Some good general advice would be not to do philosophy if you can avoid it. — Banno

Ha! A jest or a truth?

If you have a choice, best do something else.

Serious.

It's not good for you, and probably ought be discouraged in children. Certainly philosophy is not something for adolescent minds.

If you have a choice.

But much of this argument hinges on very specific, expressions or versions of religion. — Tom Storm

It's situated in the context of the Enlightenment criticism of religion, yes. (I was going to add something about the fact that the word 'religion' has no definite meaning, but I thought it might have muddied the waters.)

How could we determine the difference between the purported nihilism of secularism and the potential nihilism of religion? — Tom Storm

What is nihilism? It is variously expressed as the idea that nothing is real, or that nothing has any real meaning. As is well known, Nietszche - I'm not an admirer - forecast that nihilism would be the default condition of Western culture, which had supposedly killed its God. Heidegger likewise believed that the root cause of nihilism was the technological way of thinking that has come to dominate modern society, reducing everything quantifiable facts, and leaving no room for the kinds of intangible values and meanings that are essential to human existence, which he sought to re-articulate in a non-religious framework (albeit many suggest that his concerns and preoccupations remained religious in some sense.)

I noticed another of the critical marxists, Max Horkheimer, had similar concerns. His 1947 book The Eclipse of Reason says that individuals in "contemporary industrial culture" experience a "universal feeling of fear and disillusionment", which can be traced back to the impact of ideas that originate in the Enlightenment conception of reason, as well as the historical development of industrial society. Before the Enlightenment, reason was seen as an objective force in the world. Now, it is seen as a "subjective faculty of the mind". In the process, the philosophers of the Enlightenment destroyed "metaphysics and the objective concept of reason itself." Reason no longer determines the "guiding principles of our own lives", but is subordinated to the ends it can achieve. In other words, reason is instumentalized. Philosophies, such as pragmatism and positivism, "aim at mastering reality, not at criticizing it." (65) Man comes to dominate nature, but in the process dominates other men by dehumanizing them. He forgets the unrepeatable and unique nature of every human life and instead sees all living things as fields of means. His inner life is rationalized and planned. "On the one hand, nature has been stripped of all intrinsic value or meaning. On the other, man has been stripped of all aims except self-preservation." (101) Popular Darwinism teaches only a "coldness and blindness toward nature." (127)

What do you mean by 'the purported nihilism of religion'?

I've listened to that talk now, and I agree with what he's saying. But thanks for the opportunity of holding forth on one of my favourite themes.

The Eclipse of Reason — Wayfarer

Damn you for adding to my reading list. The prose looks... interesting.

A synoptic reading would be sufficient in my view. I was surprised by how some of the ideas in 'dialectic of enlightenment' resonated never having encountered it earlier in life. I suppose it's a case of 'the enemy of the enemy is a friend'. :-)

As is well known, Nietszche - I'm not an admirer - forecast that nihilism would be the default condition of Western culture, which had supposedly killed its God. Heidegger likewise believed that the root cause of nihilism was the technological way of thinking that has come to dominate modern society, reducing everything quantifiable facts, and leaving no room for the kinds of intangible values and meanings that are essential to human existence, which he sought to re-articulate in a non-religious framework (albeit many suggest that his concerns and preoccupations remained religious in some sense.) — Wayfarer

I understand this but I would suggest the case hasn't been fully made and is an opinion or judgement. And people repeat it endlessly so that it's almost, ironically, an article of faith. Modern culture is bereft: discuss.

Martin Luther thought Christianity was a racket of transactional materialism back in the 16th Century when religion was unassailable.

What do you mean by 'the purported nihilism of religion'? — Wayfarer

Well, for me Islamic State or Westboro Church might be seen as examples of more extreme instantiations. But any religion that seeks to restrict the full expression of what it means to be human and denigrate rights, might be seen to have strong nihilistic inclinations - the root of nihilism here being humans are nothing but dirt before god and divine command morality. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, many forms of Protestantism do this. And the actual functioning of significant aspects of Catholicism, which seem to abandon all moral values in order to protect pedophile priests seems an apropos example. Needless to say, I am not arguing that all religion is bad just that it doesn't necessarily affirm human life.

