Maurice Blondel, Martin Buber, J.F. Ferrier, and W.E. Hocking

True philosophy is the quest for Truth. Philosopher is the seeker of Truth. Religion is the embodiment of Eternal Truth. The mind of the Philosopher is the vehicle through which the religion is revealed. True Philosopher is a True prophet and his word is the true scripture. Philosopher mystics can rediscover true religion by mystical religious experience, similar to the experiences of the prophets of the world religions.

Man can mystically make the final leap to the Idea of the good, or to the Idea of the Absolute is made by Socrates, Plato, Hegel. German Lutheranism of 16th century asserted the right of priests to reinterpret the Bible in terms of Christian theology and opposed Papacy’s claims for monopoly over interpretation of Bible. The death of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in 1804 formally marked the end of the European Age of Enlightenment. The 19th Century ushered in new philosophical problems and new conceptions of what philosophy ought to do. Philosophers of German idealism studied religion as a valid field of philosophy. In Hinduism and Buddhism most of the philosophic writing had been in the realm of religion.

Hegel from 1816-1831 and Hegelians from 1816-1848 waged war on Papacy, intolerant authoritarian religions, Catholic Church and Judaism during 19th Century’s Clash of Civilization. Philosophers of the world should unite to foil the conspiracy of priests to rule the world. The dictatorship of the Philosophers would rid the world of the predatory religious intolerance and authoritarian religions in the 21st Century Clash of Civilizations. Religion is the field of philosophy. Philosophers not the priests should have the final world on religion, theology, dogma and doctrine...

Philosopher mystics can rediscover true religion by mystical religious experience, similar to the experiences of the prophets of the world religions. Man can mystically make the final leap to the Idea of the good, or to the Idea of the Absolute is made by Socrates, Plato, Hegel, Hindu Vedanta philosophy, Sankara’s Monism (9th century), Ramanuja’s Dualism (12th century), Asvagosha (1st century), Asanga 94th century), China’s Hui-neng of Ch’an school in Platform scripture (7th century), Persian Sufi Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi (13th century), Friedrich Schleiermarcher (1768-1834), Henri Bergson (1859-1941), Maurice Blondel (1861-1949), Martin Buber (1878-1965), James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864), and William E. Hocking (1873-1966).

In man’s most immediate experience, that of his own subjective awareness, the intuitive self can achieve a direct apprehension of ultimate reality, which reveals itself to the man as spiritual experience. The final leap to the Idea of the Good is mystical in nature. Philosophical religious idealism has dominated the philosophy of India, China and Japan for thousands of years. Hegelian dialects can help clarify the Zen Buddhist doctrine of nothingness. Idealism has been one of the most dominant phases of Indian thought in metaphysics, epistemology and dialectics. Idealism has also very largely influenced the growth of Indian ideal.

Sri Aurobindo Ghose replaced the Hindu Maya doctrine of illusion, with the concept of religious evolution of mind. Inwardness of the subjectivity of Indian idealism contrasts with the outwardness of Western objective Idealism and synthesis of the tow would create a new world religion a new world civilization. Philosophic Idealism will result in the mergers of world religions and world civilizations and help usher World Religion, World Scripture, World Philosophy, World Civilization, and World Culture. Then Clash of Religions would wither away and Merge of Civilizations would take place instead.

DiplomatKalkiGaur@Yahoo.Com http://360.Yahoo.Com/diplomacyofcivilizations/ Chapter 3 Clash of Hegelianism Philosophy- Sword of Idealistic Hegelianism of NeoConservatism Protestantism. Author: Kalki Gaur, “Manifesto of Neo-Conservatism”. Posted by Kalkism Kalki Gaur at 16:38 in MANIFESTO OF NEOCONSERVATISM Link

To philosophize is not to read philosophy; it is to feel philosophy

To philosophize is not to read philosophy; it is to feel philosophy. The raw spikes and jagged edges, the sour-tasting dust and wind-blown debris of superficial real life have to be deliberately comprehended, or at least evaded, before the more secret rhythms, the more recondite patterns of Nature, her humours, her tragedies, her poetry take shape in the mind.

What real culture can do for personal happiness is to simplify existence down to bed-rock, to heighten in fact those great permanent sensations which belong, as Wordsworth puts it, to "the pleasure there is in life itself". John Cowper Powys Quotations

A philosophy for living on earth

Ayn Rand Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974

Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the answers to which underlie man's every thought, feeling and action, whether he is consciously aware of it or not: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do?

By the time they are old enough to understand these questions, men believe that they know the answers. Where am I? Say, in New York City. How do I know it? It's self-evident. What should I do? Here, they are not too sure--but the usual answer is: whatever everybody does. The only trouble seems to be that they are not very active, not very confident, not very happy--and they experience, at times, a causeless fear and an undefined guilt, which they cannot explain or get rid of. They have never discovered the fact that the trouble comes from the three unanswered questions--and that there is only one science that can answer them: philosophy.

Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible...

That nonsense deals with the most crucial, the life-or-death issues of man's existence. At the root of every significant philosophic theory, there is a legitimate issue--in the sense that there is an authentic need of man's consciousness, which some theories struggle to clarify and others struggle to obfuscate, to corrupt, to prevent man from ever discovering. The battle of philosophers is a battle for man's mind. If you do not understand their theories, you are vulnerable to the worst among them...

In physical warfare, you would not send your men into a booby trap: you would make every effort to discover its location. Well, Kant's system is the biggest and most intricate booby trap in the history of philosophy--but it's so full of holes that once you grasp its gimmick, you can defuse it without any trouble and walk forward over it in perfect safety. And, once it is defused, the lesser Kantians--the lower ranks of his army, the philosophical sergeants, buck privates, and mercenaries of today--will fall of their own weightlessness, by chain reaction.

There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army, need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at present. You are the army of the last semi-free country left on earth, yet you are accused of being a tool of imperialism--and "imperialism" is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won. (It was, incidentally, a foolishly overgenerous policy, which made this country waste her wealth on helping both her allies and her former enemies.) ...

Today's mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man's mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man's life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being the good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.

A battle of this kind requires special weapons. It has to be fought with a full understanding of your cause, a full confidence in yourself, and the fullest certainty of the moral rightness of both. Only philosophy can provide you with these weapons.

The assignment I gave myself for tonight is not to sell you on my philosophy, but on philosophy as such. I have, however, been speaking implicitly of my philosophy in every sentence--since none of us and no statement can escape from philosophical premises. What is my selfish interest in the matter? I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept. Formally, I call it Objectivism, but informally I call it a philosophy for living on earth. You will find an explicit presentation of it in my books, particularly in Atlas Shrugged.

Heaven help the person that gets his doctorate in the subject

Has studying philosophy ever made you feel as though you might lose your sanity?
Shannon W I remember when I was about 25 I started really thinking about absolute universal truth and questioning reality, and I remember one day my whole reality sort of started crumbling before me, I felt the abyss of infinity, and my new perceptions of the world blinded me with truth that I could hardly manage mentally. I can just imagine the lightning storm that must have been occuring in my brain as a multitude of synapes made new connections and my neural network expanded. I think perhaps a good portion of my brain was undergoing a transformation, a realignment of sorts. It was really hard to bring myself back to this world, hard because it is difficult to do and also because I half didn't want to. It was seeing the light at the end of a long tunnel and knowing that I had to turn back, that if I didn't I might forever lose touch with the reality that I've known. So I came back down from that plane, but I think of it often and have such difficulty functioning here amongst these illusions. Aug 19, 2006 at 10:53 pm

