Philosophy and the art of self-transformation
Activists in the blogosphere seem to divide into two groups: those hoping to change themselves through the encounter with new ideas, and those looking for opportunities to to ride their old hobby horses at the drop of a hat, without bothering to attend to what other people are saying; and we seem to have our share of both here on Freethinkinguk.
Because I’ve been in the USA for the past six weeks, I’ve had occasion to think a lot about what is unusual about the place, from the point of view of the general theme of progress and freedom. The USA is the result of one of the most extraordinary political experiments in history, and one of the most long lived: the attempt to create a new nation out of the idea of freedom of thought (most particularly, religious freedom). Today, it is clearly the most hated country in the world (it is widely believed to be the source of most of the evils that plague us all) and also the most loved (millions of people want to move there, even at great risk to their lives, and even to be condemned to the terrible existence of illegal immigrants). I can’t help wondering what the connection is between what people love to hate about America (and what they hate to love) and this vast (and no doubt deluded and self-congratulatory) ideology of freedom. I must say I feel a bit annoyed when people find it appropriate to remind me of what everyone knows -- perhaps about the evils of imperialism (which Fitz puts down, rather strangely, to snobbishness) or about racist injustice (but Anonymous really ought to know that a ‘successful’ revolution means one that sets up a lasting regime, rather than one which lives up to one’s own moral standards).
On the other hand I am very gratified by the posts that show a bit more mental flexibility. I loved what Eman
said about philosophers going on rails, and his idea of having one rail for rationality, and the other for reasoning. The only thing I’d add is that perhaps the best philosophers lay down their own tracks as they go along, exploring the unknown and trying to be guided by what they see ahead rather than what they’ve left behind. I also appreciated what Fitz (yes the same) said about philosophy as ‘another form of art’; but I would add that, like the other arts, it’s about more than mere pleasure: it’s about discussing the ways in which we perceive the world, and if possible freeing them up. In philosophy, as in art or politics or anything else of great importance, the worst thing that can happen to a person, surely, is losing the ability to change their mind – to change, change utterly.
"Opinions are made to be changed -or how is truth to be got at? - " - Lord Byron
I would personally consider that the worst thing that could happen to a person is that they are "continually changing their mind"
There seems to be a desire by the current writer to suggest that we should always albeit always keep our minds open - consider all comers and consider changing our minds whenever the need arises!
How bizarre! Some of our great politicians, priests, painters, writers, saints etc etc have been great because they have stood their ground and didn't change their minds. And I'm sure our great biblical tome itself must have something to say about the man who keeps on changing his mind is like a man in a boat without a rudder!
No! mind changing is decidely a deadly disease that the very young and adolescents suffer from greatly - as we get older and wiser we learn that we don't need to at all and that the same theories, ideas, plans and changes keep on coming around and around and around.
Oh and by the way Johnathan, tried to keep the page tidy for goodness sake - it's most annoying trying to read between the lines whilst I'm trying to change my mind!
In Greek, "philosophy" means the love of wisdom. Before Socrates arrived on the scene, it was much concerned with "natural" reality: is reality compounded of one element, such as fire, as Heraclitus held? With Socrates, the debate shifted to matters like the definition of Justice in the broadest possible context; he would certainly have agreed that understanding Reality, derived from the world of Ideas which we all once knew, leads to self-transformation, since one has freed oneself from the Cave of Ignorance with its flickering shapes and shifting shadows. And there is the sublime example of the man who died for what he believed in. A.N. Whitehead once said that all Western philosophy is only a series of footnotes to Plato, through whose Dialogues we know Socrates.
It is indeed true of America that millions will brave fire and water to get here and that millions of others hate what they think it has come to stand for.
The other arts only about "mere pleasure"? This is a bit base!?!?
Absolutely, an open mind is the only mind worth having. To arrive at a view and then to declare this view as final highlights the functioning of a limited mind, a mind that steps back from the darkness to seek solace in the light.
One of the most frustrating things about my mind is its ignorance, I concern myself more with what I don't know, than what I have decided that I do know. Dispensing acquired knowledge so as to pursue new stimuli has always been a major driving factor in my beliefs. This is not to state that acquired knowledge should be deliberately ignored, it is to state that knowledge should not be relied upon.
