»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Purpose
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Purpose |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
Theoretical physicist Howard Bloom describes our being in stark terms. He defines us as machines with the purpose of gathering the necessary raw materials for the little factories inside us that manufacture the human genome. Of course, on a strictly physiological level he's correct. But, God or no god (which is not the question of this thread), have we transcended our own genetics? Rabbi Harold Kushner: quote: Is our capacity to love, for altruism, for art -- truly a transcendence of nature -- or are they too traits that have been selected by and for survival? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I'd say they're still survival traits - just on a societal basis, rather than an easily recognized individual one. Considering the society we thrive in as individuals, and that we've effectively phased out the abilty to relive our primitive hunter/gatherer past, it only makes sense that an individual focus on survival expands to maintaining and growing the society which substitutes our need for more direct survival techniques. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
*sigh* we are so much more than simple baby making machines. I feel it in my heart and bones, that love is requisite to the survival of civilization. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Is our capacity to love, for altruism, for art -- truly a transcendence of nature -- or are they too traits that have been selected by and for survival? Yes  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I realize this is my blind spot, but I don't get it. How does being a baby making machine or not make Shakespeare, Pollack, or U2 more or less interesting? What's wrong with being a baby making machine? What would constitute transcendence? You titled this purpose. Is this just another way of asking what is the meaning of it all? Hasn't Doug already answered the question? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So long and thanks for all the fish!  I titled it purpose because it's what Bloom and Kushner are both talking about. Contrasting (not exclusive though) concepts of 'purpose'. Do people still look for purpose? Is this a philosophy forum? Bloom isn't precisely talking about being baby making machines though -- he's talking about manufacturing, over and over again, the genome in each one of our cells. Ostensibly this leads to making babies. Are art, altruism, and love conducive to making babies? Do people like creative, kind, affectionate people? I don't know what specifically constitutes transcendence? Any thoughts? Kacey and Ess seem to think so... perhaps they'll elaborate. Chris -- true -- we're a cooperative species, by nature. Why do you suppose we have such a hard time doing it? How does your answer explain war? I'll get to Bloom's answer to that question later. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"What's wrong with being a baby making machine?" Nothing; what's wrong with being more than a baby making machine? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I don't know what specifically constitutes transcendence? Any thoughts? Kacey and Ess seem to think so... perhaps they'll elaborate." I think transcendence is making a difference. Life isn't exactly the way it used to be and that's quite transcendant both in a creative and evolutionary way. Doesn't mean it doesn't have what it used to , but I think it means that life became different and even better in many ways. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, there is NOTHING wrong with making babies.  it was a joyous experience for me.But Bloom, according to your interpretation, makes it sound as if we are little more than bio-machines, while the rabbi seems to assume a person's whole life must be to do good for others in order to have meaning. I don't think anyone can define life's purpose for anyone else, and I'm not even sure I can spell out what my own purpose is here on terra firma. That doesn't stop us from trying, though, and that's what essentailly makes us different from other animals. As far as I can tell, other species don't philosophize, except in our storybook adventures. But somehow, I expect we are far more than a string of codes that just happen to emote.  (I sure do love that emoticon!) Maybe I didn't understand what point you were making, Reb, and if that's the case, feel free to ignore my input. I ask myself nearly every day, what in the blazing saddles am I doing here? and I'm talking about life in general. I know why I come into this forum, even when I don't offer input, it's almost always a mind tickler. Your thought provoking comments always make me want to transcend all the mundane machinations my daily existence requires of me to guarantee I shall still be here tomorrow. (huh?...LOL)  BTW, Happy Valentine's Day to each of you! And I'll be back again later today or tomorrow... on purpose.  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Am I making a point at all? Or am I juxtaposing two philosophies against each other? quote: Cogito ergo sum. We (humans in general in the tech fields) talk often about 'machines' (computers) gaining intelligence, or sentience at some point in the future. Transcending their physiology, so to speak. Bloom speaks of us as 'machines'. Kushner speaks of us as transcendent (perhaps). I'm not disuaded from suspecting there is a gestalt that we could term the human 'transcendence' -- but, I'm interested in exploring that, and what of the multitude of universal human concerns constitutes transcendence above and beyond what Bloom has defined as our mechanistic 'purpose'. Happy V day.. or , um.. evening.  |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, I'll return tomorrow with my waxing, but to spill the beans right now? I just love it when you rub two philosophies together  my philosphy muse is in a feisty mood, but is stranded here all alone!  isn't this the forum for transcendence? I could sure use some transcendental intercour...never mind, I really did mean conversation   (tomorrow I will try to behave) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The overwhelming majority of the Earth’s population is or would be perfectly content to live their lives in peace unnoticed by the world. This notion of the importance of making an impact is a Western idea/angst not at all universally shared. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
war, Reb? I see two viable possibilities:
|