Maria T Best Answer - Chosen By Voters I know what you mean...I thought it's more like an "Alice in wonderland" or kinda like the matrix and taking the green pill or what ever color it was, and wishing you hadn't...When the ugly truth comes out, it's like all the time we were walking around in some fantasy land. I honestly wish I could of stayed dumb and happy. It was like an awaking that happened.......things got serious and then I seen the world for what it truly is - it's so sad.It is very difficult living in this masquerade - you wonder who's behind the next mask. Is what we are living in actually real? I sometimes think that dreams are real and fake is the living functioning world we live in - does that make sense.....
gloria_brown20 I only had to read a few philosophy books and I thought I would lose my mind, I tried concentrating on Jung, but I even found him to be difficult. Heaven help the person that gets his doctorate in the subject.
Mithra Oh my, has it ever! Luckily it was just a passing phase of readjustment. For several months many years ago there was so much input and so many odd experiences that I truly began to doubt my sanity. As it is now, I take it as it comes and while I always seek more insights, I've learned not to be so cocky as to think I can handle too much at once. While it is so beautiful to see and experience what lies out there it also creates such a sense of imbalance that it is difficult to function in the mundane world again for a bit.
Rosasharn When I started meditating, my instructor told me that one day I would be meditating and my head would open up. And I thougt he was pretty crazy.So one day I was meditating, and my head opened up. I freaked out and closed it and it's never opened again.I think that feeling like you're going insane is fear of going places you've never been.
The Dude Firstly - sorry no spell check, its down again I very much know what you are talking about. It has happened to me several times and in several diferent forms, some natural and some induced. But that first time, the real one when I first saw what it is we all seek to see, that will stay with me forever. There have been times when it has definately chalenged my sanity. The first year after I started observing my internal dialogue was one of the craziest times of my life, and certainly the most paranoid. That calmed down in time. It always seems to, in time I had new realiseations that allwed me to move on from the last and hopefuly keep moving forward. For me now the journey, the ilusions as you call it, has become part of the fun. Shying from them or worse judging them really wont get you anywhere. Being thankful for them, that really will get you closer to living the reality you want. Dont look internally for what your outside world senses can provide in abundance if you use them. I will leave you with this. Why is it that we look inside ourselves, ponder and meditate on how to bring ouselves closer a oneness with the universe, knowledge of it and to feel part of all its glory as if it were a seperate thing to us? Surely it is more effective to look outwardly to our senses, the tools we have to conect with the universe for knowledge of it and to feel oneness with it. That and, how is it possible to feel seperate from all the greatness of the universe when you are the universe as a wave is the sea? I hope that makes sense to you. Have a good time with what you have been given, that's why you were given it...... Yes, and the experience was so overcoming I had to quite in third grade and go back to it the following year.
trucker girl I like this topic. I studied philosophy in college and have studied the bible for the meaning of life and the questions of how to obtain happiness and contentment in life. I think it is good to think on these deeper things. I think it is a life long journey and a continual search for truth and meaning that goes on in the soul. It feeds the mind and the heart to search out truth. Life is complicated on one side and simple on the other. A good hard days work can make you happy - even though we seek out constant comfort in American society and can be very unhappy. I'm not a drinker, but sometimes a few drinks and laughing with my friends is a great break. You need to have balance in life. Work hard - play hard. Think deep thoughts sometimes and then enjoy the stupidity of a movie like Dumb and Dumber.
Blissbug Half the time I think philosophy as a whole is a cruel means of driving an typically normal individual to ask stupid questions while consuming large quantities of coffee. On the other hand, it's an addiction I can't seem to quite my self of, hence the reason I'm answering this question. But hey, I'm only 21. I still have years worth of realignment to experience. Here's to asking all the wrong questions and finding that right answers! Source(s):
I'm a writer...
pilgram92003 In one of H.Hesse's books he said "to create a world you must destroy the old", that is what I feel philosophy does. Question every thing even your own sanity and opinion of reality. Stay on the path with a sense of adventure.
Jon Sort of. At first, studying philosophy was really fun. Each time I began to think of something I'd never thought of before, it was like a brand new rollercoaster ride.(or maybe a spaceship ride--imagine floating to an unknown destination of unknown distance, feeling very isolated, wondering if you were going in the right direction, arriving somewhere you never could have predicted, and finally questioning whether you really needed to go there.)I never seriously questioned my sanity (except in a purely theoretical way), but I did question whether it was actually a good idea for me to study philosophy. I felt like I was becoming something that I didn't want to be... obsessed with being right all the time. Solving abstract problems instead of doing enjoyable things with my life.It's hard enough to keep my ego in check and get my sh*t together without immersing myself in an academic atmosphere and trying to solve the "greatest mysteries". Ultimately I ended up pursuing other things, but secretly I still love to philosophize. Although it probably has some negative side effects, I love the fact that learning a new "strange yet apparently true" theory is like being transported into another world.
libertarian_... The tricky part of studying philosophy is in separating the truly wise and profound stuff from the belly-button introspection. Also, beware of "Eureka" moments or of feeling like you've stumbled upon some deep truth. These are just emotions, and can cause people to latch onto some pretty silly notions that don't hold up in reality. Mystics and pseudoscientists are very convinced of their correctness, even though what they believe may be full of logical fallacies or contradicted by evidence. In other words, just because you FEEL like you've reached enlightenment, doesn't mean you have!As for your original question, I would say that reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche was pretty sanity-testing for me. I rather admire his concept of the "uber-man" or superman, that we are far less limited in our potential to be more than we think we are. But his actual prose and writing style are, let's just say, very trying. Think Shakespeare on an acid trip.
jaxmiry I've been experiencing a bit of that myself. I've read several books on several different subjects in the past six months in the beginnings of my journey to find my ultimate truth. I say "my" because I think the path and the end are different for each person.I have been having trouble some days at work focusing on tasks. It's tough when you begin to feel that the things we say and do each day are actually insignificant. Especially if you buy in to theories such as Richard Dawkins "Selfish Genes". I've also become very disillusioned with organized religion. That sort of started with me in college and has continued now in to my "adult" life. Reading books like Sam Harris' End of Faith has really solidified my belief that organized religion must go in order to preserve the essence of humanity and harmony. At least the ideas of the major religions of the day (being Islam and Christianity). They seem to cause more strife than good anymore. I'm beginning to believe the Eastern thinkers may have had it right all along. For now I'm reading on quantum theory and eastern philosophy. It seems to most accurately describe what is "reality". I'm taking it in smaller doses though. Jumping in so quickly overloaded my senses and I felt a need to step back so I could enjoy the "real" world I live in more while I'm here. I don't see much sense in completely deconstructing, there's too much good here to leave it all behind before it's time.
davidi In my experience with this it does fade with time, but leaves us with something we wouldn't otherwise have. Since simplistic ideas or beliefs no longer work, the mind is kept open to the patterns that reality can reveal. The world then opens up, and the mind functions in the way it has evolved to operate. To me, a philosophy is something we create naturally by staying curious and in every situation keeping the mind open, even if only a crack. The unconscious part of the mind is an amazing ally that subjects itself entirely to our will*, so when we solidify a concept it closes up shop (on the subject) and waits for further direction. when we go through a mind shattering experience maybe it is just our unconscious mind putting us in our place so it can be free to proceed with its real work!* To verify this think about how a memory is recalled, for example; then think about what goes on in the conscious mind when a memory can't be found. it has no idea where to look for it and can only hope the unconscious will find a way. The conscious mind controls the will but the unconscious does the work, in most cases. When a sudden emergency arises the unconscious can bypass the conscious will and cause an appropriate reaction before we have time to think about it.Thanks for this question. It's amazing that so many of us have had similar experiences, and it seems that most have an ongoing interest in philosophy!
Roadkill I studied it formaly so I never experience the trauma of just studying it on my own. I did feel that everything became a little more clear to me. I found it more useful to study ethics, and logic than the what is real stuff. You can get stuck in an endless loop on that stuff and never get anywhere.
Cogito Sum Philosophy should be something that tells you how to live and how to live well. However, philosophy died the day we became a random quirk of nature. If we are a random quirk of nature, then it is impossible to justify that life is meaningful. So, philosophy became introspective, or existentialistic, or worked in the realm of political philosophy to create cookie cutter citizens that could be controlled by society, since society was going to lose the moral basis that religion brought. Marx and Dewey and many others are typical. What happen. Hedonism, ethnic cleansing, class warfare, polarization, and the deterioration of civilization. I fear godless societies, that have been justified by political philosophy, like, Nazi and Marx. They have been brutal. What about philosophy? What good is it? Does it have a body of knowledge? Or is it anarchy where anything goes? Philosophy does have an eternal body of reason based, realistic, life affirming knowledge, it is just not very public yet. There are answers, good answers, so keep looking. Take care! Source(s): http://www.peace-purpose-prosperity.com/...

When they immerse themselves in the world they live in

What is philosophy? Dictionary.com defines it as a "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline." However we feel philosophy cannot be labeled with such rigid definitions. Philosophizing is what a person does when they immerse themselves in the world they live in. They wonder, observe, and try to explain the cosmic truths around them. Each man has a unique view of the universe, and a yearning to communicate it.

