:gasp: I just thought they might have provided a clue or two - discipline, attitude, hair colour...

You walk into an art gallery and are struck speechless as you pass an artwork on display. You can’t articulate what it is you feel in you but i this piece simply draws you in, it’s mesmerising — Benj96

I have to say I have never had that experience. I have been struck by extraordinary visual works but never like that. The closest I've come to this is listening to some classical music. Beautiful people... not something that I have ever paid much attention to. I'll be interested to hear what others think.

Because of what you said. But I was just being flip. Sorry. I guess one unkind reading of a statement like

It's the self and consciousness and the experience. But no effort given to defend it. — Caldwell

makes it sound like self-involved indulgence.

Still....good to hear confirmation that the self is a construction, and at the same time, isn’t an illusion. — Mww

Dennett with a tender afterglow.

I'm French, and yet I find his prose too convoluted. — Olivier5

Wow. I apologize for my reference to French writing. I hope I wasn't out of line.

I suppose you're right to suggest that such work may also serve as a "pathway to some additional befuddlement". Are there any canonical works in philosophy that aren't attended by that risk? — Cabbage Farmer

Indeed so it would be just like the other systems...

By the way I was asking the question about befuddlement not insisting it was the case.

Personally, I don't find much philosophical interest in the mind/body problem or in the hard problem of consciousness. If you do think there's a lot of value in such discourses, I expect it's unlikely that any sort of phenomenology is going to provide arguments that "solve" those problems for you. But I do think there's a tendency for work like Merleau-Ponty's to attract some readers who are fascinated by the "possibilities" suggested by such traditional problems, and occasionally to draw them toward more moderate philosophical views. McDowell's Mind and World is another such flycatcher, discharged from squarely within the contemporary Anglophone tradition. — Cabbage Farmer

That's an interesting thing to say. Your not interested in mind/body because you feel it is unanswerable? Is there another option? Don't care? I'm only interested in the question because it seems to inform the current discussions about physicalism versus idealism.

Why assume that meat like us can achieve an "explanation of everything" integrated in the manner of the formal sciences? As a humble skeptic, it seems to me that philosophy is deranged by such far-flung assumptions. — Cabbage Farmer

Nicely put and I largely agree.

That description doesn't make it sound much more than a self-involved indulgence.

So, yes, by these criteria, Donald Trump is a deeply religious/spiritual person. Yes, I know this isn't going to earn me any brownie points. That's what they get for telling me that I don't have what it takes. — baker

No brownie points, but it did make me laugh. If you did have what it takes - what is it you are meant to have?

"Don't even think of trying to fuck with me, because I will destroy you! You can see that I have the power to destroy you!" — baker

Precisely, because 'deep down Im a vulnerable little child who needs to be seen to dominate because healthy relationships are beyond me and I am afraid.'

Edit: Also, M-P is easily among my favorite prose stylists in philosophy. Reading him makes one feel aerial. — StreetlightX

From what I've read so far the prose is exceptional but dense. Prose is like attraction - you can't help who you are drawn to. Or not.

At the very least the book's negative results, it's 'dispatching', as you say, of what M-P calls 'empiricism' and 'intellectualism', are timeless contributions. — StreetlightX

Good to hear.



For you, is M-P an enhancement of Husserl's work or a heretical adaptation of it?

I don't disagree with the history, I disagree with the 'still have a role' emphasis. Most people have no clue about the origin of things. But age and culture plays a role. It's not really worth debating.

yet religion will still have it's role on saying what is right and wrong, — ssu

Certainly that is the case in theocracies. In the West it is generally the legal system, no? Which is often at odds with the fading fanaticisms of religious views.