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Still waiting Kacey! What is the appropriate attire for rubbing philosophies? Huan... remind me -- what part of the West was Ghandi from? Chairman Mao? Hirohito? They all didn't want to change the world? (albeit some for the better some for the worse -- depending upon perspective) While attaining freedom from desire is a stated Goal of some Eastern religions I doubt seriously that any culture can ever quash the human desire to create an 'ideal' world for progeny. As long as there are parents there will be that desire. It's kind of like sex and Christianity. We all know nobody in the West has any sex outside of marriage right? I'm going to hold off on Bloom and war right now Chris -- let's pick that up later -- but those thoughts are coming from the general direction of Bloom. He can point to some pretty good analogs in nature too. Is there any human activity we can point to and say that it is evidence of 'transcendence?' |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Is there any human activity we can point to and say that it is evidence of 'transcendence?' " The four ages of man. Every human transcends each age in order to make it to the next one. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I write: “The overwhelming majority of the Earth’s population is or would be perfectly content to live their lives in peace unnoticed by the world. This notion of the importance of making an impact is a Western idea/angst not at all universally shared.” You respond: “Huan... remind me -- what part of the West was Ghandi from? Chairman Mao? Hirohito? They all didn't want to change the world? (albeit some for the better some for the worse -- depending upon perspective)” Well, 3 versus billions; that certainly overwhelmingly answers my point. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Not at all Huan. Not even underwhelmingly. It merely points to the obvious fact that there are fewer leaders than followers. 300 hundred million Americans... only one President. Where your statement is correct is that the majority of the world's population DOES live in relative obscurity. Show me one parent from any culture that isn't a sociopath and that parent very much would like to make a positive impact -- but most are too busy attempting to make an impact on the family budget. Let's try this though. When looking for data separation in Design of Experiments sometimes we use the BOB and WOW method. BOB stands for 'Best of Best' and WOW stands for Worst of Worst. If thread participants can name who they think of as the BOB's and WOW's of human history then we can look at characteristics and see what patterns emerge. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"BOB stands for 'Best of Best' and WOW stands for Worst of Worst." /pip/Forum8/HTML/000645.html#3 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't know if Ghandi secretly molested children and tortured them afterwards Ess... but, looking at his aggregate actions would call such an accusation into question. We can look at the net effect of the actions of persons and judge the results on merits, which can allow us to place Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jesus of Nazareth, Mother Teresa, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, etc. into the BOB column, and Hitler, Moussolini, Ghengis Kahn, Pol Pot, Albert DeSalvo, etc. into the WOW column. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"net effect" "actions" "results" "merits" ...are not people. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: For two of the above, love and altruism, I’d have to say yes, selection for survival would play a major part. Art however is a different story, I believe its origins are tied to survival but as a consequence not as a prerequisite – when mans ability to survive reached a level that allowed time to spend on other things art and language filled the gap. quote: I think so. |
||
|
flamencoguitar New Member
since 2006-06-21
Posts 1 |
Guess what? There is no reason for it at all. Read Arthur Schopenhauer - but don't jump to the wrong conclusion that he was a pessimist. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I do believe our purpose is to propagate, but it doesn't end there...that is, to me, only the beginning, and I totally agree with Rabbi Kushner adding to his great words, that until we learn to allow, to have confidence in ourselves enough to educate our own selves, we cannot know the trueness and effects of love...maybe he meant we are machines or becoming machines in a somewhat negative manner...though true, we do carry on the genes...inevitable...to me, it rings clean that we are given free will to change...? love is all emotions...all things, knowing we are all connected, to all things and our thoughts decissons, actions, so affect the lives of others.... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Flamencoguitar quote: Will Durant once noted that Shopenhaur considered the "stealthiness of love ... due to shame in continuing the race", and then asked "Could anything be more pedantically absurd?" So are you serious in suggesting that Shopenhaur was not pessimistic? Of course I do agree with A.S. on this account ... with man as his own starting point (without a divine word), the World is reduced to unqualitative "will". Hence the world becomes essentially negative, painful, and absurd. However I would not agree with Shopenhaur that there is no purpose to human life. Just curious, do you really play Flamenco guitar? I play Classical. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Interesting, Rebel. I believe that the Earth 'peoples', just as an apple tree produces apples. People are communicators, just as an apple has seeds in the core...for the survival of the species. I don't believe we've 'learned' art, or *love, just as I don't believe an apple has 'learned' to produce seeds, it's inherent in our make-up. As sentient beings, however, we think we're intelligent enough to decide what constitutes communication. That's where things start to go skew-whiff. An apple tree doesn't decide one day to make pears, yet we humans think we can simulate all life. In reality, we're just a tiny part of it, like spores. Important in our own way, but quite destructive to the other life-forms we live off. At least an apple tree gives back to the land it grows on. Is this where altruism is supposed to come in? We've learned to repress that one, in our race for supremacy, which is a tad more than survival. *love=desire Yeah, I'm a pessimist. Shopenhauer's right on. Yet, in saying that, I believe evidence of trancendence can be found in polyrhythms. Maybe I'm not so pessimistic, after all! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