The most effective learning occurs when people communicate ideas with one another. Even throughout the history of philosophy, this has been true. The great minds in history did not earn they're respect through a vast library of texts alone. They had to communicate with others and establish their ideas through a medium of dialogues. That is where this web site comes in. It is intended as a portal for those who wish to expand their own knowledge and understanding. Ideas are presented to the user to investigate. You may read about the historical significance of an idea as well as apply in modern situations.

Too much of 20th century philosophy had been of the Sunday crossword variety-- it was not felt

pragmatic ignorance
maprovonshanoesisPosts: 1387
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 08:40 PM
The quintessential American proverb is "ignorance is bliss." Though to philosophy, it seems heretical; for many people, it's practical. The more we learn, the more we know there's more to learn. The more we seek and obtain knowledge, the more unsure we are about the knowledge we've hitherto gathered. Today in school as my mind wandered from my bullshit classes, I wondered if there's any point to our hopeless search for wisdom. Again, I know this sounds bad in terms of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for wisdom, but is the search for wisdom a lost cause? Aren't careless people happier than we are? Shouldn't happiness be the benchmark from which we value actions? If that's true, shouldn't we be careless like most happy people are (ignorant people that, when something bad happens, they say 'everything happens for a reason, and when something good happens say 'I've been blessed')?I know this isn't good philosophy, but since rational philosophy is all about the theoretical, isn't it better that societies are based on ignorance and bullshit? Would the world be a better place if we were all miserable and smart, or blissfully ignorant?NOTE: This is just theoretical; I know it seems anti-philosophical, but it's just a thought._________________"so pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth." --Eric Idle

jaspernoesisPosts: 1271
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 08:52 PM
Ha ha ha. I have often thought the same thing. The only point to life is what you make of it, unless you are religious. So, if philosophy is overall fulfilling for you, then you should continue pursueing it. If not you maybe shouldn't. Do some soul searching perhaps. It sounds cheesy, but it's better than therapy.There is no higher purpose to it though. Many of the theories in philosophy are distortortions of reality created by the human mind. There is no meaning to things except what we humans attach to it. So, ask yourself if you should attach meaning to philosophy as a fulfilling hobby and or practice it so that you can attain higher understanding and be a wiser and hopefully more intelligent person, which will help you in many areas of life.Ignorance may be enjoyable for some, but most do not like the side effects of ignorance, such as atrophied intelligence or memory or just plain poor understanding of the world. We no longer live in a society that is condusive to ignorance. We live in the information age. And many technological tools we use require some degree of intelligence and knowledge. Politics is continually getting scarier around the world. That is why we need to keep up on important situations happening around the world so we know who to elect to different offices...It really depends on what you mean by being ignorant, doesn't it? I mean if you are talking just being like the average person then you could definitely live like that without many side effects. If you mean ignorance like Billy Bob who has lived in the remote mountains since he was 16 that's a different story.There is no right answer perhaps. The preference and which lifestyle will be best for which person varies greatly from person to person. It is relativistic.

DiotimamoderatorPosts: 1737
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 08:56 PM
MaprovI'll ignore the latter part of your post as I realise you are only a high school student.But you should read J S Mill.Try "Utillitarianism" first.Then, before you writeit off. explain to me why he is wrong to say:happiness is importantPS: just saying this is utilitarian is not an objection. PPS: I'm a consquentialist_________________I'll teach you differences.

jaspernoesisPosts: 1271
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 09:10 PM
There is nothing wrong with happiness as long as it does not produce ill effects that outweigh it significantly. However, there are different gradients of happiness. There is intellectual happiness, spiritual or moral fulfillment, social happiness, and competitive happines, relationship happiness, etc., these all being higher forms of happines. Next we have the lower forms that everyone associates with utilitarianism too much: sex, addiction, good food, petty status recognition, enjoying mindless activities or easy mental stimulation (TV), power, enjoying being lazy, leisure, etc.Now, if you associate the higher and lower forms of happiness with utilitarian happiness, then really what you are saying is redundant, because of course humans should do what makes them have a good life without doing so at the expense of others.

heroic_dictatorPosts: 76
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 09:55 PM
Quote:
The quintessential American proverb is "ignorance is bliss." Though to philosophy, it seems heretical; for many people, it's practical. The more we learn, the more we know there's more to learn. The more we seek and obtain knowledge, the more unsure we are about the knowledge we've hitherto gathered. Today in school as my mind wandered from my bullshit classes, I wondered if there's any point to our hopeless search for wisdom. Again, I know this sounds bad in terms of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for wisdom, but is the search for wisdom a lost cause? Aren't careless people happier than we are? Shouldn't happiness be the benchmark from which we value actions? If that's true, shouldn't we be careless like most happy people are (ignorant people that, when something bad happens, they say 'everything happens for a reason, and when something good happens say 'I've been blessed')?I know this isn't good philosophy, but since rational philosophy is all about the theoretical, isn't it better that societies are based on ignorance and bullshit? Would the world be a better place if we were all miserable and smart, or blissfully ignorant?NOTE: This is just theoretical; I know it seems anti-philosophical, but it's just a thought.
I made a topic similar to this, I believe lower intelligence levels give peace easier and the most knowledgeable person is the one that suffers the most with a few exceptions.

nousskiaPosts: 166
Posted:Feb 22, 2005 - 11:57 PM
We have all heard Socrates' famous quote: "The unexamined life is not worth living." It recently struck me that this does not entail that "The examined life is worth living." In fact, the truth of the matter is "The examined life is also not worth living." Ignorance is bliss. After all, what's the point of thinking about things you cannot change?

MelchiorskiaPosts: 192
Posted:Feb 23, 2005 - 08:38 AM
I don't really see eye to eye with you hereDo you enjoy "searching for wisdom?" Have you had a passion for it since you were my age? What makes you think you'd be happier on a less enlightening path?You can't be pickey with your lifelong pursuits. You need to pick and choose one and streamline with it. Ultimately your going to live a wasted life. If your bored in pursuit of your passion, your gonna be bored no matter what you do. But at least be bored, in something that you know you can do well. Even if you believe it's meaning is fruitles, there's no turning back.How do you think all those women softball players deal?_________________"Rosseau was mad bu influential, Hume was sane but had no followers"

maprovonshanoesisPosts: 1387
Posted:Feb 23, 2005 - 04:25 PM
Quote:
Have you had a passion for it since you were my age?
What's your age? I'm only 17._________________"so pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth." --Eric Idle

MelchiorskiaPosts: 192
Posted:Feb 23, 2005 - 08:54 PM
In that case 16. Pardon my ignorance._________________"Rosseau was mad bu influential, Hume was sane but had no followers"

nousskiaPosts: 166
Posted:Feb 23, 2005 - 11:22 PM
Maprovonsha, MelchiorAge has nothing to do with it. Citing age is an ad hominem argument. If at 16 and 17, you already know you like philosophy, you're doing a lot better than I. At that age, I had no idea what philosophy was. It took me a very long time to realise that my destiny in this life is to be a philosopher --but better late than never, as they say.Melchior, I agree with you that we can't be picky about our lifelong pursuits. We must do what we must do. The problem is: we somehow (perhaps following Plato or Aristotle) think that wisdom will lead to happiness. There is no such necessary connection. It is entirely possible that wisdom could lead to misery (when we realise what a horrid state the world is in), and that ignorance could lead to happiness (when we look at the world through rose coloured spectacles).As a philosopher, I enjoy the pursuit of wisdom. As a philosopher, I refuse to look at the world through rose coloured spectacles. As a human being, I don't like to be miserable all the time. Hence, I also choose to be (mostly) ignorant of world affairs. It's pragmatic ignorance.

