16 Jul 06
Er,...no. And what does my wanting or not wanting have to do with anything? I empathize with you to a certain extent: you are a passionate mind and value the opportunities that life affords; you are strongly wed to your conscious experience and cannot bear the thought of its cessation; you hope that your actions and existence will have eternal significance. And yet there is nothing that supports that hope; there is nothing about our conscious experience that we can identify as permanent or immortal. I think absurdism is justified but certainly defeasible. So I am always open to hearing argument against absurdism, but I am not interested in appeals to emotion.
What do you think about the feasibility of an open-ended faith, to the effect that somehow, in a way that defies human understanding, human life does have eternal significance?
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI imagine that if someone were to profess such a faith to me, I would find it completely unconvincing. But practically, it also sounds pretty harmless. My inclination might be to treat such a system as a method of disorganized, lively expression -- not unlike the expressions that are borne of the "dance of the absurd". The poetry of the Sufis -- Hafiz, Rumi, Sultan Bahu, etc. -- I would consider to be in a similar vein of interpretation. With Sufi poetry, I place no consequence on their vague, mystic references to God and eternal significance, but I value highly their expressive quality.
What do you think about the feasibility of an open-ended faith, to the effect that somehow, in a way that defies human understanding, human life does have eternal significance?
I imagine that Camus wouldn't care for it. I think he would consider it a method of escape. He criticized the existentialists -- Chestov, Kierkegaard, and others -- for doing something similar.
16 Jul 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloHope is not meant to be convincing.
I imagine that if someone were to profess such a faith to me, I would find it completely unconvincing. But practically, it also sounds pretty harmless. My inclination might be to treat such a system as a method of disorganized, lively expression -- not unlike the expressions that are borne of the "dance of the absurd". The poetry of the Sufis -- Hafiz, ...[text shortened]... cized the existentialists -- Chestov, Kierkegaard, and others -- for doing something similar.
Also, what is disorganized about the expression of an open-ended metaphysical hope? Short on detail need not imply disorganized.
Also, hope need not be evasive: it can have a more positive moral motivation.
16 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHope is not meant to be convincing.
Hope is not meant to be convincing.
Also, what is disorganized about the expression of an open-ended metaphysical hope? Short on detail need not imply disorganized.
Also, hope need not be evasive: it can have a more positive moral motivation.
Not even to the person who hopes? Then I consider such hope a form of disorganized expression and a form of conscious revolt against the absurd. Whatever content it is that builds belief is convincing to the agent in that regard and is therefore not this hope.
it can have a more positive moral motivation.
Hope can have all sorts of motivators. But moral outlook is informed by belief, and belief in turn by that which is taken as convincing. That's why the only value I affiliate with this hope lies in the expressive quality of hope itself. This type of hope I would consider harmless and to a certain extent healthy, but I would not consider it enabling. Beliefs can be enabling, but my beliefs I also find convincing.
I think Camus would be fine with such hope. He is strongly against 'hope', but he uses that term in a different sense. I would say that he is mainly against unjustified belief that arises due to the confrontation of the absurd. Even there, though, such belief can have utility (and may be enabling) and that is one reason why I think Camus may be over-critical of such belief. Apart from the fact that I view such belief as unwarranted and completely unnecessary, I won't deny that it can have some utility in certain cases. My absurdist stance does not entail otherwise.
16 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI would contest some of your assertions. To hope is not to be convinced of something; indeed, hope, by definition, requires lack of evidence about what is hoped for. You can't hope for what you have very good reason to believe.
Hope is not meant to be convincing.
Not even to the person who hopes? Then I consider such hope a form of disorganized expression and a form of conscious revolt against the absurd. Whatever content it is that builds belief is convincing to the agent in that regard and is therefore not this hope.
it can have a more positive moral motivati t it can have some utility in certain cases. My absurdist stance does not entail otherwise.