kif kif: quote: But Shopenhauer would doubtless say that your idea of transcendence is hopelessly romantic. "Polyrhythms" is a musical term, and as such requires intelligent determinate composition ... or else the "order" or beauty of it is only imagined. It's interesting how music evolved with artists like John Cage (who believed a philosophy quite akin to Shopenhaur's). Cage's "music" became increasingly erratic and moved farther and farther from the realm of the musical, finally ending up as a bare philosophical statement of the absurdity of all things. It became "anti-music" rather than music. "If God exists and we are made in his image we can have real meaning, and we can have real knowledge through what He has communicated to us. If this is taken away, we are left only with man and his finite self-expression. At this point all one has is the expression of the individual man. But Cage quite logically sees that this will not do, and so he carries man's dilemma further, smashes self-expression, and leaves chance speaking. This is the basis of his music." (Francis Schaeffer, from How Should We Then Live?) Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"If this is taken away, we are left only with man and his finite self-expression." What happened to the rest of the universe? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Is any Beauty real or imagined? Like Truth, it's an infinite Idea that's expressed finitely. I used the idea of polyrhythms because the drum patterns are there to dispel fear (possibly by absorbing then reproducing the rhythms of the life that's fearful...is that chance?). Once we've trancended that, we can move on. At the moment, we're stuck in the mechanics of life, controlled by fear. 'hopelessly romantic'...'pessimistic'. I'd agree on that one, although I'd doubt Shoepenhauer would have anything to say about my pot philosophy! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Schaeffer is not denying the existence of the universe. But even the universe cannot speak, unless it is "art". So unless it is, we are left with our own finite expression ... no big picture, no purpose which "transcends our genes" to use Reb's words. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
I'll have to investigate John Cage. His idea sounds like what I said previously..."as sentient beings, we think we're intelligent enough to decide *what constitutes communication. That's when things start to go skew-whiff." *and what doesn't. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
kif kif: quote: That's really not the best analysis of Cage. He actually thought that the best avenue for art was to let the universe "speak" for itself. Hence, randomness was his method of composing much of the time. He would toss coins to decide musical phrases, have more than one conductor (who couldn't see the others) lead his musicians, in the attempt to let the universe "communicate". But it was, for Cage, a universe with nobody there. His music turned out to be nothing more than noise. Seeing the despair and pessimism of Cage's life, I know that he himself was not convinced of the value of random noise as "communication". If we cannot know what is and is not communication... then the word itself becomes meaningless. It's really a matter of epistemology. How do you know when things go "skew-whiff", any more than you know what communication is? Oh ... what is "pot philosophy"? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the universe is art, but not just because God helps shape, but because everyone and everything helps shape it with in its own extent. The littlest and most unconscious mote in the universe does universally the same thing as the greatest and most conscious being: it helps determine the universe in one way or another. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-22-2006 06:14 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
That's John Cage's definition of Art. And He produced noise. Art by definition cannot be unconscious ... There has to be a director and determiner involved. The smallest most unconscious mote of the universe may comprise what is "artistic", but not of it's own doing. It is more like paint upon a canvas than a painter who envisions beauty. Stephen |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Yet, if we think we've found 'something', then we stop looking. Cage sounds like a more extreme version of Sun Ra...Sun Ra, however, was the Kingly conductor. I believe *art needs to be expressed by someone, but that art is just the beginning, like the first stroke on the canvas, to use your analogy, or the first drum beat in a polyrhythmic pattern. *art=fitness to perform pot philosophy=green philosophy...a semi-concious smoke-screen. I designed my own head in my youth. Ever since, I've been battling with my own idiocy. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
To those who seek there are only two things which may stop the seeking. 1) To find everything hoped for at once (hardly is this ever the case) or 2) To Learn that there is absolutely nothing to find. There is much philosophy (like Cage's) which is merely a restatement of #2. That's why Cage dropped out of "music", thinking that any personality or choices would ruin the pure experience of unbridled expression. However, that's just another way of saying that there's nothing to find in musical creativity. If Cage really wanted unhindered expression, then why say anything at all? Just be totally silent and let chaos speak. To find something doesn't mean the search is over. It could mean that it's only the beginning. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Good thinking, Stephanos. I'm wondering if Cage wanted unhindered expression, then he shouldn't be bothered about whether the inspiration was through personality or choices; perhaps the very act of concentrating on those sorts of workings changes everything, and may stop the flow entirely? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Kif Kif, the proof's in the listening. Does his art turn out to be true musical creativity, or a mere philosophical remark? I think it's the latter, as Cage's "music" is intolerable to me (I have taken several years of music education as a Music Major in College). But, you've definitely described his "goal" as he himself stated it. I just think abandoning personality and choices in music is to abandon music altogether. "Birds sing beautifully in the trees" I hear someone object. Yes, but that's not something separated from choice, and certainly not random. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Yes, for after all, music is the communication of personality and choices, *making growth. The birds in the trees make noises for *that purpose, and so do we. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The whole universe is the purpose! |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Essorant, I'd say your last comment was nothing more than an abstract sound-byte. Sure, it sounds good, but why? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
This thread may help you understand what I mean. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I have to agree with Kif Kif here. To say "The whole universe is the purpose", is to beg the question, since the universe itself also has characteristics of futility, entrophy, indifference, and chaos. To say that a Creator has a purpose even beyond or in spite of those things is a meaningful statement. But to say that the universe itself IS the purpose, is only to say that there is no real difference between purpose and futility. Don't get me wrong though ... I do recognize that there is a difference between divine purpose and human utility, and that there is "no sense in vilifying the sun because it will not light our cigars". But I don't think that difference is so total (believing in an incarnational Theology like I do) as to lose our unique dignity of being human ... or to lead us to the conclusion that it is purely subjective. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