maprovonshanoesisPosts: 1387
Posted:Feb 24, 2005 - 08:50 PM
Quote:
In that case 16. Pardon my ignorance.
Melchoir, no offense intended.Nous, this is, if I understand you right, quite troubling...
Quote:
As a philosopher, I enjoy the pursuit of wisdom. As a philosopher, I refuse to look at the world through rose coloured spectacles. As a human being, I don't like to be miserable all the time. Hence, I also choose to be (mostly) ignorant of world affairs. It's pragmatic ignorance.
If by world affairs you mean politics, I think that's a huge mistake. Politics should be a primary area of concern for all intellectuals. In Germany in the 1930s it wasn't fashionable to be into politics either, they'd say, "leave politics to the politicians." We should learn from their mistake. As far as happiness goes, maybe I just have a disproportionate amount of reason to be unhappy, or maybe it's just a stage in life, but I can't reason rationally on being happy (long term) because I can almost never manage to be myself. The sad fact of the matter is that it seems with clearer consciousness comes depression. P.S. If anyone else stuggles with depression as I do, perhaps you would like to know what I do find solace in. Movies, music and drugs. If you especially need something to pick yourself up watch an old comedy movie that you always laugh at. The Big Lebowski!!!_________________"so pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth." --Eric Idle

jonlishmandianoiaPosts: 458
Posted:Feb 24, 2005 - 09:17 PM
Unfortunately, it seems in your case, maprovonsha, the genie is out of the bottle. So embrace the genie and train the tricky sprite up so it starts to do some good for you, instead of being a nuisance that seems to go out of its way to make you feel ill at ease. The one thing in the world that an analytical mind with integrity can't abide is contradiction. It creates unbearable tension - similar to the powerful sense of injustice you felt as a child when someone told a lie against you.'Ignorant' people are just people - but you aren't one of them.Bon chance_________________As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.

mrinal_ktPosts: 17
Posted:Feb 25, 2005 - 02:47 AM
Quote:
The quintessential American proverb is "ignorance is bliss." The more we learn, the more we know there's more to learn. The more we seek and obtain knowledge, the more unsure we are about the knowledge we've hitherto gathered. Today in school as my mind wandered from my bullshit classes, I wondered if there's any point to our hopeless search for wisdom. Again, I know this sounds bad in terms of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for wisdom, but is the search for wisdom a lost cause? Aren't careless people happier than we are? Shouldn't happiness be the benchmark from which we value actions? I know this isn't good philosophy, but since rational philosophy is all about the theoretical, isn't it better that societies are based on ignorance and bullshit? Would the world be a better place if we were all miserable and smart, or blissfully ignorant?
I guess these thoughts must have crossed the minds of most of us. I am not very sure what exactly you mean by "the search for wisdom". Philosophy, or for that matter any search for truth is frustrating the moment we realize that the search is an unending quest. That is, we are always on uncertain footing, and unsure. And the more we know, the more there seems to be to know. If our search is for certainties, some kind of final truths then we must restrict ourselves to tautologies. Anything else will be uncertain. This realization is the first meaningful realization that any philosopher or scientist or a human being should have before he/she sets on the path of any enquiry.Thus, if we are looking for certainties, we are on a wild goose chase. But if we realize that ours is going to be an unending quest, the frustration of pursuing a "lost cause" will not set in.The pleasure of philosophy is not in discovering, but in the process of discovery. Other uses may exist, and they are perhaps very important too. But I think that the pleasure of philosophizing or doing science comes from pursuing a path even though one knows that it has no destination. We have our own wits to tell us where, on this path, we may pause to pursue again or even stop. But every stop is merely a convenient resting place. Despite there being directions in which to pursue, there is simply no destination to aim for. So if one loves travelling along this road, then one loves it despite knowing that the journey will not end at a destination. The best one can hope for is to build a comfortable resting place (a theory, a model, etc.) at the end of one's journey. For those who find such pursuit hopeless, they are perhaps looking for more than just travelling. Before starting they should be clear as to what they expect. For those who find it useless, it is possible to enumerate some uses and advantages of the journey. Regarding "ignorance is bliss" mantra, I think there are some people who cannot manage to remain ignorant even if they think that it leads to bliss. The curiosity embedded into their minds perhaps leads them to attempt discovering and unravelling mysteries. These are the people who will philosophize even if they suffer. For the others, they can judge whether they are prepared to walking down unending roads, many of which are without any signposts. Let us, however, remember that a mind once exposed to philosophy cannot get back to starting point provided it feels the philosophy. To make this statement clear, I will give an example. If you philosophize on time and space, you can do from the point of view of a person sitting with a paper and pencil and trying to arrive at a consistent model in order to solve a puzzle in a manner similar to that of solving puzzles from the leisure section of a Sunday newspaper. This is philosophy but without having felt it. But when one attempts the same solution because of the bewilderment that this world, this universe poses then one feels the philosophy. I have given this example to make the following statement:Those who are amazed by this world, and then "feel" philosophy have no hope of returning to bliss that comes from ignorance even if philosophizing is painful to them. edited by: mrinal_kt, Feb 25, 2005 - 02:50 AM _________________MrinalTry these:1. The Concept of Time2. Thoughts Unclassified

SummerianPosts: 48
Posted:Feb 25, 2005 - 08:18 AM
pragmatic ignoranceDoes get the mind working, doesn't it.Think this might be relevant.http://en.wikip...e_dissonanceCognitive dissonance is a state of imbalance between cognitions. For the purpose of this theory, cognitions are defined as being an attitude, emotion, belief or value, or even a mixture of these cognitions. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that the human mind tends to adopt thoughts or beliefs so as to minimise the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.The experimentIn Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1957 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Subjects rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave.However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the subject was asked if they could fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks they had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some subjects were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks, those in the $1 group showed a much greater degree of attitude change in favor of the experiment than those in either of the other two groups. Experimenters theorized that when paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior -- they did it for the money. But with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance" which they sought to relieve by changing their attitude in order to really believe that they found the tasks enjoyable.Two kinds of dissonanceTheorists have identified two different kinds of cognitive dissonance that are relevant to decision making: pre-decisional dissonance and post-decisional dissonance.Pre-decisional dissonance might be analogous to what Freud called "compensation." When a test showed that subjects had latent sexist attitudes, they later awarded a female a larger reward than a male in what they were told was a different study. Researchers hypothesized that the larger reward reduced dissonance by attempting to show that they were not sexist in the later decision.The more well-known form of dissonance, however, is post-decisional dissonance. Many studies have shown that people will subjectively reinforce decisions or commitments they have already made. In one simple experiment, experimenters found that bettors at a horse track believed bets were more likely to succeed immediately after being placed. According to the theory, the possibility of being wrong is dissonance-arousing, so people will change their perceptions to make their decisions seem better. This is the basis of the foot-in-the-door technique in sales, and possibly confirmation bias.Post-decisional dissonance may be increased by the importance of the issue, the length of time the subject takes to make or avoid the decision, and the extent to which the decision could be reversed.

nousskiaPosts: 166
Posted:Mar 02, 2005 - 02:28 AM
Quote:
Let us, however, remember that a mind once exposed to philosophy cannot get back to starting point provided it feels the philosophy. To make this statement clear, I will give an example. If you philosophize on time and space, you can do from the point of view of a person sitting with a paper and pencil and trying to arrive at a consistent model in order to solve a puzzle in a manner similar to that of solving puzzles from the leisure section of a Sunday newspaper. This is philosophy but without having felt it. But when one attempts the same solution because of the bewilderment that this world, this universe poses then one feels the philosophy.
Precisely. Too much of 20th century philosophy had been of the Sunday crossword variety--it was not felt. But when we feel philosophy, and when we look at the world, then dissonance sets in. Sometimes very serious dissonance. We must escape. Movies, music (please, not drugs--why would a philosopher deliberately seek to wreck his mind?) are some methods. So also is ignorance a method.I have two tests to determine if I want to be involved in something: Does it affect me? Can I affect it? A double negative entails I ignore it. If it affects me but I cannot affect it, I consider it and choose my best option among those available. If it does not affect me but I can affect it, I try my best to do what is right. If it both affects me and I can affect it, that's when I put on my best thinking cap. I am pragmatic about my ignorance.

Swimming against the tide of history

grant said... Sri Aurobindo has written some interesting tracts which, like your blog, mix spirituality and politics. One of them is "War and the Human Cycle," which lays out a theory which ties war to human evolution.

Aurobindo sees that personal evolution also has a corollary in group evolution, which has tended towards greater and greater units of measure: for instance, tribes give rise to village coalitions, which give rise to the city-states, which leads to alliences of city-states, which gives rise to nations. Nations unify to form empires (Roman, etc.)

All of these processes are mostly accomplished and solidified through warfare.The next logical step is the global nation-state, which should properly be governed by the United States. This would be a practical reality if all nations were free market democracies with trading ties, with the bulk of nuclear power consolidated under US control.

