Our own "self-indulgent despair" is the symptom of our society and our times. What you do not see is that a man cannot be the shining light of a dark age that alone dispels the darkness - a man is rather part of the historical age in which he lives. Without a change in the historical tide, an individual cannot do anything. Being born in a wicked and corrupt age, we share, we inherit the despair. It is wrong to say it is "our" despair, and not also yours. The whole Western world is on the verge of collapse. — Agustino

As I said in a recent post responding to t0m, I regret the phrase "self-indulgent despair." I disagree with your characterization of the dire condition of civilization today. I have had discussions with some Christians who believe this is the beginning of a great decline because Christianity is no longer at the center of our cultural vision. Is that why you feel the way you do, or are there other reasons?

Thus, any attempt by so-called "Eastern" attempts to be in the "present" do not minimize hope. There is the "hope" of being in the present, inherent in the very attempt to do so! Of course, we can use some verbal-gymnastics to try to get out of this "pin" of being in the "hope-cycle", but it would just be rhetorical word-play. Hope is still there. — schopenhauer1

Your statement shows a lack emotional and intellectual imagination. You don't seem to be able to fathom that others experience the world and their lives differently than you do. The first two Noble Truths of Buddhism:

• All life is suffering, pain, and misery
• This suffering is caused by selfish craving and personal desire (i.e. hope)

So, billions of people have been wrong for thousands of years.

Lao Tsu WROTE something. He hoped to get his thoughts out poetically. If he didn't write it he TOLD someone.. he had a goal- hope of his words meaning something to someone. If he didn't you would not be quoting from him. It is inescapable. — schopenhauer1

Your vision is personal and idiosyncratic yet you proclaim it as the objective truth for all people. I'm trying to think of the right word to describe what that is. Arrogant, .... lazy,....self-indulgent, ....Those don't seem strong enough to me.

I'm not sure that anyone denies the basic structure of hope, desire, or purpose. — t0m

Someone does deny it. Actually, I recognize it as a phenomenon that happens and that people participate in, but it is not inevitable or desirable.

Society paints us with a broad brush, and for that matter I`d even question whether social workers should have got anywhere near the subject of sociology. — celebritydiscodave

It will be easier to follow your comments if you quote from the comment you are responding to. Select the text and a little box with the word "quote" in it will pop up. Click on that and the text and a link will show up in the response you are working on.

the Good as it relates to god's telos as set down in post Nicene Christian interpretations of this Idea? — schopenhauer1

:s

I presume the only hope you condone is one with a capital "H", right? — schopenhauer1

I said hope should be placed in what is eternal, not what is temporary and fleeting.

But surely we are creatures of desire and hope, attaining goals and then always setting new goals? I do understand that a certain spiritual serenity or stasis is possible in terms of the big picture. For instance, I feel that I have completed a certain dialectical journey. I haven't felt the need for a serious modification of my world-view or life-philosophy in years.

I have had discussions with some Christians who believe this is the beginning of a great decline because Christianity is no longer at the center of our cultural vision. Is that why you feel the way you do, or are there other reasons? — T Clark

No, this isn't just about Christianity here. It's rather about the fact that no spiritual or religious tradition has currency anymore - Western man can no longer relate with the divine and with the transcendent - through no spiritual tradition for that matter. Man has been left to his own devices, and in-so-far as that is true, "God is dead", practically speaking. The West is dying spiritually. Paradoxically, it is the revelation of Christianity that has brought about this spiritual death, so far from not being at the centre, Christianity is now at the centre more than ever before in history. Christianity does not foreshadow peace and prosperity on Earth - but the Apocalypse. Whether this is "the end" or a partial end that will open upon a new beginning, that remains to be seen.

I don't consider what I said in the post you quoted as censure. I was trying to acknowledge the pain and make up a bit for my flipness in earlier comments. I think you're right, I did paint everyone with a broad brush. I regret that. — T Clark

I'm glad your with us.

Really, it's all desire — darthbarracuda

Indeed. In some moments we enjoy ourselves as important and worthy. In other moments we may suspect otherwise. But then creatively adjust our perspective. To say that the breakdown is the truth of the process is only have adjusted one's myth or software so that the recognition of futility is its cancellation. Public speech in inherently affirmative and "self-important."

But surely we are creatures of desire and hope, attaining goals and then always setting new goals? I do understand that a certain spiritual serenity or stasis is possible in terms of the big picture. For instance, I feel that I have completed a certain dialectical journey. I haven't felt the need for a serious modification of my world-view or life-philosophy in years — t0m

I certainly am not suggesting a change in your world-view. I'm not saying living a life without hope is what you need. You seem like a pretty cool guy. My only point is that it is possible to live without hope. I see it as a good thing, even if I haven't been able to get it straight. Of course S1 will say I live a life of hope hoping to live without hope. There's some truth in that, but that's the irony of all the eastern religions - trying not to try, speaking about the unspeakable.

I can relate to what you're saying. There's a sense of humor or humility that's to be embraced. There is so much genius and beauty and achievement out there that just about any single person can only hope to light up their little piece of the world. And we can do that by cherishing the virtue that exists very locally for us.