...searching around for some scatological-oops, slip of the tongue-anagogical quip, but I'm not clever enough. I wouldn't seperate the concept of God from The Universe on first thinking. That's because I've always believed that 'God' meant 'Truth'. I'll have to think about how I could succinctly describe The Universe, encompassing the finite, while allowing the Truth to 'breathe'. I'll be back when I've digested what you've both said. Interesting thoughts..."unique dignity of being human". Is this to do with our own ideas of the Divine? [This message has been edited by kif kif (06-27-2006 04:39 PM).] |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
First impressions; It may be possible for the compatibility between free will and cause and effect. Good choices reflect truths, in accordance to what I consider your comment to mean, Stephanos. (I would joke that humans are farthest from God, on that tip, though!) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
kif kif, alright are you sure you want to get me started? lol. quote: Well I'm not at all suggesting a total separation of God and the Universe which would amount to some form of gnosticism or extreme deism, where God is wholly "other". But I am suggesting that we avoid the mistake of thinking that God and the Cosmos are the same thing. Without some kind of division, we lose the distinctions between good and evil, personal and impersonal, rationality and irrationality ... just to name a few. Even your statement about truth ends up begging the question of authority, and whether truth is not merely what we say it is. And though such distinctions are still made by those who hold a pantheistic or monistic view of reality, it is done so in spite of their belief rather than in accordance with it. G.K. Chesterton in his book "Orthodoxy" put it this way: "It is ... here that Buddhism is on the side of modern pantheism and immanence. And it is just here that Christianity is on the side of humanity and liberty and love. Love desires personality; therefore love desires division. It is the instinct of Christianity to be glad that God has broken the universe into little pieces, because they are living pieces. It is her instinct to say "little children love one another" rather than to tell one large person to love himself. This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. The world-soul of the Theosophists asks man to love it only in order that man may throw himself into it. But the divine centre of Christianity actually threw man out of it in order that he might love it. The oriental deity is like a giant who should have lost his leg or hand and be always seeking to find it; but the Christian power is like some giant who in a strange generosity should cut off his right hand, so that it might of its own accord shake hands with him. We come back to the same tireless note touching the nature of Christianity; all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls. But according to orthodox Christianity this separation between God and man is sacred, because this is eternal. That a man may love God it is necessary that there should be not only a God to be loved, but a man to love him." and ... "This is the meaning of that almost insane happiness in the eyes of the mediaeval saint in the picture. This is the meaning of the sealed eyes of the superb Buddhist image. The Christian saint is happy because he has verily been cut off from the world; he is separate from things and is staring at them in astonishment. But why should the Buddhist saint be astonished at things? -- since there is really only one thing, and that being impersonal can hardly be astonished at itself. There have been many pantheist poems suggesting wonder, but no really successful ones. The pantheist cannot wonder, for he cannot praise God or praise anything as really distinct from himself. Our immediate business here, however, is with the effect of this Christian admiration (which strikes outwards, towards a deity distinct from the worshipper) upon the general need for ethical activity and social reform. And surely its effect is sufficiently obvious. There is no real possibility of getting out of pantheism, any special impulse to moral action. For pantheism implies in its nature that one thing is as good as another; whereas action implies in its nature that one thing is greatly preferable to another." Of course I realize that Chesterton spoke of Buddhism in his descriptions, and we are not talking about Buddhism per se. But a monistic system of any kind which excludes God from it's thinking comes upon the same kinds of questions and dead-ends. That's why, I think, that the Post-Enlightenment materialistic West has embraced Eastern Pantheism even if it is divorced from it's Hindu-Buddhist religious roots. quote: Yes and no. If it merely has to do with our ideas of the divine, then it begs the question of whether or not these are only our ideas. Or are they truly reflective of a reality that transcends us and nature. I think that's why the existentialist philosophers struggled so much with purpose and meaning ... and the neo-orthodox theologians who followed their lead. The difference is, the Existentialist philosophers had already abandoned God, while the Neo-orthodox kept the word but abandoned the content ... making "god" a euphemism for the human spirit, or abstract truth, or the "all". Ask Reb about John Shelby Spong, he's a paragon of neo-orthodoxy. But I don't think the religious language of the Neo-orthodox serves to help them out of Nietzsche's challenge ... to get rid of the vestiges of something you've already professed not to believe in. So ultimately I think it has to do with Divinity's idea of "us", not the other way around. It's the Biblical assertion that God created man "in his own image". And that's why I think ultimately we are distinquished from the dirt we walk upon. quote: I don't see how unless it has been given to us. Determinism doesn't allow even a mote outside of its tyranny. It's a hermetically sealed reality if everything is viewed naturalistically. Your thoughts about determinism would be determined just as steadfastly as any other natural process. But I agree with you actually (I'm playing the devil's advocate), but only because I think human choice (that is not absolutely determined) is a gift of God. quote: Right on both counts. We're closest to him in one sense, which makes our choices all the more grievous. A stranger's abuse hurts nothing like a lover's betrayal. So in that sense we are the closest / farthest beings from God that I can think of. But this is best expressed in the Christian doctrine of Special Creation, the Fall, the incarnation of God in Christ, and reconciliation. The romance of lovers may resume. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Wow-I've never seen a faith described so beautifully, Stephen. Lots to think about, not least the style. One of the problems with dicussing religion is it's archaic language. There's none of that here, though! I'm now thinking about nature naturing. Are you suggesting we're un-natural? Einstein said; "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not with a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." I wonder if the Bible assertained that "God made man in his own image" to give man something familiar to picture when thinking about the abstract Idea. You mention an issue of seperation between the Christian Ideology and Pantheism, yet say nothing about The Creation Epics from which the ideas come. People have always personified...perhaps our imaginations are not as vast as we'd like to believe? Back to the premise; is God and the cosmos the same thing? If we are to assume that God means Truth, then the cosmos is the excrement of God (sorry, but I did warn you I might try) processed Truth? Or, to put it another way, the cosmos is a finite reflection of infinite Truth, like a memory? (It's difficult to avoid abstractions!) I used the memory idea, as then it's easy to see how bad things come in (evil, irrationality). Memories can fade, and become mixed-up, like a childhood game of whispers, the true message can be lost (through processing!) As to whether Truth is just what we say it is...you're stumping me on so many levels! Perhaps this is where will appears? For our inherent desire to understand Forms, but why? Everything in the cosmos performs an action, to perpetuate itself, I'll say that much. Perhaps it is our desire for the continuation of the cosmos that keeps our Idea of Truth unchanging? (We love our own ****!) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Determinism doesn't allow even a mote outside of its tyranny." To me that is not tyranny, but it is fairness. Instead of just a special choice few beings or things to determine the universe, everyone and everything gets to. Not just God, not just humans, but trees and rocks, fire, water, earth and air, and everything in between. Everything gets to have a part in one way or another at determining the whole. Without that part, how may it be a whole? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I'm not sure that you really understand the implications of absolute determinism. It means that if someone is wrong, or immoral, or afflicted, that it was only a result of the long interlocking chain of cause and effect. "Fair" is certainly not a word you can apply to that view. Because even what is considered "unfair" is part of the unyielding iron chain. Take the most henious example of "unfairness" you can think of, and you'll have to say that it was predestined by nature itself. As much of a romantic naturalist as you are, I can't really believe that you think so. With absolute determinism you lose these in the mix: rationality (how can anything be rational or irrational if brain configurations are chemically predetermined?) morality (how can anything be right or wrong if all actions and attitudes are predetermined?) choices (how can anyone be said to make a choice if our very wills are predetermined?) But if you're talking about something a bit different than what I've described, a bit freer, then maybe you don't really believe in determinism per se. Maybe your view is a modification? Stephen |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Yet rationality, morality and choices are bound up with our predetermined desire for survival. It is rational to behave calmly in the face of a tiger, as the cause of reacting nervously would be the effects of a tiger attack. Rationality is all about our understanding of cause and effect. Free will doesn't determine morality, rather, morality determines free will, and our choices are bound up with the society we live in, again, a moral issue that's highly debatable. I don't believe we have absolute free will, just as I don't believe we're doomed to a predetermined fate. I do believe in synchronicity, cause and effect, but our capacity to make choices creates a whole other reality, constructed from within, not shaped from without, yet still effected by and still effecting causality. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Back onto the question of purpose, I've been thinking about this in terms of art and music, and the word "emotive" keeps popping up. Music and art manage to communicate emotively, thus personalising a universal communication. Perhaps this is a step toward trancendence? I wrote something ages ago... Love Delirium. I've got to know I want to grow rhythm surreal. Deal a frond of love, and a subject to my will. I take a line and place it right, I'm speaking of strange fruit now, and pulp so soft, yet I can't feel no peace of mind. with a sound so tough, in ths beat for trust, I'm reaching out for a note up high, a prefix. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I think adding "pre" and "ed" to the word determine locks determinism into a beforehandness and past tense, and therefore is not "absolute" but excluding to the present. The determinism that I agree with is one that doesn't exclude anything, where everything from head to toe of the universe has a determining part in one way or another. What many people stereoptically make out as determinism, would more accuratly be called predeterminedism. I certainly wouldn't call it "absolute" though. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Then your comment was not addressing what I am referring to... determinism. Regardless of whether you think it ought to be called "predeterminedism", it is currently called determinism. And when I say "absolute", I'm only being redundant for emphasis. Because the doctrine is already "absolute" by its very definition. Also, its definition is according to usage pretty much across the board, and has nothing to do with a stereotype. de·ter·min·ism Pronunciation Key (d-tûr-muh-ni-zum) n. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. But commenting on your view (which does not seem to be determinism) ... I suspect that there are some problems with it, though I'm not yet sure what exactly you believe. So I'll start one question at a time so you can clarify it for me: Is it your belief that every part of the universe actually has a will? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Kif Kif: quote: You may disagree, but I've actually found that the "language" of religion ... particularly the Bible, is usually only archaic in terms of translation choice. The main ideas / truths are applicable now as much as they were then ... and so can be expressed in contemporary language quite well. But many get "stuck" in a particular translation of the Bible, perhaps a few centuries old (like the King James Version) and lose the ability to communicate meaningfully to the present generation. But for whatever it's worth, I'm glad that I'm communicating well with you. quote: No, I suppose that I'm insisting that we are not "merely" natural, and that nature must not be the totality of everything, lest it become the totality of nothing and negate whatever "meaning" we try to ascribe. If you think it's far fetched that a naturalist would come to such a fatalism, I would reply that many have ... mostly the most consistently logical of them. Bertrand Russell was one of them: "Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power. (From "A Free Man's Worship") quote: But Einstein only drew the anthropological line a little bit farther, retaining "orderly harmony". If God does not concern himself with humanity, then how can we be assured that he concerns himself with human ideals ... namely order, symmetry, and beauty? Unless God is personal, then even the assurance of these basic things is bound to be lost. And if you peruse the Existential Philosophers (who took the humanism of the Enlightenment seriously), you'll see that this has already been happening. I just think that Einstein was overly optimistic for his own philsophy, being both Jewish and good natured as he was. One can see that he struggled with this when he said "God doesn't play dice with the universe". For whatever reason, being unable to accept the "personal" God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, he was also unable to accept the implications of an impersonal "all". So he ended up nearly a Pantheist. But I've already hinted at the problems with that view, with which there can be no assurance that "the universe is friendly", to use Einstein's own musing. quote: I think the "image" that was given to us, was an ontological reality where value, purpose, emotions were conveyed. The "image" part is a reminder that what we are is divinely authored, and thus the particulars of our earthly existence is grounded in the Heavenly absolute. And while I think that our image gives us a starting point, to know something of God from nature (Theologians call this "natural theology") and that that was intended by God, I don't think that it was merely given by the writers of scripture to trick us into personifying the universe ... if that's what you mean. But like all prodigals, I think a glance in the mirror can (under the right influences) remind us of our Father. His identification with us through creation, and ultimately through incarnation is no accident. quote: While certain Creation stories may have predated the book of Genesis ... I'm not aware of any of them which predate creation itself. I know that sounds like I'm mocking you or something, but what I mean is this: It's not surprising that civilizations would repeat or even invent creation stories, if that's indeed the beginning of our race. The Bible doesn't only assert that we are physically connected to God through creation, but Spiritually as well. Therefore the imagination of humanity, through Pagan religions, was only expressing imperfectly and through myth what was a reality known on a deeper level than mere intellectual history. "For since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made ...." the Apostle Paul tells us. C.S. Lewis saw much of Paganism "foreshadowing" Christianity. Of Course one may assume that borrowing is only explanation. But even if literary borrowing occurred (though even that is not certain when it comes to the Genesis account), the unique divine inspiration of the Bible is not thereby disproven ... especially if surmising "creation" is only natural for mankind to do. There is one distinct difference between the creation myths of Paganism, and the Genesis account, which sets the Biblical version on quite a different plane. If you're interested I'll go into it. quote: Actually the "memory" analogy is very close to what I believe ... as an analogy of course. It's actually very close to Christian Theology of the Fall. Only, if it stands alone, many questions come up. Such as: -Since we are "living" the memory, how can we be assurred that this muddle is only a memory and not the way things have always been, and must always be? Someone who is "awake" would have to have told us? -How do we know we'll ever get back to that which we remember? How do we avoid falling into the fatalism of believing that reality resides in the past, and that the future will only bring us increasingly distorted memory? -If there is a spiritual "truth" or "right" or "reality", then why and upon what authority does it stand? quote: But whether or not we should desire survival for ourselves and our offspring (some don't as you certainly know) is itself a moral question. You might reply that morality has nothing to do with it, since our desire for survival precedes our consideration. But does that really matter, once consideration comes? We are currently questioning nature, so we can't absolutize any of her tendencies in order to answer the question. Also rationality cannot rest on the will to survive, if the question arises as to whether or not it is rational to desire survival or death. Rationality and morality are the judge of these, not the other way around. C.S. Lewis put it like this: "Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey 'people'. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war. If it is held that the instinct for preserving the species should always be obeyed at the expense of other instincts, whence do we derive this rule of precedence? To listen to that instinct speaking in its own cause and deciding it in its own favour would be rather simple-minded. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite."(From "The Abolition of Man") And if you say that the final irreducible desire for survival is expressed in self-preservation ... I would respond by saying that there are situations where that mindset would be the opposite of moral (though not always). But either way the question of survival must be subject to the moral question, not vice versa. Would we excuse someone for killing 100 people to save himself? And whether or not the race as a whole survives, is a distinctly moral question, not an instinct set above self preservation. Again, both examples are subject to the moral question ... not the source of it. quote: But isn't this merely to say that we ourselves (and thus in our art) are personal? To personalize a universal communication still begs the question of whether or not personality itself has any transcendent purpose ... or whether or not there is really anyone "out there" to communicate to. That's why the whole "DaDa" art movement was born, in my opinion. Taking existential philsophy into the artistic expression, nihilism in art was the next step. Of course, I'm