One useful thing to do is to fully reproduce a line of thinking, re-run all the experiments -that are possible to do- and continually try to destroy the established thinking. Proof by negation if you will, what is interesting for my mind in this process of confrontation is the conciousness of reasoning, and how those same conclusions are arrived at. It is a wonderful mysterious thing that we own in our minds and conciousness.
Philosophy as art, yes; I like the sound of that, conciderably more than art as mere pleasure? Before photography and mass media came about, art was a major form of knowledge transmission, as the many grand paintings depicting major events in history clearly demonstrate.
Heraclitus' fundement of fire sounds earily similar to string theory. This reminds me of a freind who frequently states, 'There are no new ideas.', and are there? Given the length of time that man has been on this rock, the fact that his genome has changed little in this period, how much as he forgotten and is this quantity greater than we would like to admit? Ok so the cave man didn't have a cellular phone, but he didn't have radioactive fallout either.
Is ignorance bliss?
Sureley the purpose of life is not to search for a better one but just to remember the best one you used to have!
I have read the tretise of many philosophers as they looked around their existance and then attempted to grapple with the 'true' meaning of life.
Yes philosophy is an art, and just like the painter or potter or singer, he/she (strange isn't it that we haven't on this planet spurned too many female philosophers - maybe they really no the answers already!)they create an image of what THEY believe life is really all about.
And that's it really, one man or womans opinion of life in general. In that regard ask any man/woman in the street what life is all about. If you get a reasonable sane answer, you have just met a philosopher. NO better no worse than the rest.
And I find the simpler answers the better - as the philosphy becomes more complex it also becomes more unbelievable.
But in all their musings (and I refer now to those 'notable' philosphers with throw away names like Plato and Socrates etc)I have never yet read their simple and sublime account of 'the meaning of life'
What they are discussing is simple HOW we should live, HOW we should relate, HOW we should study etc etc.
None of them have told me WHY they are here on this planet - WHY they were created in the way they were and WHAT really happens to them when they depart this mortal coil.
I think the reason that they are often poorly subscribed to in terms of total population masses is because of their own confusion and lack of clarity.
The common and garden man/woman on the street wants simple answers to life, that's why you won't find them in major art galleries around the world trying to decipher the meaning of various abstract paintings.
Yes philosphy is an art - just one of many but unlike the more visual arts in our existance not particularly pleasing to the eye, certainly not appealing to the masses and after all this time leave us all none the wiser about the most important questions in our lives - "What's it all about Alfie?"
William of Ockham once said 'Keep it simple stupid.' It was more like, 'Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.', but thats what he meant and Fitz says the same thing.
What do we say to Alfie's inquisitor? I would say that it wasn't about him at all, a life. I would say that he exists because there was a reasonable probability that he would. To the last question, and the most difficult to answer, I would say that he will transfer his unique perception of the universe back to the universe. To expand, he existed in order to experience the universe, in order for the universe to experience. Take a leep of faith on that one as I can't prove it.
Here is my worst nightmare; In the year 4287 a nine year old child is asked to open a text book at page 2. The page title reads "The meaning of life". looking down the page the child sees a table, its, columns and rows filled with nothing but varying symbols. Oh the horror!
We yearn for some greater meaning, it drives us. When we can't find one we make it up. We stumble around in the darkness, occasionally tripping over that which we hope to find. One system of beliefs is superseded by another, often without regard to the intent of the system. And Alfie goes on.
""but thats what he meant and Fitz says the same thing.""
Incorrect Richard - nowhere have I suggested that simple is stupid - in fact my personal belief is that simple is sublime!
You have made an erroneous assumption from my dialogue and twisted it to suit your own argument, which is spurious.
""would say that he will transfer his unique perception of the universe back to the universe. To expand, he existed in order to experience the universe, in order for the universe to experience. Take a leep of faith on that one as I can't prove it.""
However give credit where credit is due I say - you have come closer to the truth than even you, I suspect, realize. Yes in a rather sublime way you have really cut to the quick. A bit vague in parts but essential pretty close, with one part missing.
We do transfer our experiences back to the 'universe', but have two essential choices, one to expand if we so choose or two not to expand.
The expansion is optional and may take many tries! But what ever we choose the 'universe' still experiences us and simple waits for us to re-join. I've already taken that leap of faith some time ago!
""We yearn for some greater meaning, it drives us. When we can't find one we make it up. We stumble around in the darkness, occasionally tripping over that which we hope to find. One system of beliefs is superseded by another, often without regard to the intent of the system. And Alfie goes on.""