That's fine, Jack. :pray:

Hart's been accused of being near to atheism on Uncommon Descent, for what it's worth. Because he doesn't subscribe to the sky-father trope. — Wayfarer

Just as they would likely accuse you. Re Hart - if sophisticated theology based on scrupulous patristic sources counts as atheism, so be it. :grin:

I am glad that you can relate to the idea of there being a void opened up by loss of the idea of transcendence. I think that Nietzsche's writing describes it so well. — Jack Cummins

Jack that's not what I wrote. Sorry Bud. I have met many people experiencing suicidal despair and emptiness with a perfectly intact sense of transcendence. The myth of transcendence as an inoculant against meaninglessness is enduring.

Then again, by "restless" you may mean "prone to promiscuity". — god must be atheist

By restless I meant... restless :smile: - needing to be constantly on the move, and active in order to manage anxiety. Sitting still is hard for some men as it might lead to introspection.

Throwing yourself into making money and working out are often about deliberate transformation - to project a view of yourself as powerful and desirable when you feel anything but. We used to call it compensation.

to the Christian, these powers of their religion are very real. — Michael Zwingli

Indeed. To the (insert magical thinking system of choice) the powers of their (insert spurious belief of choice) are very real. Yes... and therein lies most of the problems.

One of my good friends is a Catholic priest and a devotee of Thomas Merton. I grew up within a Baptist tradition so I know the faith and its promises well. As Father Bill would say, "People who call themselves Christians often tend to be members of a social club, with a faith so thin and stunted, I long for the company of secular humanists.'

that this is precisely what our monotheistic creeds purport to do; these are their primary purposes. — Michael Zwingli

Absolutely, which makes the irony of their lack of success so much deeper.

Your average Evangelical Christian is a person who has wilfully suspended his or her rationality for the feeling of purpose (dissemination of "the gospel") — Michael Zwingli

One of the most interesting Christian writers and thinkers on philosophy and theology, David Bentley Hart makes the point that American Evangelicals are not Christians at all but a strange cult of politics and American identity. I wonder if this is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy'...

We live in a culture of the 'tyranny of the ordinary'. Not for nothing did Alan Watts call his last book 'The Taboo against Knowing who you Are'. — Wayfarer

I do understand this point but Alan Watts is a great example of physician heal thyself, hey? Anxiety ridden, addicted to booze. Really he was a mess. God love him. His book on Zen started me thinking about higher consciousness and different ways of seeing decades ago. I always wished I had met him on his big boat. Did you even meet him?

I hear you, Cobber. (Australian term of affection)

On the other hand, people who practice Zen or who read classical figures seriously, don't bother me at all. They seem to me to be respectable enough. It's when others (less talented) try to ram it down your throat that it becomes a problem. — Manuel

I have nothing against people who follow contemplative paths. Who am I to get in other's way? And naturally there are sincere and good people involved. But I have noticed some of these folk do enjoy (if that's the correct verb) looking down on secular folk as unsophisticated yokels. That's what I would expect from the more strident atheist apologists for scientism.

The one figure I found interesting was Jiddu Krishnamurti who was likely no freer of base instincts, lust, materialism and celebrity worship than anyone else. But he dispensed some good ideas.

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. ... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.”
― J Krishnamurti

It's also been my experience that many folks don't want to do that because they can't stand having themselves around. — James Riley

That's so true. Good line.

Do we currently have an answer to what gives life meaning that we can be sure would be lost if we were immortal? — TiredThinker

I think so. We know that things become valuable when they are hard to obtain and rare. Time is limited to humans and thus intensely valuable. A human life is finite, brief - this acts as an aphrodisiac for living. Life is short, use it well, is a common adage - and for good reasons.

If we were immortal, we may well find other sources of meaning, but what would they be? Once we lose the sense of immediacy and risk associated with mortality, we are likely to lose a capacity to navigate what's important. Relationships, earning a living, perceptions of safety, purpose - all of these would utterly distorted by immortality and likely to be rendered meaningless by our current standards of understanding.

Learning how to find meaning as an immortal would become a very popular subject. So, I am not saying immortals can't have meaning just that it would require an extraordinary adaptation and transition. Of course this is all nonsense, but it's amusing to speculate.

