Wish I could write novels :D — Corvus

I tend to agree with the late Australian critic Clive James - there ought to be prestigious literary award going for the person who doesn't write a novel.

I've known hundreds of folk at the pointy end of mental ill health (schizophrenia, bipolar, schizo-affective disorder, folie à deux - you name it) I never take for granted my ostensibly unified sense of self. :gasp: Even if it's an illusion, I'm fine with it.

I read most Herman Hesse in my late teens. Probably during my initial exploration of Jung, Joseph Campbell, Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, you name it. I came to this stuff looking for an alternative to the suffocating strictures of mainstream culture. Demian resonated a great deal.

I am in my chair reflecting the I on the Sunday, and it is all vivid and clear memory of I working away in the garden, but the I in the garden on Sunday is a disembodied I from I now in the chair reflecting on him I, because I now can no longer control or talk to him I on last Sunday afternoon. — Corvus

I can say to the extent that I understand your point, I have not had this experience.

Recently when I was thinking about the nature of my own existence, I felt that I might have more than just 1 self. — Corvus

It does sound like the opening of a 20th century novel. :razz:

We know that humans develop and evolve stories to help make life easier. We are meaning making apes. An afterlife is one way to deal with death - to manage grief and loss. If you've seen people die you will understand that they seem to leave. Where do they go? Answer - a magical place we can't see where they are happy forever - or punished for bad deeds. Humans have a need for symmetry and catharsis. We have no reliable way to verify that there is an afterlife, so why does it matter? Does it seem likely that there is an afterlife?

Secular culture, as far as I'm concerned, is a great achievement, but it's place is basically to provide a framework within which one is free to practice any religion or none; It's not actually anti-religious, which is nevertheless how it's interpreted by a lot of people. — Wayfarer

That's an important point so often sidestepped.

Which one do you regard as your true self, and why? How many self / selves do you have? — Corvus

I am only aware of one self and it appears to be integrated. I have no idea what a 'true self' might be - does this assume a false self? I am aware of experiences and actions and choices and most of these seem to come from the same place which I call me. If it is an illusion - so be it. It doesn't concern me since I have no known way (or desire) to explore this.

From what I have seen, many believers don't really follow the commandments and probably don't know what they are.

*

So, yes, the best music and art is profound, even if it doesn't mean anything. — T Clark

Agree. Of course there is also the issue of what the composer was trying to 'say' with the music. Much classical orchestral music (for instance) is intended to evoke particular emotion and is often intended to tell a kind of narrative - often to accompany a poem or fable or story.

The problem is people hear what they hear and one person's exquisite musical narrative is another's cacophonous nonsense. No use telling a 16 year-old kid who is into K-pop that Mahler's 6th, a tragic symphony, may be the fist nihilistic composition in music.

Totally agree.

Socrates (or Plato) chose to start from the idea of the Good from which flow truth, order, justice, beauty, etc. This isn't a bad start, if we think about it. It certainly isn't "skepticism" or "nihilism". — Apollodorus

Yes. The eternal search for truth, beauty, goodness. I agree.

imagine Hitler, for example, spent quite a bit of time in self-examination.
Why shouldn't his count as an "examined life"? — baker

I've read a number of biographies of Hitler (whatever that's worth) and it does appear clear that Hitler spent many thousands of hours contemplating the classic themes - hence his obsession with culture, art, music, architecture, health, nobility, race. He might have been less than assiduous when it comes to reflecting upon 'goodness' but I believe he thought that this plans would lead to a greater good.

Democracy is what brought us a police state and cutthroat capitalism. — baker

Yes, it is exactly the same in any Western country as it is in Afghanistan.

I tired reading your attachment (lots of interesting ideas) - for me it requires editing and cutting so that it is making clear statements or proposing a clear argument. There's just way too much material (and much of it seems random) on the page, with not enough organisation to make sense of it all. I would need a few clear headings, and less quotes and for the lines of text to be less dense - no more than 15-18 words per line - not 35. I can't tell from this what you are trying to achieve.

I guess it can help in the West because it develops our paradigm. We can learn through Asian philosophy that there are other paths to grow up as a good person, or at least civic one. — javi2541997

My problem with this is you haven't described just what it is in these philosophies that would be of use. What specific ideas would help and how? What is your evidence that these ideas make a difference?