For example, I personally am not at all convinced life has a deeper ultimate meaning. Indeed, I strongly suspect it might not. And so I would not regard the *belief* that life has a deeper ultimate meaning justified. Nonetheless, I regard the *hope( that life has a deeper ultimate meaning as justified, but for pragmatic and moral, as opposed to epistemological, reasons.
I agree, however, that hope may be a conscious revolt against the absurd. I also think that such as revolt can be good.
I also thing that hope can be extremely enabling. Wouldn't you agree that the opposed of hope, despair, is disabling? That is one prgamatic reason why hope can be justified.
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou allege that Buddhism is somehow internally inconsistent but fail to show how. You claim that Taoism ("the Force"--another woeful strawman, although you might have meant it as a joke) is a type of pantheism even though it does not have a god. I sincerely don't know what you think you're on about.
I don't need to disagree with any for my point to be valid, do I?
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat is this fateful end?
[b]This kind of dualistic thinking is something that the Zen mind tries to avoid.
So tell me: do Zen Buddhists look both ways before they cross the street? I'd suspect so -- because it's either the Zen... or the bus/taxi/tram. I really doubt the eradication of dualism is taken to its definitive (and fateful) end.[/b]
17 Jul 06
Halitose, I can't find your comment about sheep. Maybe it was in another thread. Anyhow--you asked whether someone wasn't more intelligent than a sheep. I'd say sheep are better than any other creatures at being sheep. I doubt you'd make a very successful sheep, for example. But people don't eat sheep because they're more intelligent than them; they eat sheep because they taste good.
Why does human intelligence elevate the species above other animals? If you were convinced that another person was more intelligent than you, would you regard them as a superior being?
17 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd what does my wanting or not wanting have to do with anything?
[b]It's really like you want reality to have no ultimate reason, cause or meaning.
Er,...no. And what does my wanting or not wanting have to do with anything? I empathize with you to a certain extent: you are a passionate mind and value the opportunities that life affords; you are strongly wed to your conscious experience and cannot bear the thou icular, I do not at all agree with Sartre's take on 'anguish'.[/b]
Well, if you want your worldview to be meaningless, it would make any meaningful discussion untenable, no?
...you are a passionate mind and value the opportunities that life affords; you are strongly wed to your conscious experience and cannot bear the thought of its cessation;
You betcha. Every breath; every moment is pregnant with meaning.
...you hope that your actions and existence will have eternal significance. And yet there is nothing that supports that hope; there is nothing about our conscious experience that we can identify as permanent or immortal.
Isn't that what hope is all about? Existentially, yes, there is no evidence for immortality. Call me old fashioned -- but I don't believe "Reason" is the only (be it the primary) means of attaining knowledge: there is the aspect of "Revelation".
I think absurdism is justified but certainly defeasible. So I am always open to hearing argument against absurdism, but I am not interested in appeals to emotion.
Heh heh. You can't blame me for trying.
I believe it was Camus himself who said that the philosophical question of meaning was the most important -- the rest being secondary to it. It is this very hope inspired "meaning" which I contend makes suffering bearable. A life of suffering, without ultimate meaning is not worth living. I live in an environment where such a concession (of meaninglessness) would be an acceptance of hopelessness in the futility of life. Let's take the real example of a 6 year old orphan boy I know:
Diagnosed with HIV/AIDS -- received from an uncle who raped him. He's entered the symptomatic phase of AIDS where every day of his existence is a painful experience. With ARV's, he can extend his life considerably, but has to bear the stigma and rejection of society. You can imagine how this despair and mental anguish would weigh on such a young mind.
Which of these two messages would you give him:
Life is ultimately meaningless; it is up to him to find what little (hedonistic) meaning there is in a life where he's been dealt such a bad hand.
Or a message of hope and ultimate meaning to life.
I consistently stand in endorsement of the claim that there is no ultimate meaning to my existence.
Like a monopoly game where the money has no ultimate value?
