Althusser links his ideas about ideology to Lacan

Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" Dr. Mary Klages, Associate Professor of English, University of Colorado, Boulder, November 6, 2001

Althusser makes some final points about ideology working this way to "hail" us as subjects, so that we think these ideas are individually addressed to us, and hence are true. He says that ideology, as structure, requires not only subject but Subject. In using the capital S, he invokes an idea similar to that of Lacan (whom Althusser studied and wrote about), that there is a small-s subject, the individual person, and a capital S Subject, which is the structural possibility of subjecthood (which individuals fill). The idea of subject and Subject also suggests the duality of being a subject, where one is both the subject OF language/ideology (as in being the subject of a sentence) and subject TO ideology, having to obey its rules/laws, and behave as that ideology dictates.

The interpellated subject in the ideology of the home gym commercial would thus order the gym, behave as if bodybuilding or rigorous exercise was a necessity, something of central importance. The Subject here would be some notion of physical perfection, or body cult, the rules that the subject is subjected to. Althusser uses the example of Christian religious ideology, with God as the ultimate Subject--the center of the system/structure.

On p. 248 Althusser links his ideas about ideology to Lacan directly, noting that the structure of ideology is specular (like Lacan's Imaginary, like the mirror stage). There are a couple of things worth noting about Althusser as a "bricoleur" of other theorists. Althusser was enchanted by Freud, and even more enchanted by Lacan; the ideas of the imaginary, the mirror, the specular, and the subject/Subject are all gotten from or parallel to Lacanian notions. Also, as a Marxist, Althusser privileges SCIENCE as a form of knowing that is outside of any ideological structure, a type of knowledge that really IS simply true, because objective and material--hence his comment on 246 that the only way to know when ideology is ideological is through scientific knowledge.

Is this theory useful to literature? Yes, because it enables us to talk about how a literary text, as a subset or transformation or production of ideology (or of specific ideological formations) also constitutes us as subjects, and speaks to us directly. The most obvious form of how a literary text might interpellate us as subjects is one that uses direct address, when the text says "dear reader" (as Uncle Tom's Cabin does with annoying frequency). All texts interpellate readers by some mechanism, in some ways; all texts create subject positions for readers, whether that construction of subject positions is obvious or not. We will look at this idea of subject positions within literary texts further with Foucault.

The Romanticist "escape from reason"

Soren Kierkegaard - Existentialism, Nominalism, and the Three Spheres of Existence

The dawning years of the nineteenth century were indeed years of great historic change. The Age of Reason was slowly disappearing over the horizon and the Romantic era was gradually rising to the fore. Moreover, it was a time of momentous social change and industrial progress, an age of revolution and powerful human expression. While Rousseau and Jefferson assailed the divine right of kings and proceeded to carve out their respective revolutionary ideals, great artists such as Beethoven, Goethe, and Goya were offering to the world their timeless creations. Meanwhile, the engines of the industrial machine were set in motion by the inventive genius of the age, creating a momentous force which has not ceased to this day. Thus the dawn of the nineteenth century was pervaded by the spirit of optimism and human ascent, and it was posited for the first time that the "theoretical possibility of uninterrupted human progress might be concretely realized."1

But as contemporary historians have observed, the Romanticist "escape from reason" was nothing more than a "fallacy of hope,"2 an imaginary dream of utopian ideals from which the European man would awake in horror.Perhaps this shattered dream is best represented by the story of Beethoven and Napoleon, a story which seems to encapsulate the death of political idealism in nineteenth century Europe. As the story goes, Beethoven, though not a political man, but a grand admirer of Napoleon as an apostle of revolutionary ideals, dedicated his Third Symphony (Sinfonia Eroica) to the French general, inscibing "Buonaparte" at the very top of the manuscript's title page.

However, in 1804 when the orchestral master heard that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in the cathedral of Notre Dame, Beethoven flew into a rage and said, "Now too he will tread under foot all the rights of man, indulge in his own ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men and become a tyrant!"3 Infuriated, the master stormed to the table upon which his work of art lay, and tore the title page into shreds, the name of "Buonaparte" being committed to the hearth and flame. The resulting imperialism of Napoleon, then, would cause much dismay and disillusionment in the hearts of the European people; the intellectual edifice of Romanticism was doomed to collapse and a new context was being formed in which a new philosophy might emerge -- indeed, the philosophy of existentialism.Perhaps more than any other system of thought, the existential worldview is dependent on the socio-cultural context of the age. Unlike any form of transcendental idealism, existentialism envelops and engages troubled civilization, responding to the predicament of the existing individual.