Today's main sticking points holding back global unity are Islamic religious governments and those nations with dictatorships. If Aurobindonian political theory holds true, then these entities are hold-outs which are swimming against the tide of history and should (and will be) eliminated, probably throught warfare although the possibility of peaceful conversion is there as well.

So, there you have it. An attack by Iran on us, or by us against Iran, is therefore a near certainty, and war cannot be deflected by any efforts to the contrary, but only delayed. 1:51 PM

geckofeeder said...Grant, thanks for that synopsis of Aurobindo's. Sure glad to know someone like you is teaching kids. Where's Gagboy? 3:09 PM

Transfer of the leadership in philosophy from the West to India

Sri Aurobindo, wrote Prof. Sisir Kumar Maitra in 1942, has accomplished the “transfer of the leadership in philosophy from the West to India.” But what we witness today in 2006 is something entirely different. Why?

The whole scenario is not devoid of politics and what is at issue is not philosophy but hegemony. In pursuit of that, there has been constant shifting of goal posts and resorting to gerrymandering. Marginal items have come to occupy the mainstream space in philosophy while the basic metaphysical concerns rank as subaltern. Why?

Sri Aurobindo gave the most full-proof philosophy in the entire human history, but the Westerners are unwilling to accept him at the top. Pseudo-philosophers are lapped up and their books sell in plenty almost as a conspiracy to eclipse Sri Aurobindo. He is discounted simply as a mystic or a revivalist, instead. Why?

Because Sri Aurobindo is an Indian and American hubris can’t digest this. Numerous charts and complicated graphics are being devised in pathetic attempts to cook up all-encompassing philosophies. Many of Sri Aurobindo’s innovations are being recycled. Even then, success eludes such enterprises. Why?

For Sri Aurobindo, as Dr Maitra decreed, stands tall on merit. Every intellectual, every journal and every University will have to swallow this cruel pill. No amount of racial or colonial resistance can suppress the supremacy of Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy. The whole world, whether today or tomorrow, must turn to it where all the whys are answered. [TNM696MMYP] #

Bergson's intuition, James' cosmic consciousness, Eucken's superconscient

Sri Aurobindo

Professor Radhakrishnan is well-known as a perfectly competent philosophic critic and thinker and it is impossible to believe that anything he has written is, as this criticism [of Mr. J. B. Raju] constantly suggests, a mere mass of imbecile inconsequence. I gather that his offence is to have done exactly what he should have done, that is, to represent the thought of Tagore, - who is a poet and not a metaphysical dialectician but an intuitive seer, - as an intuitive whole: the dry-as-dust intellectual formalism of analysis demanded of him by his critic would have been in such a subject grotesquely out of place.

A still greater offence is that he has endorsed the poet's exaltation of the claims of intuition as superior, at least in a certain field, to those of the intellect. Mr. Raju seems to think that this claim consecrates "a mistaken and obsolete psychology", the "infatuation of a certain glamour which in the popular imagination hangs round the ancient words, mysticism and intuition". Mistaken, if you choose to think so; but obsolete?

What then are we to make of Bergson's intuition, James' cosmic consciousness, Eucken's superconscient, the remarkable trend towards mysticism of recent scientists, mathematicians, thinkers, the still more remarkable speculations of contemporary Russian philosophers? These men at least are not irresponsible poets or incompetent dupes of the imagination, but psychologists of the first rank and the most original contemporary thinkers in the philosophic field. Mr. Raju's defence of the claims of the reason is well enough written, but it is founded on contentions that once were commonplaces but are now very disputable assertions.

Indeed, if the most recent thought has any value, he is himself open to the retort of his own remark that he is the victim of a mistaken and obsolete psychology. Mr. Raju may be right, the modern psychologists and philosophers may be wrong, but the time has passed when the claims of intuition could be dismissed with this high, disdainful lightness. The subject, however, is too large to be touched at all within my present limits: I hope to return to it hereafter. Works Of Sri Aurobindo > The Hour Of God Volume-17 > Shama'a Page -320

Emerson or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche; Cousins and Schlegel

Sri Aurobindo

It matters very little to me what Mr. Archer or Dr. Gough or Sir John Woodroffe's unnamed English professor may say about Indian philosophy; it is enough for me to know what Emerson or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, three entirely different minds of the greatest power in this field, or what thinkers like Cousins and Schlegel have to say about it or to mark the increasing influence of some of its conceptions, the great parallel lines of thought in earlier European thinking and the confirmations of ancient Indian metaphysics and psychology which are the results of the most moden1 research and inquiry.

For religion I shall not go to Mr. Harold Begbie or any European atheist or rationalist for a judgment on our spirituality, but see rather what are the impressions of open-minded men of religious feeling and experience who can alone be judges, a spiritual and-religious thinker such as Tolstoi, for instance. Or I may study even, allowing for an inevit­able bias, what the more cultured Christian missionary has to say about a religion which he can no longer dismiss as a barbarous superstition.

In art I shall not turn to the opinion of the average European who knows nothing of the spirit, meaning or technique of Indian architecture, painting and sculpture. For the first I shall consult some recognised authority like Ferguson; for the others if critics like Mr. Havell are to be dismissed as partisans, I can at least learn something from Okakura or Mr. Laurence Binyon.

In literature I shall be at a loss, for I cannot remember that any Western writer of genius or high reputation as a critic has had any first-hand knowledge of Sanskrit literature or of the Prakritic tongues, and a judgment founded on translations can only deal with the substance, - and even that in most transla­tions of Indian work is only the dead substance with the whole breath of life gone out of it. Still even here Goethe's well-known epigram on the Shakuntala will be enough by itself to show me that all Indian writing is not of a barbarous inferiority to Euro­pean creation. Works Of Sri Aurobindo > Foundation Of Indian Culture Volume-14 > A Rationalistic Critic On Indian Culture

The seer, the Rishi is the natural director of society

Sri Aurobindo

As stated, it is the sceptical argument of the atheist and agnostic, but after all that is only the extreme logical state­ment of an attitude common to the average European turn of thinking which is inherently a positivist attitude. Philosophy has been pursued in Europe with great and noble intellectual results by the highest minds, but very much as a pursuit apart from life, a thing high and splendid, but ineffective. It is remark­able that while in India and China philosophy has seized hold on life, has had an enormous practical effect on the civilisation and got into the very bones of current thought and action, it has never at all succeeded in achieving this importance in Europe.

In the days of the Stoics and Epicureans it got a grip, but only among the highly cultured; at the present day, too, we have some renewed tendency of the kind. Nietzsche has had his influence, certain French thinkers also in France, the philosophies of James and Bergson have attracted some amount of public interest; but it is a mere nothing compared with the effective power of Asiatic philosophy.

The average European draws his guiding views not from the philosophic, but from the positive and prac­tical reason. He does not absolutely disdain philosophy like Mr. Archer, but he considers it, if not a "man-made illusion," yet a rather nebulous, remote and ineffective kind of occupation. He honours the philosophers, but he puts their works on the highest shelf of the library of civilisation, not to be taken down or consulted except by a few minds of an exceptional turn. He admires, but he distrusts them.

Plato's idea of philosophers as the right rulers and best directors of society seems to him the most fantastic and unpractical of notions; the philosopher, precisely because he moves among ideas, must be without any hold on real life. The Indian mind holds on the contrary that the Rishi, the thinker, the seer of spiritual truth is the best guide not only of the religious and moral, but the practical life. The seer, the Rishi is the natural director of society; to the Rishis he attributes the ideals and guiding intuitions of his civilisation. Even today he is very ready to give the name to anyone who can give a spiritual truth which helps his life or a formative idea and inspiration which influences religion, ethics, society, even politics.

Works Of Sri Aurobindo > Foundation Of Indian Culture Volume-14 > A Rationalistic Critic On Indian Culture

Sri Aurobindo, "the philosopher as poet"

Nolini Kanta Gupta

Sri Aurobindo has thrown such a material into his poetic fervour and created a sheer beauty, a stupen­dous reality out of it. Herein lies the greatness of his achieve­ment. Philosophy, however divine, and in spite of Milton, has been regarded by poets as "harsh and crabbed" and as such unfit for poetic delineation. Not a few poets indeed foundered upon this rock.