I think you falsely suppose that absurdism entails nihilism and/or suicidal impulse.
No, I don't think it (nihilism and suicide) logically follows from an absurdist position, but neither does living and meaning.
A game of chess has no eternal significance -- should I take that to imply that any one legal move has no more value than any other legal move?
I think you would agree though, that giving a starving beggar a meal has more value than beating a friend at a game of chess. Such a sense of "value" requires an absolute to measure against, or there would be no meaningful way to compare one action to another.
That is precisely the question that Camus tackles in The Myth of Sisyphus, and I recommend it.
It's on my reading list. I will get there eventually.
And even if I were unhappy with my life, to say that *I* would be better (or just no worse) off in a state of death is literally self-contradictory since it simultaneously supposes both a conscious self and the lack of a conscious self. So under my absurdist stance, I really don't see how I could rationally endorse suicide.
Surely you already assume a conscious self that is "unhappy with life"?
If you are trying to identify me as a hypocrite, none of these questions will achieve that.
Nothing personal. I was only showing that speciesism could also derive itself from an inate sense of self-superiority.
I am not a speciesist because I do not assign value merely on the basis of species. I assign value and moral consideration on the basis of actual possession of properties -- a category that humans inductively score well in, but not necessarily so.
A very sharp two edged sword indeed. On an "extra-specie" level, we are now not necessarily superior to other animals; but this has a downside: on an "intra-specie" level, some humans are superior to others on this sliding scale of yours. There is no inherent quality that makes all human life worth living -- or equal for that matter. You can throw in the one of many of my "personhood" critiques I've used in the abortion debates we've had.
Btw, vegetarian -- yes. But I have committed myself to a transition to fruitarianism. So then I'll be able to go around introducing myself as an "atheistic fruitarian Camusian absurdist", which I think is catchy.
Lol, why not start a sect, so you can throw in "sectarian" to your prestigious title? 😀
17 Jul 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI think in terms of actual content, our views are largely in agreement.
I would contest some of your assertions. To hope is not to be convinced of something; indeed, hope, by definition, requires lack of evidence about what is hoped for. You can't hope for what you have very good reason to believe.
For example, I personally am not at all convinced life has a deeper ultimate meaning. Indeed, I strongly suspect it might no ...[text shortened]... pposed of hope, despair, is disabling? That is one prgamatic reason why hope can be justified.
But I am confused as to in what sense you think hope is enabling. If you mean enabling as in providing one with the means for action, I think I would disagree. One source of means for action is compelling thought concerning what we take to be good reasons -- and hope doesn't provide that by definition. We hope for conditions that enable us, but our act of hoping generally has no causal influence on whether or not those conditions obtain. Hope would only directly influence the agent's own mental outlook. So by saying that hope can enable me, I take that to mean that hope can provide me with a better mental outlook. And I just don't agree with that. I don't value a hopeful mind because I think hope can lead to desires that I have no good reasons to think I will be able to satisfy. I also think that hope detracts from my present awareness by diverting my attention to considerations of future states. I am more in line with Buddhist thought, in which value is placed on a calm mind that is obtained through practices of letting go of such desires. I value a sort of minimalism in that regard.
Pragmatic considerations can justify the stance that some would do better relative to their current conditions if they added some hope. But I think they'd do even better if they invested in other practices that can cultivate mindfulness. If we are defining despair to be simply the lack of hope, then I would disagree that despair is disabling -- largely for reasons I already discussed above. And by that definition, I swim in a virtual sea of despair, and I choose to swim there by practice and preference. There is a distinction that needs to be made here between despair as lack of hope (which I value, actually) and despair as negative thoughts that detract from mindfulness (which is not entailed simply by a lack of hope).
17 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou have already stated that you find Christianity "rationally compelling". So, by the characterization of 'hope' that Pawnokeyhole provided, on what grounds can you say that your worldview is hopeful? Likewise, if the "revelation" you speak of is compelling, then that precludes your hoping about whatever it is that was revealed to you, doesn't it? Can you have it both ways? Can you find your worldview simultaneously compelling and hopeful?