Thus, we can say that existentialism is a philosophy which is attentive to the anguish, aspirations, and needs of the people, a philosophy which moves the existent to realize his "ultimate concern,"4 and thus attain an authentic existence. So, when we reflect upon the societal conditions which prevailed in post-Napoleonic Europe, and then take into consideration the fact that rationalism and higher criticism had already contributed greatly to the erosion of biblical authority, it is not difficult to see how the philosophy of existentialism could have taken root, even though it would not flourish until the twentieth century. In truth, a concrete definition of existentialism is elusive, indeed a difficult assignment. For, it is not a philosophical system or school of thought per se, nor can it be reduced to a series of propositional truths or tenets. # posted by Mysterium Dei : 7:46 PM Monday, October 16, 2006

Kant, Herder, Schopenhauer, and Duns Scotus

Andy Smith Says: October 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pm Here it is: Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger on the destiny of reason. by Lee Harris 10/02/2006, Volume 012, Issue 03 To the memory of Oriana Fallaci

This was the question taken up by one of Kant’s most illustrious and brilliant students, Johann Herder. Herder began by accepting Kant and the Enlightenment, but he went on to ask the Kantian question: What were the necessary conditions of the European Enlightenment? What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn’t he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?

Herder’s answer was that in Europe, and in Europe alone, human beings had achieved what Herder called “cultures of reason.” In his grand and pioneering survey of world history and world cultures, Herder had been struck by the fact that in the vast majority of human societies, reason played little or no role. Men were governed either by a blind adherence to tradition or by brute force. Only among the ancient Greeks did the ideal of reason emerge to which Manuel II Paleologus appeals in his dialogue with the learned Persian.

A culture of reason is one in which the ideal of the dialogue has become the foundation of the entire community. In a culture of reason, everyone has agreed to regard violence as an illegitimate method of changing other people’s minds. The only legitimate method of effecting such change is to speak well and to reason properly. Furthermore, a culture of reason is one that privileges the spirit of Greek philosophic inquiry: It encourages men to think for themselves.

For Herder, modern scientific reason was the product of European cultures of reason, but these rare cultures of reason were themselves the outcome of a well-nigh miraculous convergence of traditions to which Ratzinger has called our attention as constituting the foundation of Europe: the world-historical encounter between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, “with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage.” Thus, for Herder, modern scientific and critical reason, if it looks scientifically and critically at itself, will be forced to recognize that it could never have come into existence had it not been for the “providential,” or perhaps merely serendipitous, convergence of these three great traditions. Modern reason is a cultural phenomenon like any other: It did not drop down one fine day out of the clouds. It involved no special creation. Rather, it evolved uniquely out of the fusion of cultural traditions known as Christendom.

A critique of modern reason from within must recognize its cultural and historical roots in this Christian heritage. In particular, it must recognize its debt to the distinctive concept of God that was the product of the convergence of the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman traditions. To recognize this debt, of course, does not require any of us to believe that this God actually exists. For example, the 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was an atheist; yet in his own critique of modern reason, he makes a remarkably shrewd point, which Ratzinger might well have made himself...

For Schopenhauer, as an atheist, the rational Creator worshiped by Christians was an imaginary construction, like all other gods. For Ratzinger, as a Christian, this imaginary construction is an approximation of the reality of God; but for Ratzinger, as a critical thinker, there is no need to make this affirmation of faith. In offering his “critique of modern reason from within,” it is enough for his purposes to point out how radically different this imaginary construction of God is from the competing imaginary constructions of God offered by other religions–and, indeed, from competing imaginary constructions of God offered by many thinkers who fell clearly within the Christian tradition.

For example, Ratzinger notes that within the Catholic scholastic tradition itself, thinkers emerged like Duns Scotus, whose imaginary construction of God sundered the “synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit.” For Scotus, it was quite possible that God “could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.” If God had willed to create a universe without rhyme or reason, a universe completely unintelligible to human intelligence, that would have been his privilege.

Not the spirit of Pius IX; it is the spirit of Socrates

Andy Smith Says: October 11th, 2006 at 2:53 pm Here it is: Socrates or Muhammad? Joseph Ratzinger on the destiny of reason.by Lee Harris10/02/2006, Volume 012, Issue 03 To the memory of Oriana Fallaci

On September 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered an astonishing speech at the Uni versity of Regensburg. Entitled “Faith, Reason, and the University,” it has been widely discussed, but far less widely understood. The New York Times, for example, headlined its article on the Regensburg address, “The Pope Assails Secularism, with a Note on Jihad.” The word “secularism” does not appear in the speech, nor does the pope assail or attack modernity or the Enlightenment. He states quite clearly that he is attempting “a critique of modern reason from within,” and he notes that this project “has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly.”