A poet in his own way is a philosopher, but a philosopher chanting out his philosophy in sheer poetry has been one of the rarest spectacles.¹ I can think of only one instance just now where a philosopher has almost succeeded being a great poet – I am referring to Lucretius and his De Rerum Natura. Neither Shakespeare nor Homer had anything like philosophy in their poetic creation. And in spite of some inclination to philosophy and philosophical ideas Virgil and Milton were not philosophers either. Dante sought perhaps consciously and deliberately to philosophise in his Paradiso. I Did he? The less Dante then is he. For it is his Inferno, where he is a passionate visionary, and not his Paradiso (where he has put in more thought-power) that marks the nee plus ultra of his poetic achievement.

And yet what can be more poetic in essence than philo­sophy, if by philosophy we mean, as it should mean, spiritual truth and spiritual realisation? What else can give the full breath, the integral force to poetic inspiration if it is not the problem of existence itself, of God, Soul and Immortality, things that touch, that are at the very root of life and reality? What can most concern man, what can strike the deepest fount in him, unless it is the mystery of his own being, the why and the whither of it all? But mankind has been taught and trained to live merely or mostly on earth, and poetry has been treated as the expression of human joys and sorrows – the tears in mortal things of which Virgil spoke. The savour of earth, the thrill of the flesh has been too sweet for us and we have forgotten other sweetnesses. It is always the human ele­ment that we seek in poetry, but we fail to recognise that what we obtain in this way is humanity in its lower degrees, its surface formulations, at its minimum magnitude.

¹ James H. Cousins in his New Ways in English Literature describes Sri Aurobindo as "the philosopher as poet." Page – 52 Works Of Nolini Kanta Gupta > Volume-2 > Sri Aurobindo Ahana And Other Poems

Just do it, nevertheless

All else being equal, that is all I want to say in this blog, the conclusion I would have liked to draw from the last blog apply, willy nilly, to all the avante garde phenomenological enquiries. Some people might be tempted to go for the philosophy-as -phenomenological-enquiry-alternative once the philosophy-as conceptual-analysis-alternative is unavailable.

Temptation apart, that option is also not available to try out is the main point of this blog.All the three points mentioned in the previous blog applies to the as-as -phenomenological-enquiry-alternative, also. Further, there are three more points, the broadened "intuition", the superficial nature of that enterprise and the unavoidable inconsistencies.Phenomenology, it is said, is oriented towards "the things themselves", towards "what is given immediately in intuition (Anschauung)".

Phenomenology, which is "an apriori science of the essences of all possible objects and experiences", doesn't philosophize essences, on the contrary, it "grasps them directly in immediate 'intuition'". Husserl takes the word "intuition" in a very broad sense (unlike Kant's methodical, insightful, and narrow use of the same TERM ANSCHAUUNG which is in resonance with the findings of cognitive science) beyond the purely sensuous as in "intuiting a conflict or a synthesis".

To broaden the idea further, Husserl introduces a new notion of categorical intuition a genuine and non-sensuous form of intuiting, overlooked by philosophical traditions of all hues, it is said. For Heidegger Anschauung/Gegebenheit is the "magic word" of phenomenology.Be that as it may, all that intuition can, at it best, yield is contingent claims only. So as mentioned in the last blog it is difficult to see how one can have "an apriori science" of phenomena or concepts.

Secondly, the superficial nature of the game, even if we grant that intuition results in contingent claims, as a philosophical enquiry this is just the beginning of that enquiry. The interesting part of the philosophical part of it deals with issues like

• how we come to have these claims? What is the nature of it?
• What is the relation between these claims and the related world? What are the distinguishable feature of it and how it is represented?

The orientation towards "the things themselves", and "letting something show itself" is the beginning of revisionary metaphysics, if it is metaphysics, to use a Strawsonian term, and the first step in logical analysis, to avail of a Searlian critical remark.Inconsistency in the approach in question is the third point.

Phenomenological epistemologists are "engaged in a foundationalist enterprise" and are "trying to find conditions of knowledge and certainty....[or] intelligibility". These engagements grope after ontology, in one manner or the other. One can't have the cake of scientific realism and eat it too, in a phenomenological fashion. Either real world (whatever that means!) or phenomenological "revelation" of that.

• An aside: See the differing notions of "intentionality" in use in varied phenomenologies. Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty all lead their people to "new [and different] land[s]", through their "concepts" of intentionality and the like.

Read along the line that Husserl cherished "characterizing himself as a Moses leading his people to new land of what he came to call....transcendental subjectivity". Commenting on Husserl's and Heidegger's notions of intentionality, Searl makes it clear that "these are more or less irrelevant to getting an adequate theory of the logical structure of the intentionality of the biological brains encased in biological bodies".

J. N. Mohanty, admits this point when he says, "non-phenomenological philosophers and philosophies which are oriented after the natural sciences......may not solve the problem.. [Of objective body and objective mind] with a finality, but they at least know what to do with it. For here, they have the problem of correlating or identifying, or distinguishing between, two identifiable things, each with its own property or properties".

SO, if phenomenology, also, is not available as an option to DO philosophy, beyond the initial steps of characterization and description, is there a way to DO it? And all that I did say in this blog is this: Both philosophy-as-conceptual-analysis and philosophy-as-phenomenological-exercise are in the same boat, in so far as the result, the tool and the methodology adopted are concerned, all else being equal.

[Sailing is all that matters; the sailor, the experience of sailing and the results are immaterial! Any boat is good enough to this end. Thus spoke an upright Buddhist.] # A paper titled "Phenomenology as a science from square one" (draft) available on request for comments. posted by mks @ 4:48 AM 4 comments Friday, March 24, 2006 Ceteris Paribus

Hegel used history to contextualize earlier epochs

Poststructuralism and Postmodernism: Bald Ambtion, Chapter 7 Jeff Meyerhoff

While his use of Habermas here is defensible, Wilber's periodization of modernity and postmodernity is confusing. He states that we can date the beginning of the “postmodern mood” to Hegel,[40] presumably because Hegel used history to contextualize earlier epochs, showed the constructed nature of knowledge and used vision-logic to create an all embracing system. But if Hegel, at the start of the 19th century begins the postmodern mood, then what are we to make of historical periodizations of postmodernity that date it from the mid to late 20th century and routinely refer to late 19th and early 20th century thinkers such as Nietzsche and Bataille as proto-postmodernists?

Adding to the confusion is the constructivism of Hegel's predecessor Kant who created his influential rendering of human subjectivity by seeing it as constitutive of the spatio-temporal world. So either we accept Wilber's broad definitions of constructivism and contextualism which lead to an odd overlapping of the modern and postmodern, or we reject these definitions as too general which requires a wholly different way of characterizing the differences between modern and postmodern thought.

This confusion of modern and postmodern thought is mirrored in Wilber's description of modern and postmodern social changes. He contends that the strength of postmodernism is pluralism, multiculturalism, and the respecting of all voices.[41] Yet isn't democratic pluralism, minority rights, public discussion, free press and religion, and the rational assessment of views a pluralistic part of modernity? The political theorist Robert A. Dahl published his famous theory of democratic pluralism, Who Governs?, in 1961, well before most periodizations of postmodernism. The strengths that Wilber assigns to postmodernism could easily be seen as the strengths of modernism.

By misattributing qualities to postmodernism that could just as easily be seen as aspects of modernism, Wilber avoids the stronger and more undermining aspects of postmodern thought. He says that vision-logic, like postmodern thinking, privileges no perspective and weaves them together into an integral-aperspective. Yet Wilber's integral synthesis privileges key ideas that postmodern thought criticizes: evolution, progress, a telos, anthropocentrism, a non-dual essence, the division between inner and outer, realism and a vocabulary that is binding on other times, persons and places. He never adequately confronts the fundamental problems that poststructuralism and postmodernism raise for his theory of everything.

The theoros journeys forth as an official witness to a spectacle

The Data and Methodologies of Integral Science Kurt Koller

As Andrea Wilson Nightingale explores in her recent work, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context (2005), theoria was the name of a practice undertaken by individuals (called theoros, “theorists”) consisting of a pilgrimage to religious or oracular sites to bear witness to sacred truths. From her introduction:

“Plato, who was the first to conceptualize philosophic 'theorizing', made full use of the model of traditional theoria, with its journey abroad, viewing of a spectacle, and subsequent return home. In the Republic 5–7, the most detailed account of theoria in the Platonic corpus, Plato models philosophic theoria on the traditional practice of civic theoria. In this kind of theoria, the theoros journeys forth as an official witness to a spectacle, and then returns as a messenger or reporter: at the end of the journey, he gives a verbal account of a visual, spectacular event. The journey as a whole, including the final report, is located in a civic context.