It's not good for you, and probably ought be discouraged in children. Certainly philosophy is not something for adolescent minds.

If you have a choice. — Banno

That's a tantalizing thing to write. Do you feel like exploring this any further so I get the nuances?

I often wonder is there a point where useful self-reflection becomes philosophy? Is it there a demarcation point where we become aware or our presuppositions and vulnerable to philosophical enquiries, demolitions and glib answers. I always found philosophy too difficult and tendentious to get much involved.

Plainly I will agree that such fundamentalism and extremism are abhorrent, but I don't think that makes them nihilistic as such. I mean, kamikaze pilots and jihadi suicide bombers are both motivated by a belief in the afterlife. I abhor those kinds of violent ideology also, but regardless they are not nihilist. 'Nihil' means 'nothing', and nihilism the belief that nothing matters, or that is (ultimately) real. And I don't know if I agree that any of the principle religions hold that humans are 'nothing but dirt'. Twisted and degraded forms of religious belief are not necessarily illustrative of what was originally meaningful about them.

Well, for a start, philosophy is pretty antisocial.

For example my immediate response to your "I often wonder is there a point where useful self-reflection becomes philosophy?" was that you have accepted the almost ubiquitous presumption that philosophical enquiry consists in self-reflection. I think that presumption mistaken.

When such stuff is pointed out, folk tend to get the shits rather than enter into a discussion. It's the philosophers' inept response to "everyone likes a good book" - when you read that, do you immediately look for counter instances? That's what philosophical training does to you. :wink:

Twisted and degraded forms of religious belief are not necessarily illustrative of what was originally meaningful about them. — Wayfarer

That's true of course. But when did that original meaning become lost; was there ever a golden era of Christianity, say? Luther obviously though it happened hundreds of years ago.

The Eclipse of Reason — Wayfarer

Damn you for adding to my reading list. The prose looks... interesting — Banno

I read it recently. I quite liked it and broadly agree with a lot of it, but it’s ranty, dated, and often shallow. So far I’ve found Adorno more subtle and interesting, and their joint Dialectic of Enlightenment a better presentation of the position, even though it’s not as clear.

you have accepted the almost ubiquitous presumption that philosophical enquiry consists in self-reflection. I think that presumption mistaken. — Banno

I only thought self-reflection was a frequent starting point (not philosophical of itself) but one that may lead you to explore what is true and to examine the presuppositions held personally and by culture. But as a non-philosopher, I can't say I know what philosophy is. One reason why I'm here.

It's the philosophers' inept response to "everyone likes a good book" - when you read that, do you immediately look for counter instances? — Banno

I'm worse than that. If I see people queuing for something, I'm immediately suspicious of it.

So for you, what makes philosophy worthwhile? I think I read you say somewhere that ethics should replace religion. Is that right? Is so, what did you have in mind?

The failed mathematician bit will fall flat — Banno

I appreciated it.

I'll get all analytic and point out that the arguments and strategies philosophy provides to us have a more general application than just the critique of religion, and cite the threads on Trump, Covid and the invasion of Ukraine as evidence. — Banno

Sure, these arguments and strategies help, not least in allowing us to ask the right questions. But where I’m coming from is that there is a critical and subversive force in philosophy, that it shouldn’t just be the handmaiden to science or theology. As it happens this is the thrust of The Eclipse of Reason.

If I see people queuing for something, I'm immediately suspicious of it. — Tom Storm

Whereas if you had been a Soviet citizen, you’d immediately join it. :-)

Plainly I will agree that such fundamentalism and extremism are abhorrent, but I don't think that makes them nihilistic as such. — Wayfarer

Abhorrent but not nihilistic? Not sure how to interpret that. Bad but not meaningless? Meaningful but not right? Do you think abhorrence can be meaningful?

kamikaze pilots and jihadi suicide bombers are both motivated by a belief in the afterlife. — Wayfarer

If that were the only motivation, and I don’t think it is, wouldn’t that be self centered and essentially nihilistic in the sense that their actions aren’t based on values or principles but merely selfishness?