"Time is short, life is short, there's a lot to know. So I skip the entertainers in the newspaper now. I just haven't got time."
- Tom Stoppard

That's not what Kafka said. Here's my way of seeing it - Awareness comes first, then philosophy. You have to know the world before you can use philosophy. — T Clark

Bit of a tantalizing statement, TC. I can almost hear the terse response - 'But how do you know the world without philosophy!?' Your Kafka quote reminds me of a similar quote that always resonated with me and in fact often provide me with direction (or, should I say, provides me with calm).

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone," Blaise Pascal

In life I have rarely lost by using the principle, 'first do nothing'. Sit.

Imagine a person who tried various spiritual fads and classics in their 20s and found them all wanting. — hanaH

When I was young I spent 15 years respectfully trying to understand revealed wisdom and higher consciousness, spending my time in the company of theosophists, self-described Gnostics, Buddhists, devotees of Ouspensky/Gurdjieff, Steiner, etc. What I tended to find was insecure people obsessed with status and hierarchy who had simply channeled their materialism into spirituality. There were the same fractured inter-personal relationships, jealousies, substance abuse and chasing after real estate and status symbols that characterise any secular person. I have since taken the view that the nature of human beings doesn't change, no matter what their professed metaphysics.

OK. I'm not sure this provides evidence for your claim but I get what you are saying. My own experience is many people I know turn down money or opportunities unless it meets their values. They could all be far richer than they are but live for values not for moolah. I've tended to think that restless men (particularly) who have fragile self-esteem chase after two things - money and gym membership.

Read thusly, the abandonment of religion amounts to the abandonment of any over-arching sense of purpose. — Wayfarer

Arthur Schopenhauer is a heck of a writer, and that's certainly the correct reading, but I believe he is wrong about this for reasons I already mentioned. Religion may save your soul, but it lacks the power to inoculate people from dread, depression and meaninglessness.

This lead me to think how for many the pursuit of philosophy may fill a void in the loss of religious ideas. — Jack Cummins

A side issue: but thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. I think this ought to be examined, particularly so since it is used as a springboard by many as a kind of aesthetic justification for a belief in the transcendent.

In other words, a universe without transcendence is ugly and empty and therefore can (or must) be filled with malevolent or pointless alternatives. Currently one of the most popular propagandists of this view is Jordan B Peterson who has made it a kind of chorus to his endless song of Jungian praise. (Yet if ever there were a case of 'physician heal thyself' it must be JBP.)

Religion and spirituality is no protection against the void. People work hard to paper over it with their Christianity or ostentations experiments in mysticism, but there is no guarantee against ontological dread and chronic feelings of emptiness. In my work I've known countless people in distress who were desperate and suicidal - most of them were believers and yet they were overwhelmed by meaninglessness. Their faith offered no protection from the void.

I suspect if faith is for anything, it is for whistling in the dark in the vain hope that you will distract yourself from your terrors and your moral failings.

Faith versus meaninglessness, or versus philosophy, or versus acquisitive materialism - this kind of dichotomous thinking is surely a good example of the false dilemma fallacy.

And yes, I do feel I've had a personal experience of revealed wisdom. I came to the conclusion that my experience was Gnosis in that the insights gained reliably foresaw future events and circumstances. — Bret Bernhoft

I have heard similar claims from about a dozen people over the decades. These experiences were supposedly derived from sources such as Islam, Christianity, meditation, Hinduism, Kabbalah, Aleister Crowley, whatever. You have settled on Gnosis as the source of your 'glimmers' for reasons as yet inscrutable.

Sounds like this thread was a sly way to slowly get around to your occult visions of the end of times, or are your visions less apocalyptic?

My private experiences have led me to conclude that personally revealed Gnosis is quite real and valid. — Bret Bernhoft

The problem with this (as I am sure you know) is that this is merely a claim. And it sits alongside all kinds of claims people make such as "I can talk to dead people" and "I can see auras".