Benedict, in short, is not issuing a contemporary Syllabus of Errors. Instead, he is asking those in the West who “share the responsi bility for the right use of reason” to return to the kind of self-critical examination of their own beliefs that was the hallmark of ancient Greek thought at its best. The spirit that animates Benedict’s address is not the spirit of Pius IX; it is the spirit of Socrates. Benedict is inviting all of us to ask ourselves, Do we really know what we are talking about when we talk about faith, reason, God, and community?

For many, it will seem paradoxical that the Roman pontiff has invoked the critical spirit of Socrates. The pope, after all, is the embodiment of the traditional authority of the Church, and the Church is supposed to have all the answers. Yet Socrates was famous as the man who had all the questions. Far from making any claims to infallibility, Socrates argued that the unexamined life was not worth living, and he was prepared to die rather than cease the process of critical self-examination. Socrates even refused to call himself wise, arguing instead that he only deserved to be called a “lover of wisdom.”

Socrates skillfully employed paradox as a way to get people to think, yet even he might have been puzzled by the paradox of a Roman Catholic pope who is asking for a return to Socratic doubt and self-critique. Benedict must be perfectly aware of this paradox himself, so that we must assume that he, too, is using paradox deliber ately, as Socrates did, and for the same reason: to startle his listeners into rethinking what they thought they already knew.

But why should Pope Benedict XVI feel the need at this moment in history to emphasize and highlight the role that Greek philosophical inquiry played in “the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe”? Christian Europe, after all, was a fusion of diverse elements: the Hebrew tradition, the experience of the early Christian community, the Roman genius for law, order, and hierarchy, the Germanic barbarians’ love of freedom, among many others. In this cultural amalgam, Greek philosophy certainly played a role, yet its contribution was controversial from the beginning. In the second century A.D., the eminent Christian theologian Tertullian, who had been trained as a Roman lawyer, asked contemptuously: “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” For Tertullian, Athens represented hot-air and wild speculation. Many others in the early Church agreed, among them those who burned the writings of the most brilliant of all Greek theologians, Origen. Yet Benedict’s address can be understood as a return to the position of the man who taught Origen, the vastly erudite St. Clement of Alexandria.

Superman and transformation of man

NIHILISM The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose

The Nihilist rebellion and antitheism responsible for the "death of God" give rise to the idea that is to inaugurate the "new age": the transformation of man himself into a god. "Dead are all the gods," says Nietzsche's Zarathustra: "now do we desire the superman to live."[63] The "murder" of God is a deed too great to leave men unchanged: "Shall we not ourselves have to become gods, merely to seem worthy of it?"[64] In Kirillov, the Superman is the "Mangod," for in his logic, "if there is no God, then I am God."[65]

It is this idea of the "Superman" that underlies and inspires the conception of the "transformation of man," alike in the Realism of Marx and in the Vitalism of numerous occultists and artists. The various conceptions of the "new man" are, as it were, a series of preliminary sketches of the Superman. For just as nothingness, the god of Nihilism, is but an emptiness and expectancy looking to fulfillment in the revelation of some "new god," so too the "new man," whom Nihilism has deshaped, reduced, and left without character, without faith, without orientation--this "new man," whether viewed as "positive" or "negative," has become "mobile" and "flexible," "open" and "receptive," he is passive material awaiting some new discovery or revelation or command that is to remold him finally into his definitive shape.

Finally, the corollary of the Nihilist annihilation of authority and order is the conception--adumbrated in all the myths of a "new order"--of an entirely new species of order, an order which its most ardent defenders do not hesitate to call "Anarchy." The Nihilist State, in the Marxist myth, is to "wither away," leaving a world-order that is to be unique in human history, and which it would be no exaggeration to call the "millennium."

A "new age" ruled by "Anarchy" and populated by "Supermen": this is the Revolutionary dream that has stirred men into performing the incredible drama of modern history. It is an "apocalyptic" dream, and they are quite correct who see in it a strange inversion of the Christian hope in the Kingdom of Heaven. But that is no excuse for the "sympathy" so often accorded at least the more "sincere" and "noble" Revolutionaries and Nihilists; this is one of the pitfalls we found it necessary to warn against at the very beginning of this chapter. In a world thinly balanced on the edge of chaos, where all truth and nobility seem to have vanished, the temptation is great among the well-meaning but naive to seek out certain of the undoubtedly striking figures who have populated the modern intellectual landscape, and--in ignorance of genuine standards of truth and spirituality--to magnify them into spiritual "giants" who have spoken a word which, though "unorthodox," is at least "challenging."