not saying that you're not on to something here. Our "art" in its outreaching way, and personal way, is indeed a clue to whether there is anything transcendent "out there". Because it represents a hunger ... and even in nature, we rarely see a stomach given with no corresponding food. But it is supra- or super-natural from whence such bread comes. Sorry this was so long, Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I don't agree with that approach to definitions. Just because determinism is used to mean a "pre-determined-ism" doesn't mean it may not mean determin-ism, where the word determine is used without a stipulation of beforehandedness or past tense. Should Christianity only be defined according to only one way of believing in Christ? No? Then why should determinism to only one way of determinism? It is like the word Science "knowledge", that people try to narrow down to only meaning this or that kind of knowledge, and then when you say science meaning knowledge in general they say:" that's not science!" Am I the only one that finds that irritating? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Is it your belief that every part of the universe actually has a will?" Not that every part has a will; but that every part has a determining force. For example, The sun doesn't have a will of its own, but it determines a great part of how things are in the solar-system. Without the sun, I think there would be very little "system" in this part of the universe. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Again Essorant, you're not even using the root word "determine" correctly. How can you determine anything without a "stipulation" before and after? quote: Actually you should know me by now, that I think in postmodern times our malady is that we are far too broad in our definition of what Christianity is. Of course there has been much error in the other direction, but overcorrection doesn't get us on the road again but in the other ditch. quote: Of course there's a point to what you're saying. But think of this from my perspective. I used "determinism" in this thread with a particular broadly-accepted definition in mind, and you responded by trying to reinvent the word to fit your own idea ... rather than responding to the idea I set forth behind the word I chose. Are we here to debate semantics, or to discuss ideas? Not every thread is for venting your desires to rewrite the English language. There ... Sorry I guess I was a little irritated too. quote: But determinism also says that every part has a determining force, immediately contingent on what went before it, and immediately causative of what comes after. Since, in a naturalistic scheme, the sun is utterly dependent upon preceding conditions and events ... could not necessitarianism (if you like that word better) be argued for? Look, Bottom line is that I certainly don't agree with determinism either. But you should at least not add to the confusion by trying to express yourself with the very same terminology. You're the wordsmith, invent a word! Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, "Again Essorant, you're not even using the root word "determine" correctly. How can you determine anything without a "stipulation" before and after? " By making the determination something that is still taking place, instead of as already done beforehand, as the word "predetermined" implies. "Actually you should know me by now, that I think in postmodern times our malady is that we are far too broad in our definition of what Christianity is. Of course there has been much error in the other direction, but overcorrection doesn't get us on the road again but in the other ditch." Forsooth I think I do. But you still accept more Christianities than just yours as being Christianity; why then may you not accept more than one determinism? "Of course there's a point to what you're saying. But think of this from my perspective. I used "determinism" in this thread with a particular broadly-accepted definition in mind, and you responded by trying to reinvent the word to fit your own idea ... rather than responding to the idea I set forth behind the word I chose. Are we here to debate semantics, or to discuss ideas? Not every thread is for venting your desires to rewrite the English language. " But when you say "determinism" you now are talking to anyone that believes in determinism in whatever way they believe in it, not just in one specific way. But you tried to make determinism out as a "tyranny" and then back up your points against determinism with suggestions about one specific kind of determinism: a "predeterminedism" kind, and then seemed to make that out as if it incriminates not just that one kind but all determinism in general. In the "Cornered" thread I expressed all a determinism that is not at all "tyrranical" but that has each part partly determining a part of everything, at the same time as the whole wholly determines everything. It is discouraging that after a whole philosophy is expressed at this site with toil, that in the end it is only a one or two-liner in a dictionary that gets to say what determinism may be. If that it is how goes, why don't we just exchange dictionary-definitions from now on?  "But determinism also says that every part has a determining force, immediately contingent on what went before it, and immediately causative of what comes after. Since, in a naturalistic scheme, the sun is utterly dependent upon preceding conditions and events ... could not necessitarianism (if you like that word better) be argued for? " But earlier all you suggested in your points about determinism was that it was tyrrany and suggested that rationality, morals and choices were "predetermined" that didn't suggest any continuation of determination. If you acknowledge that determinism includes determining in the present tense, including ourselves determining things, moral, choices, reasoning, then what sets you against it? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