In Plato's account of philosophic theoria in the Republic, theoretical activity is not confined to the rational contemplation of the Forms; rather, it encompasses the entire journey, from departure to contemplation to reentry and reportage. The intellectual 'seeing' at the center of the journey, which I call 'contemplation,' is thus nested in a larger context which is both social and political. As Plato claims, the philosophic theorist will, when he returns, 'give an account' of his vision which is open to inspection and to questioning. In addition, he will translate his contemplative wisdom into practical and (under certain conditions) political activities: his theoretical wisdom provides the basis for action. In the good city, moreover, the theoretical philosophers will rule the polis: here, Plato places the philosophic theorist at the very center of political life.

According to Plato, the philosopher is altered and transformed by the journey of theoria and the activity of contemplation. He thus 'returns' as a sort of stranger to his own kind, bringing a radical alterity into the city. When the philosopher goes back to the social realm, he remains detached from worldly goods and values even when he is acting in the world. Even in the ideal city, the philosopher is marked by detachment and alterity, he possesses a divine perspective that is foreign to the ordinary man. This peculiar combination of detachment and engagement allows the Platonic theorist to perform on the social stage in a fashion that is impartial, just, and virtuous.”

A cognitively greedy scientific rationalism

As Kant properly noted, the ego creates a world in the form of its own sensibility (the phenomenal world) and then takes it for the real world. Therefore, it is as if we dream a dream and then inhabit the dream as if it were real. The ego becomes thoroughly entangled in its own exteriorized and reified fantasies. This is what it means to be a fallen ego in a fallen world. The fall is both literal (i.e., vertical) and metaphorical.

With the scientific revolution in full force, Kant saw what was coming and was actually trying to rescue the realm of religion from the predations of a cognitively greedy scientific rationalism. Since the ego ultimately has access only to its own phenomena, this left the infinitely greater reality of the noumenon untouched, unknown and unknowable. This is precisely where Kant erred, because in saying that the noumenon was unknowable, he essentially reduced religion to a mere sentimental fideism. It would simply be a matter of time before it became wholly irrelevant to “sophisticated” moderns.

Again, either religion embodies real knowledge that surpasses our egoic understanding, or it is simply an absurdity that is defiantly embraced in the teeth of reason and logic. But if it does embody real knowledge, what kind of knowledge is it? Is it mere information, occupying the same horizontal plane as factual scientific information, like saying “water freezes at 32 degrees and Jesus walked on it,” or “the ribs enclose the chest cavity and women are made of one”? In my way of looking at things, this is a gross confusion that simply invites people not to take religion seriously.

Let us imagine that the totality of reality constitutes a vast field of consciousness. In navigating its dimensions and coordinates, there are two principle dangers. One involves being shipwrecked on the rocks of a rational but fixed and “frozen” mental conception that ultimately forecloses spiritual evolution. The ego stakes out its little piece of territory. It knows what it knows, and that’s all it wants to know. The vast majority of cultural and religious beliefs are of this variety. Some belief systems stake out a slightly wider area, but each, to one degree or another, places an arbitrary boundary around reality.

The other danger is to become lost at sea with no fixed coordinates at all. This is to be engulfed in the symmetrical unconscious with no bearings to guide one’s journey.The other danger is to become lost at sea with no fixed coordinates at all. This is to be engulfed in the symmetrical unconscious with no bearings to guide one’s journey. posted by Gagdad Bob at 8:47 AM 3 comments One Cosmos Under God by Robert W. Godwin

The Rise of Pessimism

By ADAM COHEN
NYTimes.com Homepage : August 28, 2006

These are ideal times for the release of “Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit,” by Joshua Foa Dienstag, a U.C.L.A. political theorist. Mr. Dienstag aims to rescue pessimism from the philosophical sidelines, where it has been shunted by optimists of all ideologies. The book is seductive, because pessimists are generally more engaging and entertaining than optimists, and because, as the author notes, “the world keeps delivering bad news.” It is almost tempting to throw up one’s hands and sign on with Schopenhauer.

Pessimism, however, is the most un-American of philosophies. This nation was built on the values of reason and progress, not to mention the “pursuit of happiness.” Pessimism as philosophy is skeptical of the idea of progress. Pursuing happiness is a fool’s errand. Pessimism is not, as is commonly thought, about being depressed or misanthropic, and it does not hold that humanity is headed for disaster. It simply doubts the most basic liberal principle: that applying human reasoning to the world’s problems will have a positive effect.

The biggest difference between optimists and pessimists, Mr. Dienstag argues, is in how they view time. Optimists see the passing of time as a canvas on which to paint a better world. Pessimists see it as a burden. Time ticks off the physical decline of one’s body toward the inevitability of death, and it separates people from their loved ones. “All the tragedies which we can imagine,” said Simone Weil, the French philosopher who starved herself to death at age 34, “return in the end to the one and only tragedy: the passage of time.”

Optimists see history as the story of civilization’s ascent. Pessimists believe, Mr. Dienstag notes, in the idea that any apparent progress has hidden costs, so that even when the world seems to be improving, “in fact it is getting worse (or, on the whole, no better).” Polio is cured, but AIDS arrives. Airplanes make travel easy, but they can drop bombs or be crashed into office towers. There is no point in seeking happiness. When joy “actually makes its appearance, it as a rule comes uninvited and unannounced,” insisted Schopenhauer, the dour German who was pessimism’s leading figure.

As politicians, pessimists do not believe in undertaking great initiatives to ameliorate unhappiness, since they are skeptical they will work. They are inclined to accept the world’s evil and misery as inevitable. Mr. Dienstag tries to argue that pessimists can be politically engaged, and in modest ways they can be. Camus joined the French Resistance. But pessimism’s overall spirit, as Camus noted, “is not to be cured, but to live with one’s ailments.”

President Clinton was often mocked for his declarations that he still believed “in a place called Hope.” But he understood that instilling hope is a critical part of leadership. Other than a few special interest programs — like cutting taxes on the wealthy and giving various incentives to business — it is hard to think of areas in which the Bush administration has raised the nation’s hopes and met them. This president has, instead, tried to focus the American people on the fear of terrorism, for which there is no cure, only bad choices or something worse.

Part of Mr. Bush’s legacy may well be that he robbed America of its optimism — a force that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, used to rally the country when it was deeply challenged. The next generation of leaders will have to resell discouraged Americans on the very idea of optimism, and convince them again that their goal should not be to live with their ailments, but to cure them.

Many roads leading from nowhere to nothing

To a large extent, a philosopher is somewhat like an annoying child who persists in asking “why” after others have stopped. Some people, like my father, just intuitively realize that such questions are ultimately pointless, that no matter how much we think about existence, no one will ever really figure it out. So why bother with such an impractical and ultimately fruitless endeavor? The history of philosophy is simply a chronicle of error on a particularly grandiose scale. As sometwo once said, it is “an an abuse of language invented for that purpose,” or “a journey of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.”

But some cosmonauts and vertical adventurers can’t help thinking about these things. For one thing, human beings have an intrinsic need for meaning. And what is meaning? Meaning is revealed when things come together in such a way that the union of particulars reveals what they are pointing toward or converging upon.

For example, the meaning of letters is revealed in the word, just as the meaning of words is revealed in the sentence. Once you know how to read, your mind doesn’t even notice the letters of which the words are composed. They fade into the background and become “invisible,” as your mind sees through them, to what they are pointing toward. Nor, as you read this, is your mind focussed on my words (at least until I brought your attention to them), but is instead focusing on the meaning I am trying to convey through words. Words and letter are simply the vehicles of meaning, not its creator. Or, you might say that words are necessary but insufficient to account for the meaning that transcends them.

The reason why human language exists--can exist--is that the cosmos is composed of language, or what is called the logos or Word. For example, astrophysicists search for the mathematical language that governs the big bang. Physicists have discovered the mathematical language that explains both the macro (relativity theory) and micro (quantum theory) realms, but cannot figure out how those two are related. In other words, they are searching for a “higher meaning” that would unify those two outweirdly incompatible theories.