:up:

thanks for the opportunity of holding forth on one of my favourite themes. — Wayfarer

You’re welcome, I enjoyed it.

The only thing I’ll say at the moment is that neither I nor Adorno would go along with the alternative to nihilism described by Nagel, since (a) it’s not a realistic alternative so much as a worldview of former times that cannot be retrieved, (b) it is myth, which is as irrational as nihilism, and (c) the notion that human life without a universal soul is “merely human life” is anathema.

@praxis

Dorothy Day — frank

I greatly admire Dorothy Day, and find her writings of great value, particularly: The Long Loneliness (autobiography), Loaves and Fishes (about the Catholic Worker Movement), The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day, and All the Way to Heaven is Heaven: selected letters of Dorothy Day. She was a pretty tough woman. She will probably be sainted someday--over her dead body! "Don't make me a saint -- I don't want to be dismissed that easily."

She modeled what following Christ means in the 20th (21st) century.

kamikaze pilots and jihadi suicide bombers are both motivated by a belief in the afterlife.
— Wayfarer

If that were the only motivation, and I don’t think it is, wouldn’t that be self centered and essentially nihilistic in the sense that their actions aren’t based on values or principles but merely selfishness? — praxis

I really can't see how the kamikaze pilot could be interpreted as self-centred when the entire narrative was created around self sacrifice. Same for jihadis (and even though I think their zealotry is tragically warped.) They are indoctrinated to believe that they will receive their just rewards in the hereafter. Whereas, I'm sure that many suicidal mass shooters firmly believe that when they die, there are no consequences in any kind of life beyond. That is what distinguishes nihilism from religious indoctrination.

Nagel's essay is on the subject given in the title - Secular philosophy and the religious temperament. His depiction of what constitutes 'the religious temperament' is not membership of this or that religion, but of a framework within which the individual human life is related to the cosmos as a whole. He gives Plato as an example, saying 'But Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly'. I don't think Nagel would portray Plato as 'a believer' or 'a person of faith', either, and I certainly wouldn't want to think of him like that. But then our culture is such that religion is generally associated with that kind of peity.

Well, for me Islamic State or Westboro Church might be seen as examples of more extreme instantiations. — Tom Storm

I loathe and abhor both the Islamic State and Westboro Baptist Church, but you know, I suppose, that WBC is basically a profoundly dysfunctional family.

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is made up of its leader, Pastor Fred Waldron Phelps, nine of his 13 children (the other four are estranged), their children and spouses, and a small number of other families and individuals.

Not exactly representative of anything other than psychopathy.

I'd say this is a specifically modern conception of philosophy. Ancient philosophy, "philosophy as a way of life" as Pierre Hadot argues, consisted in studying (not critiquing) the words of the founder of the school (Plato's academy, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Pyrrhonism, Neoplatonism, and so on) one was connected to and attempting to put into practice the teaching and associated spiritual exercises.

I really can't see how the kamikaze pilot could be interpreted as self-centred when the entire narrative was created around self sacrifice. Same for jihadis (and even though I think their zealotry is tragically warped.) They are indoctrinated to believe that they will receive their just rewards in the hereafter. — Wayfarer

As I said, I disagree that they’re motivated only by the promise of reward in the hereafter. I think a large part of their motivation comes from believing in whatever cause they’re fighting for, as well as social pressure. If it were only the promise of reward it would be entirely self-centered and not based on principles or values beyond self-interest. Nothing matters but me is a rather nihilistic attitude, if you asked me.

Also, the example that Tom mentioned about Catholicism abandoning all moral values in order to protect pedophile priests promotes nihilism because it indicates that the tradition is meaningless (without exceptional moral values).