I feel we are living in an Era where people literally do not care about harm others. — javi2541997

I know its very popular to think so but what evidence do you have that society is more violent or dangerous and getting more so?

Hatred is certainly better organised - we can thank social media for that one. But so what?

I would think that rather than teaching people that violence is bad, it might be better to teach/model the benefits of community and cooperation.

I remember in my school my philosophy teacher never told me anything about Tao Te Ching neither Confucius. — javi2541997

And how specifically would they help in the West?

"Insight" seems to suggest awareness of something that is hidden, not necessarily the self. — Apollodorus

I can't think of something that is more successfully hidden in many people than the self. Hence the aphorism, νῶθι σεαυτόν. A classic Delphic maxim - know thyself... And yes, I appreciate that there are several conative applications of this idea.

I now pose the question. Does different levels of intelligence mean different levels of consciousness and self-awareness? — Maximum7

A low IQ will often come with poor understanding of self and others and very little capacity to conceptualise abstracts or systems. This immediately reduces capacity for comprehending ideas and relationships between ideas. Using the term 'different levels of consciousness' seems a bit New-Agey and requires some key indicators to be meaningful. Capacity for 'self awareness 'is another ambiguous term. I would probably call that insight. I am sure many of us have met super high IQ types who are really 'dumb' in their interactions with other people and have no insight into their own behaviour.

Thanks for clarifying your views.

But if University is free then perhaps that part won't matter? I'm trying to establish if you think there is something about poor or 'not rich' people intrinsic to education other than access to resource or potential connections.

But in order for knowledge to have a chance to become wisdom, the person has to meet the socio-economic requirements for such a process. The poor usually can't meet those requirements. — baker

I think you lost me here. What socio-economic requirements are needed and how does that process work?

I think it is quite funny how liberalism started as a project initiated by the emerging commercial classes for the purpose of restricting the power of king and church and gaining more power for themselves.

The result is that we now seem to have rule by corporations. And as their power increases, the power of the people decreases. With modern methods of mass surveillance, manipulation, and control, it isn't easy to see a way out of it .... — Apollodorus

Good summary. Agree.

And it's not that they can't be put into words, it's that when you do, they become something different. — T Clark

This!

What I have worked out: it's not always easy to say something meaningful.

Living in the moment seems to be qualia worship. — bongo fury

That's a funny line.

In my ideal world we’d help members of our community — NOS4A2

That's interesting and a lesser understood part of a libertarians' worldview (if that's what yours is). Do you have a view regarding what help might look like?

As a kid I often use to think that words were like falsifications of thoughts - inchoate blocks used to construct a shared notion of experience - a notion that necessarily reduced or entrapped that personal experience in a kind of verbal prefabrication. It often seemed to me that when my thoughts become words they were heavily truncated or even diverted by the process. It led me to think that in the process of becoming verbal there's a concomitant loss of experiential wisdom. Maybe that doesn't make sense to others - words again...

I am ‘pre-occupied’ rather than just being occupied with my future. I am ‘dwelling on’ rather than flowing though the past. I suggest what characterizes these experiences as negative dwelling on and pre-occupation isn’t their temporal position as past or future but the way we move through recollection or anticipation. — Joshs

No question, it's a construct - I am simply reporting on the words commonly used by people when describing their process to me. A common theme reported is people's notions of what they have done and what they still need to do overriding the experience (and joy) of what they are doing now - regardless of whether these 'intrusions' accurately reflect the past or potential future. It's very easy to get lost in a vortex of 'should haves' and 'must dos'.

I spoke to a very successful businessman recently who was exhausted. His daughter had just turned 18. He told me he couldn't remember much between her birth and her birthday last week. He'd been too busy building a career to stop and take notice. Pretty common experience.

when we are depressed, and typically this stuckneas is inescapable regardless of whether we dwell in memories , focus on the present or imagine into the future. What is often needed to snap us out of this depression is to create a fresh meaningful way forward. Being in the moment isn’t enough. — Joshs

Agree. In fact thinking may not be of use - doing may be preferable.