I think I get what you're saying, Stephen. Nature is finite, Ideas are infinite. I say, the ideas of nature is infinite, as we understand it. You say that Order Symmetry and Beauty are human ideals, following your argument, unnatural, I will disagree, for these ideal patterns are repeated in everything that occurs naturally. Perhaps the human conciousness reflects the natural harmony with thoughts of this? I do believe that the opinions created by the word "friendly" (what exactly is it's opposite?) is an entirely human construct to help us define a safer order. Like humans do, leaving room to abuse...my idea of God is not friendly, like my idea of the universe, it does not possess human traits; it does not love, hate, feel sadness or happiness, rather it invokes these sensations in the living organisms effected by it. If I am to apply a definition, without knowing too much myself, I'll reference Plato's writing of Forms. (I gather, a thing in Itself, indifferent, yet effecting our senses?) Bringing me beautifully to Christianity, as I understand it. The Christian God is not indifferent...and "the image that was given to us" has been wildly misinterpretated in my view. Our quest in reproduction is our hamartia (I'm a sucker for gobble-de-greek) as we're stuck on the personal/finite. As for what 'that image' really is"...the esoteric's so emotive, will it ever be possible to get over our personal connection to it, and embrace the abstract impersonal(to see 'what sparks' the universal)? For I believe that the personal connection is just the first step in true communication. I agree, there is much written about Paganism foreshadowing Christianity...I have an opinion about The Book Of Kells, and have argued with an intellligently fine Irish person as to it's beginnings. (Don't worry, I enjoy being mocked, but I don't feel you have, yet!) Pictorially, a face appears, and is repeated within the intricate workings of natural design-a relief to centre on amongst the wildness this Masterpiece depicts? Of course I'm interested! The question, "is it rational to desire death?" Is it reasonable to love death? Death is an unknown knowledge. We know parts of what happen, and have a strong desire/love to understand what we can't see, until it happens to us, personally-like having a faithful 'mystical experience'. Perhaps consideration is caused by our love of survival, and respect for death? The question of instinct is a big one, but to be frivolous; if you listen to one instinct too intently, the others fade into the background. I think people have repressed some instincts, like the memory idea... About rationality. Our instincts remind us, yet I think we then decide (a decision, all too often, affected by our finite surroundings) whether or not to listen to that instinct-sometimes, the connection between our instincts and the ideal of rationality is short-circuited by something...fear of causing an effect? "Would we excuse a person for killing 100 people to save himself?" A moral question. What if the 100 people were mescaline eating cannibals, renowned for their massive tribe of crystal meth dealers, all over the world? To be even more obvious, what if the man was an esteemed surgeon, and was the leading light in war-torn healthcare? I don't know if it's about whether there's "anyone out there to communicate to", rather trancendence could be universally communicating the understanding that something "out there" is within all of us. I like your representation of hunger, "in nature, we rarely see a stomach given with no corresponding food". You're right, yet we also see drought. Perhaps this is where the will to irrigate comes in? A super-natural action? I can't give up the thought that nature/the universe holds these patterns, and our thinking is rippling within it... Long time, (let's not apologise about that) undecided. [This message has been edited by kif kif (06-30-2006 10:27 AM).] |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Essorant; I think you're confusing the issue by slicing up unslicable words. Pre-determined is just determined, by definition, which confusingly enough, means the same when applied to the purpose of Art. Perhaps this is where the seperation comes in? Art/faithful representation is determined with a desire to express *Truth/God-Truth/God, a thing in *itself, reflected in the Universal, is not determined by desire, rather *It appears to us, tarnished or untarnished from our love for It. This brings me to thoughts of why word definitions must be air-tight, to use an old-timer. Words, like Ideas, must be universally unchanging, to accurately represent the infinite Forms they represent (Truth, Beauty, Virtue,Goodness...) Even with finite, changeable ideas; the word 'Christianity' should mean one thing to all people, or else they've not gathered the knowledge that encompasses that meaning. The word 'determinism', by definition, limits meaning. It can't logically mean 'other things' to lots of people. Chat about Babel...or XVI. the Blasted Tower? ("The will to live, and the will to die?" Schopenhaur) I'm thinking now about the phrase "the will of God", and does it suggest we are closer to God because we possess free will? Back to our joke, Steven, but in all seriousness, does God/Truth somehow employ free will to maintain Itself? Or is perfection, by definition, unchanging, with no need for maintainence? "We're still a long, long way, baby..." I can't see how God/Truth has a will,yet I can see how God is independent yet causing an effect, pre-determinism. It is our desire/love/art to see and express this perfection of Truth that must be maintained...back to the will to live, and the will to die. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-01-2006 08:44 PM).] |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Steven you asked "if there is a Truth, right, or reality, then why, and on what authority does it stand"? The authority of indifference to cause and effect, or the agent of motion, which is time? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
kif kif, I will respond by early next week. Its a work weekiend for me, and I don't want to just "peck" at the conversation. Know what I mean? Do you have e-mail BTW? I didn't see it on your profile. Essorant, that goes for you too. enjoying the conversation Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-01-2006 12:33 AM).] |
||
|
beautyincalvary Member
since 2006-07-13
Posts 98 |
Why do people think there has to be a "why" we are here. Couldn't we just have happened? Does it scare people to think we may have no purpose? We are doing what are animal instincts tell us to... reproduce to survive as a species. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
beautyincalvary: quote: That's a good question. It's interesting that the greatest part of humanity has thought that there must be a "why". An additional question might be: "If there is no higher purpose for our existence, where did we get such a pervasive and obstinate idea?" quote: I really don't think so. But granting you that, we're talking about the cogency of ideas, rather than mere possibility. quote: It's notable how those who try to shed the idea of "divine purpose" always end up with surrogates. Even asking whether it "scares" people to think they might be without ultimate significance, presupposes a teleology of courage and right thinking, over against cowardice and irrationality. And "surviving as a species" becomes questionable as a worthy goal, under a purposeless existence. How can you avoid the pessimism of Shopenhaur, and other philosophers who seriously entertained the idea of a purposeless world? The romantic idea that humanity should continue was one that Shopenhaur disdained. For according to him, Life = Pain. So I think you're forgetting that the value of courage and survival itself is at the bar, if the court is questioning purpose itself. Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