And what does my wanting or not wanting have to do with anything?
Well, if you want your worldview to be meaningless, it would make any meaningful discussion untenable, no?
...you are a passionate mind and value the opportunities that life affords; you are strongly wed to your conscious experience and cannot bear the thought of its cessation , so you can throw in "sectarian" to your prestigious title? 😀
Which of these two messages would you give him:
Life is ultimately meaningless; it is up to him to find what little (hedonistic) meaning there is in a life where he's been dealt such a bad hand.
Or a message of hope and ultimate meaning to life.
I would give him neither of those messages, and that's a false dichotomy by the way. Please don't feed the false generalization that all atheists/absurdists are hedonists. Buddhism, for example, emphasizes metta, a loving kindness and attitudinal awareness for the welfare of others. I personally think hedonism is false, so I would not tell this child that life is ultimately meaningless, ergo he ought to go pleasure his senses. I would do what many caring individuals would do: let him know that there are many people who care about him and his welfare, and remind him that there are many things in this life that can bring him joy and happiness. I would also probably share my own experiences for overcoming mental struggles and cultivating peace of mind.
I believe it was Camus himself who said that the philosophical question of meaning was the most important -- the rest being secondary to it. It is this very hope inspired "meaning" which I contend makes suffering bearable.
Camus states "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy." Camus' answer was that life is worth living, but certainly not for reasons related to "hope inspired meaning". The meaning in life, for Camus, lies in the passionate confrontation with an unreasonable world that gives rise and continued life to the absurd. His prescription is that Sisyphus finds happiness in that confrontation – a happiness that arises in present awareness, not in hope. Note that his prescription emphasizes happiness, not merely a tolerance and begrudging acceptance of otherwise insufferable conditions.
I think you would agree though, that giving a starving beggar a meal has more value than beating a friend at a game of chess. Such a sense of "value" requires an absolute to measure against, or there would be no meaningful way to compare one action to another.
If you have some argument designed to show that absurdism precludes an objective foundation for morals, then please provide it. I know of no such argument.
Surely you already assume a conscious self that is "unhappy with life"?
Yes, but my point was that to say that I would be better off in a state of death is contradictory: the use of "I" assumes a conscious self from which a normative perspective exists, and the "state of death" assumes the lack of such a conscious perspective. So if I wanted to convince myself that I should commit suicide, how would I even go about doing that without resorting to incoherency?
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Mister MeanerZen tries to to turn off the internal critique and see things as they really are. In all circumstances. This is the mindfulness of the present moment. Everything else is thinking.
Zen tries to to turn off the internal critique and see things as they really are. In all circumstances. This is the mindfulness of the present moment. Everything else is thinking. Similarly Christian Mystics have practiced knowing the the presence of God in each moment...
I think Krishnamurti's view was that even this was too much baggage...
Wher ...[text shortened]... ugh by God" and "He" disappears! Maybe we are then left with things as they really are...
Okay. I guess I'd agree with that.
18 Jul 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou allege that Buddhism is somehow internally inconsistent but fail to show how.
You allege that Buddhism is somehow internally inconsistent but fail to show how. You claim that Taoism ("the Force"--another woeful strawman, although you might have meant it as a joke) is a type of pantheism even though it does not have a god. I sincerely don't know what you think you're on about.
Perhaps you should pay better attention. I hadn't even got to it yet. I was at the Problem of Evil – which is itself a serious critique.
("the Force"--another woeful strawman, although you might have meant it as a joke)
Sigh. What do you think I meant it as?
You claim that Taoism is a type of pantheism even though it does not have a god.
I gave my evidence (I've got more). Kindly disprove or give evidence in support of your counter-assertion.
I sincerely don't know what you think you're on about.
I sincerely don't really care.