I'm sure that many suicidal mass shooters firmly believe that when they die, there are no consequences in any kind of life beyond. That is what distinguishes nihilism from religious indoctrination. — Wayfarer

I just looked it up and mass shooters seem to have a really consistent profile. “Early childhood trauma seems to be the foundation, whether violence in the home, sexual assault, parental suicides, extreme bullying. Then you see the build toward hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, oftentimes rejection from peers. That turns into a really identifiable crisis point where they’re acting differently. Sometimes they have previous suicide attempts.” — Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University

I’m not sure if it makes a lot of sense to say that such people are nihilistic. It could certainly be said that they’re focused on their own interests (not unlike how you say that kamikaze pilots and jihadis are focused on their personal reward) and not the well being of others.

What is nihilism? It is variously expressed as the idea that nothing is real, or that nothing has any real meaning. — Wayfarer

By 'nihilism' I understand the belief that nothing human (i.e. mortal, finite, caused, contingent, imperfect) is meaningful or significant or real. Thus, I interpret 'supernatural religions' (e.g. Abrahamic, Vedic, pantheonic, shamanic, animist, ancestral, divine rightist, paranormal, ... cults) as manifest 'nihilisms' which, as Freddy points out, devalue this worldly life by projecing – idealizing (i.e. idolizing, disembodying) – 'infinite meaning, significance & reality' as originating with and/or only belonging to some purported 'eternal otherworldly life'. :sparkle: :eyes: :roll:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805551

Not exactly representative of anything other than psychopathy. — BC

I did say extreme example, but there are many other churches who hold similar hateful views about women, gay people and culture. The interesting thing for me is there doesn't seem to be an equivalent Hillsboro Secular Humanists. :razz:

The point I'm labouring in all this, is the philosophical one - that (true or false) religious philosophies provide a framework within which to situate humankind in the Cosmos, and not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy.

But then, the video referenced in the OP would be quite willing to accomodate such a line of argument, I think. As noted, I agree with him that a major role of philosophy is questioning, even interogating, religion. He says that doesn't mean rejecting it. The speaker is Hans-Georg Moeller, professor at the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity - which looks very interesting, and also check out the associated Channels on his Youtube profile, from one of which, Deep Noetics:

The point I'm labouring in all this, is the philosophical one - that (true or false) religious philosophies provide a framework within which to situate humankind in the Cosmos, and not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

And I guess I keep saying is that it isn't a forgone conclusion that the former is better than the latter. It seems more about aesthetics or personal taste. There's not a good deed going that hasn't also been done by a secular humanist or atheist, nor a vile crime available that hasn't been committed by a devoted religious person.

not just as the accidental collocation of atoms (Bertrand Russell's phrase) - which seems to me the bottom line of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer

How would you demonstrate that, apart from, perhaps, being less attractive than religious language (intention, connection and oneness, etc), the latter is in some way inferior - which is essentially what you are pointing to.

We can point to almost any period in history, when religion was dominant - when people believed we were situated as part of a divine plan - and the culture wasn't any kinder or more connected or tolerant. It seems to me that a lot of progressive reform about the status of women, children, gay people was taken up by non religious deists or freethinkers. Hence the old bar-fighting Bishop Spong back in the day:

The Bible has lost every major battle it has ever fought. The Bible was quoted to defend slavery and the Bible lost. The Bible was quoted to keep women silent, and the Bible lost. And the Bible is being quoted to deny homosexuals their equal rights, and the Bible will lose.

- Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong

Westboro may not be the only group of hateful bastards, but they are well ahead in the race to prove their preeminent status in the HB category.

Are secular humanists unable to be hateful bastards? No, they are able. But birds of a feather flock together, and hateful bastards find their way to organizations where hateful bastardy is welcome. The typical secular humanist meeting wouldn't be that place, and neither would the typical religious organization.

Are secular humanists unable to be hateful bastards? No, they are able. — BC

Sure - my little joke was, can we name the secular humanist equivalent to the Westboro Baptists? Former Baptist, now public atheist, Matt Dillahunty often says that the Westboro mob are far more faithful to the Bible than progressive Christians. Maybe. Of course secular humanists are capable of hate. All people are.

It may be a modern conception, but philosophy has been doing it since ancient times.