Living in the moment" comes in ebbs and flows, though practitioners of Zen might be able to do it at will, after much training. — Manuel

Yes, I think living in the moment is critical for happiness more generally. I don't follow Zen but I've seen over the years that even very successful and prosperous individuals spend their lives not able to appreciate what they have - especially relationships and experiences - because they are too busy being haunted by the need to fill every waking moment with strategic thinking and a kind of undifferentiated fear of loss.

it too stresses the importance of living in the moment - which is really just another way of saying, not being preoccupied, being present, being mindful, being here now. Not that it's an easy discipline to maintain! — Wayfarer

Nice summary. I'm better at this the older I get. I find my experience of time slows down greatly if I just appreciate the here and now, feeling grateful and, for want of a better term, subtracting thoughts from my mind.

Thirty-five years ago I spent much time ruminating over this quote from Alan Watts.

I have realized that the past and future are real illusions, that they exist in the present, which is what there is and all there is.”

I'll put my spin to it though: of course living in the moment sounds trivial, yet it is far from it. In fact, it's literally impossible to do, for as soon as I focus on the moment, it has passed. — Manuel

I wonder though it that's too literal and concrete an understanding of living in the moment. If one gets too obsessive about details the bigger picture can fade away. Living in the moment, as I understand it, means not dwelling on the past or being preoccupied about what's next and/or what might happen and it is all about appreciating 'now' and being able to experience or enjoy what's happening as it's happening. It isn't literally trying to do the impossible with time.

I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

I am highly amused by your seemingly endless attempts to denigrate or undermine Nietzsche. This last one I have to say is particularly delicious - philosophy as a popularity contest. Please keep them coming.

Interesting. I personally agree that way too many people go to university and that many attain degrees and remain impervious to both knowledge and wisdom.

allowing for (more) nepotism and cronyism — baker

Not sure i understand how that helps. Trump University?

I've heard variations on Tolstoy's assertion for decades too. People who chase higher consciousness and unification with the divine are often crass, status seeking individuals, as wracked by anxieties and ambition and as willing to scorn their 'inferiors' as any other group.

No, I meant how do you define plebeians and how do you identify them in situ before they do damage?

Yes, that's interesting. I don't reach for the word 'fact' very often which is why I priviledged the term belief. I am more interested in looking at specific beliefs themselves and asking if the belief is reasonable and how is it justified. We can examine any given belief - much better than taking on all of epistemology.

And it isn't a matter of perspective which beliefs are justified in this case - one belief is based in science whereas the other in something else entirely. Surely that makes a difference? — ToothyMaw

You are raising a separate matter - the justification of beliefs - I have not touched upon that. Morality is not a science. Remember too that Hitler based his ideas on 'race science' and eugenics and was supported by many highly educated academics and scientists. The science card is by no means straight forward either.

Yes, I get that, but on one side you have justified beliefs, and on the other totally unjustified. There is no symmetry except in terms of zeal perhaps. So I do not find it to be a useful comparison. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps it would help to examine your assumptions. Seems like you are missing the point. Hitler thought what he was doing was good - engaged in righteous foundational work for a new epoch of human greatness that would be celebrated for 1000 years. It's you that's determining what's justified and what is 'totally unjustified'. You don't find it a useful comparison because it looks like you can't see the perspectivism inherent in this matter.

a gradual evolution from one-dimensional foundationalism to increasingly multi-dimensional , differentiated social understanding. — Joshs

Nice. Is this the 'path' you think humans are on?

What we judge in hindsight as genocidal evil becomes a necessary phase in that development. (I’m trying not to sound too Hegelian, or modernist). — Joshs

That's a pretty bold idea. I feel uneasy with the word 'necessary' but I see what you mean.

No, I was focusing on your claim that there are just evil
people doing evil things. That is a quintessentially theological notion — Joshs

Yes - that's my point too. Many a Western secularist still holds a Judeo-Christian view of morality, despite protestations.

some believe they are, as you say, agents of good. — ToothyMaw

This is the key. When we retrofit our own moral judgements and assume people are 'justifying' actions using rationalisations we are assuming that 'evil' is done by people who know they are evil and what they are doing is wrong. In many cases they are true believers in the perfectibility of the human race.

whereas Hitler was obviously full of shit. — ToothyMaw

I hear you but the point is not that he was full of shit, the point is he thought he had a plan for improving the world and millions of people agreed with this plan.

So, it seems that facts are also in the eye of the believer. :gasp: — Gnomon

Or is it more accurate to say that some people have false beliefs. I wonder if using the word facts here blurs the issue. There have always been people who held false beliefs, assuming them to be facts.