Ah here we have your precise definition of any philospher worth his salt!
We all stumble from time to time the philosphers just stumble in a big way and shout about it too much!
Forget your worst nightmare Richard, I guarantee it won't become reality. The nightmare is of your own making, from your own mind with its severe limitations - remember that old phrase - 'the truth will set you free'
And I doubt whether we will have or need text books in 4287 or even 3427, they would I think have been superseded by electronic data and even direct thought transference.
Fitz has doubts about a person who keeps changing their mind and suggests that great thinkers stick to their guns. He thinks that the Bible must have a view about the man(sic!) who keeps changing his mind.
But the great thinkers we admire are those who saw things differently from the rest and didn't bow to peer pressure (and eventually proved to be right), and the Bible shows a big change in the picture of God from a tribal deity to a universal Father. A pity that most religion ignores this process of change and wants to stick with supposedly unchangeable truth. This attitude just ends up looking ridiculous and creating violence.
An open-minded look at the sayings of Jesus (surely a prime example of a great thinker who didn't bow to tradition) shows him proposing a completely different way of looking at life, urging human beings to set aside the old evolutionary desires to achieve superiority over others (or other tribes) and instead put others first rather than second or last.
In our recent book we argued that only completely new thinking on these lines (a new step in evolution, if you like) can save humanity from the consequences of the greed and selfishness engendered by the process of evolution so far (Wilding and Boaden: God's Unfinished Business; Janus 2005). Without flexibility that enables us to think in such entirely new ways there is unlikely to be much of a future for humanity at all, because the old ways of thinking, combined with the new technologies, are a very dangerous combination. These ideas are already 2000 years old, but we must dare to try them out.
To clarify, the 'stupid' part is a warning to us to not become cunfused by making things too complicated. Perhaps a comma would have been better grammar? The translation of the latin text reads 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', which to me always sounded like the most complicated way of saying 'Keep it simple, stupid.'
When ever I do consider Jesus I always suspected him of being a free thinker and a bit of a rebel Jew. When I think of other major religious figures I suspect much of the same. I spoke of altruism earlier today and I agree that this is a much needed value if humanity is to come to anything of worth. Seriously, who wants to be the Ferengi of the universe?
I to worry about technology for technologies sake as sadly, humanity always uses it to destroy or gain advantage. I don't want an Ion gun that can vapourise my foes, I want a glue gun so that I can build me a temple ;)
One day Peter found a blog that grabbed him. Love at first bite. A sinking in of the teeth.
All around the world there were these things, lacing in and out of people's lives. He began to wonder where it all fitted in.
I'm here and you're there, and there are these things called words, he thought. We "converse" with each other and lots of people read it. He even invited his friend Fitz to come jump in the mire.
The ideas advance, hopefully. We start off with some basic questions, like What's progress? Hmm. But sometimes we seem to be going round in circles.
Perhaps this is the point of having five blog leaders, as it were, who start up - unannounced - a new stage in the exploration. Things don't get bogged down (blogged down?).
Yes, there can be a lot of hanging on (for grim life?) to what we've known and loved to think for a very long time. Perhaps being grown up means you're no longer tutored and can just stick to your guns (and vote that way too). But at what point do we turn our backs on the unreasonable?
It comes back to language, and condemnation, and law. We start off using words in a simple way, associating the spoken words like "mama" and "dada" with particular presences; and words to do with food, approval and disapproval, make their way in. We are, eventually, shown books where cats sit on mats and postmen call: we can describe a simple world.
At some point we must encounter the advantage gained, and the loss incurred, by a false picture being conjured up, and insisted upon. Perhaps we have an older brother or sister who insists we are to blame, for something they did. Maybe some insight we have naively given to our rival, helps convince our parent about the story. How can we ever use language as carelessly again.
Language can start to become the key, not to a new world of science and discovery, but to unearned approval and reward. We can begin to tell "stories" along with our compatriots, and secure advantages of an altogether new order. We can have those who would threaten our falsehoods drummed out of earshot. A tissue of lies can become a papier mache castle, with just enough strength to stand a lawyer on.
With all due respect to the religious for their compassion toward, and moral defence of, many of the vulnerable, I can't see an equivalence with assertions which can be tested. I can see no excuse, save political cowardice, for basing critical decisions on religious conviction alone.