These are only suppositions, but I'm convinced there is something to it all. — Bret Bernhoft

People are frequently convinced about things which are untrue, as history has demonstrated. Have you had a personal experience of revealed wisdom yourself? How do you know that this is what it is?

This is true. But I venture to say that to train someone in capitalistic, consumer-oriented, individualist, greedy, egotist, narcissistic behaviour takes five minutes, and it is totally successful. — god must be atheist

Interesting comment. Are you sure? I suspect a lot of people are immune to the mindset too.

It also seems relevant to mention that I do believe that personally revealed Gnosis is legitimate wisdom. And that it is able to be validated by science. — Bret Bernhoft

What reasons or evidence do you have for this? There's a Noble Prize going for anyone who can demonstrate this.

The question is fair. But no human being will even get enough time or have enough brain power to fully apprehend all philosophical thinkers and ideas. The best we can do is understand fragments of the subject, even if we are near genius. Like anything in life, have a taste and see where it takes you. This is the only way to approach anything, and it works whether one is learning to play guitar or studying mathematical logic. If something ceases to be fun move on.

Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? In other words, can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative? — Bret Bernhoft

I don't think there is any robust evidence for revealed wisdom, Gnostic or otherwise.

A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Fish picked examples of impractical philosophy. — hanaH

Actually I picked these at random. I forget what Fish said - I should have paid closer attention.

Or consider the philosophes who freed us from the dominance of superstition. — hanaH

Agree. Or consider the scientists who freed us from disease and gave us cell phones. I don't read any science if I can help it.

So, I’d like to put forth the hypothesis that I don’t need no stinking Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Kneechee, or any of those guys. I have expressed my skepticism about western philosophy many times before on the forum. Rather than being defensive about it, I have decided to raise laziness to the level of sanctified philosophical principle. Stop reading, arguing, writing, building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand of your benighted psyches. Just pay attention. To the world and to yourself. — T Clark

Nice work.

A lot of folk read the 'big' philosophers for name dropping rights and I think there is an assumption made that in reading them you've read them correctly and understand them. How likely would this be?. Most serious philosophical works (Heidie's Being and Time, Spinoza's Ethics) require years of careful study.

I suspect someone will come on here and blast away at the lack of discipline and seriousness this approach displays. And how important subjects require hard work to understand properly. But I sympathise and have not privileged academic philosophy in my life. Nevertheless, I have often been curious to get a better sense of what I may have missed. Why I'm here.

Stanley Fish (a critic I am no real fan of) has a routine he calls 'philosophy doesn't matter'. His argument is while it is true that people hold views about things (derived from philosophical positions in a haphazard way), essentially no one makes any serious decisions in their life - who to live with, what house to buy, where to work, where to shop, who to vote for, etc - based on the problem of induction, whether math is discovered or invented, or if physicalism is false, etc.

Ok. Is it a question which interests you is it just something you have to respond to?

I was acknowledging Baker's answer to my response. I wasn't aware that respect meant that I had to be in total agreement too. :gasp:

I’m curious about this profundity that reasonably supports optimism. — praxis

I thought this was a turn of phrase. I certainly understand how people might view optimism in a complex world like ours as requiring a profound or robust framework to hold it up. I'm not sure that I am an optimist. I generally hold to that often quoted aphorism from Pablo Casals, the great Catalan/Spanish cellist: "The situation is hopeless; we must take the next step."

If you had to write an essay about this question what would your axes be? — Lea

When is your essay due? Any comments yet about all the responses to your question or are you just raiding the place for paragraphs?

I've never met a competent person - mechanic, doctor, engineer, cook, cashier, dentist... - who didn't care about providing good service to their client, customer, patient. — T Clark

Indeed well put. Yes, and the pride in quality work means you do it just as well for someone you do not particularly like or who does not like you.

I like the Emerson quote. You may know this, Nietzsche adored Emerson and called him his "twin soul".