down word-for-word and ask a ton of questions, even for this very small section. — ProtagoranSocratist

I’ve tried to read philosophy many times over the years, but whether it’s Nietzsche or Plato, I’ve never been able to make much sense of it or find it absorbing. Not everyone is suited to philosophy, and I’d say I’m one of those people. I’m here mainly to get a sense of what I’ve missed and to see what others think by putting forward questions that are sometimes naive and occasionally insolent. My framework is simple-minded curiosity, leaning toward modern secularism and perhaps a kind of unflinching instrumentalism. I have no problem being a creature of my times. :wink:

I started out writing this OP as a kind of valedictory, as it is really one of the main themes I’ve been exploring through all these conversations. I’m nonplussed that it was received with such hostility when I think it is pretty well established theme in the history of ideas. I’m also getting tired of having the same arguments about the same things with the same people. It becomes a bit of a hamster wheel. — Wayfarer

I’d be disappointed if you left. As you know, I greatly value your contributions. My pushback wasn’t meant to be hostile, and I apologise if that’s how it came across.

One interesting thing about this site is that we rarely see anyone change their mind about fundamental questions of meaning. It happens, but it’s rare. I wonder if that tells us something about the nature of human sense-making?

While I haven’t read them, I’ve watched quite a bit of Vervaeke and McGilchrist. I still hold some skepticism about the nature of the problem they describe, though their proposed solutions may well be useful. We could probably “save the world” and restore a shared sense of purpose if everyone became Muslims, Sikhs, or Quakers; the method matters less than achieving widespread adherence.

Ive had this question lately, why does happiness feel "good"? — Oppida

Hmm. Glad to see “good” in quotes. Some people feel happy doing bad things to others; why does that feel “good”? Or is it simply that when people have their needs met (whatever those needs are), there’s a satisfying emotional payoff?

I’m not usually a hell in a handbasket type, but I guess I’m not sure we have the wherewithal to do this. In a sense I guess we need the kind of gumption that comes with commitment to a coherent cultural vision which may no longer be available to us. I think we’re perfectly capable of driving this bus off the cliff. — T Clark

Fair points and and this is probably right.

Perhaps we will become victims of the too much meaning crisis...

it’s about the underlying ontology of modernity — the way the scientific worldview, as inherited from Galileo and Descartes, implicitly defines reality as value-free and mindless. Once meaning is exiled from the fabric of being, everything else — from consumerism to the instrumentalisation of knowledge — follows naturally. — Wayfarer

This is the nub of it.

I’m not convinced that consumerism or the instrumentalisation of knowledge wouldn’t still be dominant even if the West had remained committed to Christianity.

So the crisis isn’t a call to religion, but a call to re-examine the metaphysical assumptions we’ve inherited. Science remains indispensable, but it cannot by itself tell us what anything means. One can retain plenty of respect for science while recognising that fact, which is built into the very foundations of the method. — Wayfarer

I’m still not sure that the problem is correctly defined, but perhaps a proposed solution would help clarify my understanding. What would be an example of a solution in this context?

I hear you. I think one of the glitches in all this is that once a problem is identified and agreed upon, people bring their worldviews to it as solutions. Christians appeal to the Gospels for guidance. Marxists call for a worker’s revolution. Postmodernists favor anti-foundationalist approaches. I think what Vervaeke is trying to do is find the Esperanto of philosophy: a shared worldview that we can all participate in to address our problems collectively.

But the key point is, to overcome or transcend that sense of the Universe being fundamentally meaningless and life as a kind of fluke set of circumstances - even knowing what we know about the Cosmos, which is vastly more, and vastly different, to what our forbears could have known. — Wayfarer

I’m not convinced that the idea that the world is meaningless is really the problem we face. One can hardly accuse MAGA of this, or China. Surely it is the wrong kind of meaning that ends up causing harm. The hardwired notion that God gave us dominion over the Earth and its animals seems to have something to do with our environmental issues.

Look, we’ve had about 150 years of genuine secularism in the West (and the journey began before that), but to imagine that thousands of years of theism and religious values are not also responsible for our presuppositions and our current predicament seems distorted.

it seems to me, at least, that for very long periods of time, in pre-history at least, that almost nothing happened that is remotely comparable to the crises facing current culture. — Wayfarer

Isn’t this simply a factor of population growth and the successes and failures of technology and capitalism? We were always flawed; it’s just that our present technology and population size makes those flaws more dangerous.

It is about the way in which our collective culture has engendered that sense of meaningless, alienation and anomie, which I think is unarguably a characteristic of globalised Western culture. — Wayfarer

Is there a significant non-Western culture that doesn’t have any of the problems we face, so we can see how it is done?

The task now, as John Vervaeke spells it out in his Awakening from the Meaning Crisis is to rediscover a living integration of science, meaning, and wisdom—to awaken from or see through the divisions that underlie the meaning crisis. — Wayfarer

Or do we need to use the freedoms of Western culture to find better ways of living, grounded in more pragmatic approaches to survival?

I’d be interested in hearing what some specific solutions might be and how they could help. Clearly, belief in God isn’t an obvious solution, given that so much of capitalism and colonisation stemmed from Christian culture.

The world is converging on a series of overlapping crises, political, economic, existential and environmental. If you can't see that, then I won't try and persuade you otherwise. — Wayfarer

When has the world not appeared to be in some kind of crisis? That's the point, surely. You are talking about a Meaning Crisis and I've asked a few questions about this, that's all.