As Peter states language is the tool we use to describe our world and our experience of it, and I agree with Peter when he says that it can become a dangerous tool capable of creating false realities. Even a cursory glance through history quickly exposes abuses of language, and more importantly for my mind the abuses of the human voice, which in its self is a powerful thing.
Dawkins points to memes as an example mechanism for creating a false reality, and here we all are spewing out our respective memes. We all try to be true (I hope), but as Jonathan Ree reminds us it is all too easy to shout boldly about our claims of objectivity. But should no one claim it? What is there to disprove if fear of ridicule prevents us from stating our hypotheses? I would happily construct a million false realities if they eventually led to one truth. Fear of being wrong openly and proudly may very well ensure that we remain in the dark. Lets not forget that until Penzias and Wilson discovered a 3k black body source the Big Bang theory was just a cute idea.
Science alone will never satisfy us, it will never be enough. I want more than a fact that I can look at and an experiment that supports the fact, what I suspect that I want is what is called a qualia. I want to experience enlightenment not read about it.
"CRITICAL DECISIONS" - by whom, for whom and with whom I ask?
Did George Bush make a 'critical decision' to invade Iraq? Did Blair make a 'critical' decision to join him and also John Howard?
Did Hazbellah make a 'critical' decision to capture two Israel soldiers and then fire rockets into Israel?
Did Iran make a 'critical' decision to explore uranium enrichment?
Did, did, did etc
or did Mother Theresa make a 'critical' decision to forgo her own private life and devote it to the poor of India?
As did Ghandi, and St Francis of Assisi, or the Dali Lahma.
So what exactly is a critical decision - does it have negative AND postive conotation or is it always on the side of good?
It would seem to me that when we make 'critical' decisions that involve giving away our greed and riches and private lives and devote the time to humanity then it is a sound and worthwhile and a HOLY critical decision.
All the rest seem rather mundane in comparison and often downright dangerous and destructive.
But it often seems to be that when a world leader states - as did George Bush that he has to make a critical decision about democracy - the truth of the matter is often the opposite.
Beware of critical decisions made for selfish reasons!
the word CRITICAL seems to have a certain ring to it - and is ofen interpreted as RIGHT or JUSTIFIED - but alas is hardly ever true!
We can use fiction to illustrate certain things. But let our non-fiction truly be not fictional.
Let's not go too far down the road of acting out our wishes. We can put up trees, build ornamental ponds, have marble statues, and imagine we're in Eden with those close to us; but let's stop it when it comes to our public pronouncements. Let's be realistic and recognise the danger. Talk irresponsibly long enough and some begin to believe it - and it can be SO intoxicating, can't it?
If it pains me to be mortal, the simplest answer seems to be to be told: "It's not so. That dead body isn't them. They've gone off somewhere else."
The more sensible answer would be to begin accepting that we have limits. Not this clubbing together with others and trying to overwhelm.
I'm lost when it comes to finding better ways of expressing the purely spiritual than the religions do, they've cornered the market; but perhaps they never expected a president and a prime minister who would take them seriously. Plenty of people go into churches and go through the motions. Call us what you like, I think we're sensible.
New ideas? What's that. There is nothing new under the sun, you silly.
Totalitarians of every stripe think they can change human nature. The result has been all the horrific fear societies of the last hundred-plus years.
Critical? It's the job of presidents/prime ministers/commanders-in-chief to make the right decision, not the most flowery, dramatically engaging, brow-fevered one. President Kennedy was a Catholic, in a far more sincere way than I'm a Protestant, but he didn't start thinking it was his mission to obliterate Cuba because there was a missile crisis. We should get back to only expecting this most difficult thing, not the play-acting during crises.
S.W., I don't think totalitarians are about changing human nature, more taking advantage of it. And I think this blog's more about LIBERATING people from imposition, than imposing a new one. (At least if it's allowed to be successful it will be.)
Hello
I very much enjoy philosophy ( i hate spelling )although I am from a science background. I am currently living in America having been born in India , grew up in Australia and lived in the UK.
In many ways these are some of the most exciting times politically and culturally and philisophically. The ' times ' they surely are a changing. Technology is having a huge impact on the political and the biological and psychological.
I find these times challenging in terms of having some idealogy which seemed so safe in the 20th century. I have aloot of self doubt about my own beleifs and how to interpert the world now. But doubt hopefully leads to some form of enlightenment especially in a pluralistic society - that's the great thing about pluralism, it allows one to doubt the very cherrished ideas one has held for a long time and maybe change them through reason. Maybe one may change back but the journey of ideas is worth the ride.