But the realities of this world and of the next are too rigorous to permit such vagueness and liberalism. Good intentions too easily go astray, genius and nobility are too often perverted; and the corruption of the best produces, not the second best, but the worst. One must grant genius and fervor, and even a certain nobility to a Marx, a Proudhon, a Nietzsche; but theirs is the nobility of Lucifer, the first among the angels who, wishing to be even more than he was, fell from that exalted position into the abyss. Their vision, in which some would see a profounder kind of Christianity, is the vision of the Reign of Antichrist, the Satanic imitation and inversion of the Kingdom of God. All Nihilists, but preeminently those of the greatest genius and the broadest vision, are the prophets of Satan; refusing to use their talents in the humble service of God, "They have waged war against God with His own gifts."[66]

Liberation from colonialism, chauvinism and capitalism

Reflections on THE IDEAL OF HUMAN UNITY By Debashish Banerji by Debashish on Mon 09 Oct 2006 11:33 PM PDT Permanent Link THE IDEAL OF HUMAN UNITY - Chapters XXXII - XXXV: Internationalism, Internationalism and Human Unity, The Religion of Humanity, Summary and Conclusion.

Certainly, in Sri Aurobindo's vision, the liberation from all forms of oppression, the oppressions of colonialism, of chauvinism and of capitalism must constitute any acceptable form of future society, but the peril of the oppression of individual liberty by machinery of whatever kind is a defeat of the human spirit and its destiny. On the other hand, alternate to the World-State, the principle of free variation that has developed as nationalism may be maintained in the form of a federated world-union. The idea of voluntaristic federation appeals to our sense of Liberty, just as the idea of Socialism answers to the sense of Equality. However, the idealism of a loose voluntary federation of national or regional social/cultural groupings of humankind rests on the assumption, once again, of the clear perception by each constituting unit, of the "common good" as the "common goal". Such an assumption could only be justified under prevailing conditions of conscious psychological development, which present world-conditions do not evidence.

A persistence of the federal idea, under existing conditions, could not maintain itself on a basis of free choice and would inevitably transit in a direction of greater central control, as has happened in national federations, such as that of the U.S.A. Thus, "a federal system also would tend inevitably to establish one general type for human life, institutions and activities; it could allow only a play of minor variations. But the need of variation in living nature could not always rest satisfied with that scanty sustenance". [SABCL, 553] Attempts to ensure the free variation, on the other hand, would, under present conditions, tend to a breakdown of unity; "a looser confederation might well be open to the objection that it would give too ready a handle for centrifugal forces, were such to arise in new strength. A loose confederation could not be permanent; it must turn in one direction or the other, end either in a close and rigid centralization or at last by a break-up of the loose unity into its original elements". [Ibid]

Thus, whatever the political turn the urge for world-unification might take, however idealistic, its engineering and maintenance by rational and mechanical means is demonstrated by Sri Aurobindo to lead to failure, without the corresponding development of the principle of psychological unity in the peoples of the world. The ideal of Internationalism seems at first sight to provide the foundations for such a psychological basis. Sri Aurobindo points out that this ideal was a child of the French Revolution, with its triple call for "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" for all human beings. Of these, the mechanical solutions to world-union have rested, as shown above, on each of the first two principles predominantly. But it is the third, the principle of fraternity, which if it can be made real and active, can provide the necessary psychological basis for a durable union. This is so because fraternity takes its origin in the spiritual truth of Oneness which is the Power that seeks realization through world-union. Moreover, it would seem that just as the ideal of Equality is linked closely to the idea of the State; so, the ideal of the brotherhood of all human beings would be bound to the idea of Internationalism. If an international sentiment could awake in the peoples of the world, replacing the narrow separative and genocidal nationalisms which prevail, the necessary psychological conditions would have been laid for the eventuality of world-union.

But can an international sentiment develop anywhere near the same passion and effectuating power that makes people die for their country? Sri Aurobindo points out that nations have come into existence, serving territorial and cultural commonalities, which give them a basis of vital necessity less evident in the case of a world-union. Moreover, nations define themselves as identities and acquire power through a double process of amplifying factors of internal unity and external difference; whereas the international idea could not derive the strength that comes from opposition and resistance. "[T]he collective ego created would have to rely on the instinct of unity alone; for it would be in conflict with the separative instinct which gives the national ego half its vitality". [SABCL, 539] It also suffers from the danger of the rooting out of free variation and cultural diversity, if made into a dogma and applied prematurely. This is more obvious today than when Sri Aurobindo was writing, though his prophetic thought shows ample indication of its possibility.

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