Likewise, DNA is obviously a highly sophisticated language, a language that “speaks” biological organisms. But strict materialists are mistaken in thinking that any purely Darwinian paradigm is sufficient to account for life. For one thing, natural selection presupposes a very special cosmos in which one thing can stand for another and carry messages. posted by Gagdad Bob at 7:26 AM 17 comments One Cosmos Under God Robert W. Godwin

No map of reality should be accepted as final

Metaphysics, not post-metaphysics Here is another (slightly edited) extract from my essay in progress, now titled An Integral/Holistic Metaparadigm. (note: The "post-metaphysics" in the title of this post concerns Ken Wilber's interpretation of post-metaphysics ("Wilber-V"), and not contemporary German philosopher Jürgen Habermas's earlier use of the term)

Metaphysics is that branch of Philosophy that the rational investigation of questions about existence, being (Ontology), the nature of God or the Absolute Reality (Theology) and of the Universe (Cosmology), the mind-body problem (nowadays generally a separate discipline in Philosophy), causality, the problem of free will and determinism, and so on. In other words, questions concerning the meaning of existence, which underlie all other inquiries.
With the rise of the secular Enlightenment in the West, and especially current modernity, much of academic philosophy has lost its connection with the original "Wisdom Tradition" of Pythagoras and Plato and Plotinus, and hence cannot really answer these questions. Because these questions cannot be answered, proved, or disproved, by rational physical or physicalist means alone.
The word Metaphysics means literally “after” (not "beyond" or “above”) “physics", and refers to the arrangement of Aristotle's writings, in which his books on “first philosophy” were placed after the books on “physics”. This is quite distinct to the popular definition of beyond or above the physical reality...
Within the integral movement, especially its majority Wilberian branch, “Metaphysics” has become something of a dirty word. This is due solely to Wilber's repeated statements that metaphysics belongs to an outdated or pre-modern age and must be rejected if spiritual teachings (by which he means experiences abstracted from any context or meaning and hence slotted into his own AQAL system) are to be acceptable at the court of modernity and postmodernity1. In addition, as I have shown (Towards a Larger Definition of the Integral, Part Two, A Fourfold Critique sect. 2a), Wilber understands by metaphysics only the popular, non-academic philosophical meaning. Because of this, he is able to avoid acknowledging the fact that his own system is highly metaphysical (quadrants, holons, transcendent Spirit, etc) when making his self-contradictory claim that his own current teachings as "post-metaphysical".
In doing this Wilber (and hence the entire Wilberian integral movement) has bought into the scientistic and academic preference for debunking metaphysics, because it deals with things that cannot be "proved" by or to the Physical Mind (sensu Sri Aurobindo). But this rationalist physicalism itself rests on a number of unproved, irrational, and yes, metaphysical, assumptions, as has been persuasively shown by Transpersonal Psychologist Charles T. Tart. (see Charles T. Tart, “Some assumptions of orthodox, Western Psychology”. In C. Tart (Ed.), Transpersonal Psychologies. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 61-111)
My position here is that not only is metaphysics necessary, but no truly comprehensive “integral” understanding of reality is possible without it. Without metaphysics the best one could have would be a sort of agnostic postmodernist or neo-Buddhistic (on western-inspired apologetic Hinduism and Buddhism see Jorge Ferrer, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory, pp.48-51) style of approach, in which bare experiences are recognised and definied empirically, but there is no attempt at arriving at a deeper meaning, no attempt is made to show what those experiences refer to. Such agnosticism comes with its own metaphysical baggage, e.g. crypto-physicalism or crypto-materialism, the subtle conception that all these experiences, visions, etc are simply the by-product of the physical brain, but one shouldn't look to closely at that, just be satisfied with the experience taken out of its context and sanitised for a secular physicalistic bias. This may work for Wilberian physicalism, but as soon as one studies even superficially the teachings of authentic spiritual realisers it quickly becomes apparent that reality is much vaster than physicalism considers it to be.
The problem here, as mentioned, is that modern Western secular academic thought has lost its original wisdom tradition (represented by Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, etc) and hence has to fall back on scientism and superficial empiricism. This is why spiritual apologetics like Wilber try so hard to present an unthreatening and secularised version of spiritual and perennialist teachings.
At the same time, no metaphysical system and no map of reality should be accepted as final. It should always be remembered that all these concepts are just suggestions and points of view, useful classification schemes and thoughtforms, which should never be used as alternatives for direct spiritual experience. posted by m alan kazlev at 4:49 PM Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Left's hijacking of the higher planes

Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault

Stephen Hicks

And that is exactly what Hicks concludes. He chronicles the utter failure of socialist ideas in the past three centuries, beginning with pre-Marxist leftists such as the odious paleofrog Rousseau. But the key figure in the descent into modern irrationalism and illiberal leftism was the figure of Immanuel Kant, for it was Kant who divided the world into phenomena (what is accessible to our senses and categories of thought) and noumena (the ultimate reality behind them).

By closing off the noumenal reality to reason, Kant thought he had spared religion from the onslaught of scientific skepticism, when he had actually opened the door to all the baleful forms of irrationalism that followed. For in the Kantian system, all we can really know is our own nervous system--reason and science merely toy with the phenomena, leaving the deeper reality unknown and unknowable. The next time some cliche-ridden boob says to you, “perception is reality,” know that they are a metaphysically retarded son or daughter of Kant.

As an aside, one can trace the history of philosophy in a pretty straight line from the ancient Greeks to Kant. But Kant represents the end of that line and its subsequent ramification into the many streams, creeks, drainage ditches and sewer lines that reach us today. Virtually every philosophy since Kant has been either a rational extension of his ideas (Schopenhaur, structuralism, phenomenology), an irrational exploration of his ideas (e.g., reality is absurd, we are impotent to know anything, feeling and instinct trump reason, the irrational yields more valid insights into reality, etc.), or attempts to undo his ideas (e.g., Hegel, who reunited noumena and phenomena in his notion of the Absolute Subject, and Hegel's upside-down disciple, Marx).

Postmodernism involves a smorgasbag of these various reactions to Kant. Ever wonder why leftists are so irrational and unreasonable? According to Hicks, postmodernism is “the first ruthlessly consistent statement of the consequences of rejecting reason.” This is why leftists routinely resort to ad hominem attacks, extreme hostility to dissent, speech codes, and authoritarian political correctness. Ultimately, according to Hicks, postmodernism is “the academic left’s epistemological strategy for responding to the crisis caused by the failures of socialism in both theory and practice.”

Ironically, they have an a priori and unfalsifiable belief in the moral superiority of socialism over capitalism. But since capitalism has repeatedly disproved every one of socialism’s predictions, postmodernism provides the “skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism.”

Ironically, Kant was trying to save traditional religion from being eroded by scientific skepticism, but his ideas are now used by the secular left to shield the false religion of socialism from rational scrutiny. The choice for leftists is simple: either follow the evidence and reject their utopian ideals, or hold to their beautiful ideals and undermine the notion that logic and evidence matter. Obviously they have chosen the latter course, which is why a casual stroll through the halls of academia, the editorial pages of the New York Times, or the darker corners of the internet reveals that language is no longer being used as a vehicle to understand reality, but a rhetorical club with which to beat opponents. In this context, “Bush bashing” can be seen as a completely impersonal and inevitable phenomenon, for if your only tool is a rhetorical hammer, you will treat everything as an ideological nail.

And this also explains the common observation that the left is devoid of constructive ideas, for without logic and evidence, leftism has been reduced to a knee-jerk critique of Western civilization. It is essentially irrational and nihilistic, because language is not about reality, but simply about more language. Therefore, language cannot build anything but illusions. Moreover, this explains why the left is so incoherent and contradictory--why, for example, all truth is relative but leftism is absolute, why all values are subjective but homophobia and American exceptionalism are evil, why tolerance is the highest ideal but political correctness is higher still, etc. Leftism is simply an absolutism masquerading as a relativism.

The only problem with Hicks’ book is that he stops short of explaining how to overcome what I call the logopathologies of the left. This is because he appears to be an objectivist or secular libertarian, and seems vaguely hostile to religion. In reality, there is no defense against these destructive ideas within the bounds of common reason--as soon as you descend into mere reason, you have already given the game away, for there is almost nothing the human mind can prove that it cannot equally disprove. In a subsequent post I will explain the only way to combat the left's hijacking of the higher planes. posted by Gagdad Bob at 6:58 AM 14 comments links to this post