Philosophy is more relevant now than ever. It is critical to our understanding of world on a personal and universal level. Nobody (despite their claims ) possess universal truths but philosphy comes pretty close to discovering them.
I don't hate America anymore than I hate the Sudan. I indeed feel more comfortable here than Britain or Europe ( many would disagree and they would be right ).
America is bigger than the individual or the personal anecdote ultimately. Sweeden ,may be perfect but it is a very homgenous society - it is allowed to be perfect. Where would modern art, science and philosphy be without American government, culture, society, justice, politics - it all works together. It is all very complex to sum in simple love , hate proclamations. So much of modern culture has been shaped by American society and culture rightly or wrongly but have we all been mindless consumers or is there some universality to this culture we seem to hate and love at the same time. That maybe the beauty of it - take it or leave it , love it or loath it but it gets a reaction, it provokes thought, ideas for alternatives, debate, art of the highest order. It will be there still. The debates will rage on.
Martin Luther King still loved his country - in my opinion the greatest American for better or for worse. He made it for the better ( the struggle still goes on but it is worth it ). I am no patriot ( I hate flags or anthems )but one can be an observer of culture and society and still admire the big picture. I love the world and some much of it is here - the greatest social experiment in human history ( ultimately based on genocide of the American Indians and slavery ).Not a day goes by where I doen't question this society and why I remain here but invariably come back to it ( hey I'm with stupid ).
America gave us rock and roll, blues and Jazz - where would we be withouth these these great art forms ( philosphy lite but still vital ) - Socrates would of cheered as these corrupted youth and ultimately made it relevant to our culture and politics.
But I must curb my enthusiasm - Larry David - comic genius numero uno ( tey and figure him out!!! ).
The last half of the 20th centuary was the American century for many reasons. The next century may be different. Hate doesn't resolve anything. Undersatnding and empathy does however help. Philosphy greatly enhances understanding from a universal standpoint. It does not mean nuetrality by any means.
But I am probably wrong on all accounts but the mordern day cultural icon, Homer ( oh the irony... who would of...THOUGHT... )sums it up...doh!
All the best. I tried at least
Santanu Roy
So much to think about.... The intoxication by power that Peter speaks of is interesting. Personally I don't like it, infact it scares the hell out of me, and I'll try and explain why -hopefully without sounding un-hinged.
On occasion during one of my many interactions with groups of fellow Human beings I have noticed that strange things are possible. It is possible for instance to captivate your audience, it is possible to alter the tones of the voice to alter its affect, and it is possible to use language in a way that hides the intent of your interaction. Nothing new there then, but what is odd in all of this is that the audiences reactions seem independent of their environment?
Spheres of influence, which is how I try to visualise this problem is for my mind one of the continuing struggles that afflicts us. Yet everywhere I look, whether that be to the heart of the atom or to the stars above its tale tale signs are found. We now see the error of our ways in living out of balance with nature and the prisons are full of people who live out of balance with themselves. Harmony, balance, enlightenment or whatever you label it as; the one thing that it is, above all others, is personel. This is why it scares the hell out me.
The questions that frequently haunt me lately, are the ones that don't seem to be asked.
(well not with any seriousness, in the media)
What is democracy? does it exist?
Why is it up to the 'West' (and we all get on what that phrase means nowadays) to go out there 'enforcing' it on people?
With it's track record - are we to assume that democracy is merely the least shit system around, then?
If it's up to 'the west' to decide on what countries produce what weapons doesn't it sort of cast aspersions on democracy as a euphomism for all that is good, great and pure' as intimated by our politicians?
If a multi-cultural society is such a fantastic idea - why is failing miserably?
Why are mothers & fathers gloriuosly happy for their young sons and daughters to strap explosives to their bodies and go into crowded places to detonate themselves?
Is it any wonder that of the 'new age religions' Scientology seems to be the prefered choice of the Hollywood celebs? (study hard and you can become a God!)
When 'stars' have 'no eye-contact' clauses written into their contracts-emphasizing this vile vain culture we have become, I reckon it's time to say sod it...we have the world we deserve.
We are exactly where we should be. No matter how much we talk about it - write about it - sing about it or pray about it. 'I can't go on. I must go on.'
Philosphy gives power to your imagination and shows the path to put your intelligence with the art work.