In fact, I'm especially pointing at the "world-historical" itch in so much religion. Lots of us don't just want to fix ourselves. Indeed, we think we can fix ourselves only by fixing the world. We inherit an unexamined notion of spirituality that is scientific, political, world-historical. To be spiritual in this objective mode is to embrace and provide correct universal truths that bear on what not only we but others ought to do. World history is then framed as the rise and fall of the prevalence of these correct propositions about an objective God. Dreams of the world ending in flood and fire appear, to cleanse it of all the erroneous subjectivity.

We tend to understand religion in terms of authority and control, in other words. But this could be precisely the problem, our insistence that the world and others must be mended, that they are guilty or fallen in the first place. That it's not enough for us to follow our own light as our own and trust the world in its imperfection to worry about itself.

In that spirit, take everything I said above as mere version of my own "light." I try to express it clearly, but I don't feel the need to impose. I present it as an option, not knowing the "truth" of the other, but only guessing at it.

Public speech in inherently affirmative and "self-important." — t0m

(Y)

I certainly am not suggesting a change in your world-view. I'm not saying living a life without hope is what you need. You seem like a pretty cool guy. My only point is that it is possible to live without hope. I see it as a good thing, even if I haven't been able to get it straight. Of course S1 will say I live a life of hope hoping to live without hope. There's some truth in that, but that's the irony of all the eastern religions - trying not to try, speaking about the unspeakable. — T Clark

I think we are mostly on the same page, that it's a matter of language. I recognize that you are also a "cool" guy, and I really like this word "cool." The "hot" personality is unstable, eager to prove itself --precisely because it doesn't believe. It doesn't trust in its bones. What I love about Nietzsche's vision of Christ is that it points behind language. There is a "sense" of rightness or goodness or completeness that can't be rationalized or justified, or only imperfectly. That's part of what I mean by "groundlessness." The "ground" or foundation of "wisdom" is receding or invisible. Of course I'm just poeticizing my own experience, partly to see if someone else says "that's how it is for me, too." It's a pleasure, of course, to share a sense of transcendence.

If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths” —that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time.

It is only on the theory that no word is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya,[7] and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse[8]—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”[9]—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth,[10] whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma. He speaks only of inner things: “life” or “truth” or “light” is his word for the innermost—in his sight everything else, the whole of reality, all nature, even language, has significance only as sign, as allegory.
— Nietzsche on Christ in The Antichrist

I think we are mostly on the same page, that it's a matter of language. I recognize that you are also a "cool" guy, and I really like this word "cool." The "hot" personality is unstable, eager to prove itself --precisely because it doesn't believe. — t0m

Well, if you want to look at "cool" as a philosophical term, that's ok, but I was using it more colloquially. You seem like you have your head together. You're worth paying attention to.

I feel the same about you. I realized you were using it colloquially, but I have great respect for the depths of these ordinary words. They are the tried and true "metaphysics" of life as we live it non-theoretically.

I also deny it is the truth about life. But it IS the truth about the modern Western world. — Agustino

I don't think so. I know lots of mostly happy, mostly fulfilled people. I also know (but don't see much) others who are crashing and burning. Some make it. Others don't.

Some are born to sweet delight / Some are born to endless night.

No, you cannot see independently from your society. If you are born among the blind, you too are blind - and even if you're not blind, you can never see very clearly, because their affection is yours too. — Agustino

Progress is already a refutation of this. Creativity and going-against-the-grain is a naked fact. How could a Jesus or a Socrates emerge otherwise? That's what genius is, having eyes where others are blind. And would you not be sawing off the branch you perch on here? How can you yourself transcend the wickedness of our times to proclaim this wickedness, if we are utterly determined by others? We have books. We aren't trapped in the public shallowness and inauthenticity. We have a desire to be free and whole that leads us away from this shallowness.

Yeah, you can't - or better said you don't want to. But we may not have a choice. — Agustino

I don't want to and I don't need to. As I see it this waiting itself is the wrong move. This immersion and commitment to the We is a disavowed lust for power. We are bound by our desire to bind and liberated ourselves by the liberation of others. This doesn't mean that we don't need laws. It's not a political point. It's a "spiritual" point. But I don't want to project it as a law. I'm just sharing or confessing what works for me, what seems beautiful and liberating to me. It may or may not work with the freedom that I do not deny you.

Cioran notes how in order for us to voluntarily do action we have to believe we are important and the things we do are meaningful and have worth. Really, it's all desire, and hope is the desire for a desire to be fulfilled. — darthbarracuda

Agreed. Hope is the motivator behind the goal. Sure, there are some tedious goals that probably have minimal hope involved. Perhaps we can zone out all future projections and stay right in the present, but eventually the hope is going to come back and make us swing from goal to goal like jungle gym bars or a series of vines. The hopes may not even be large. As you said, intoxicants, perhaps tinkering with some toy or project. Still, it is the hope of the goals to come, of getting to another stage. It is the mirage.

That's all about social interaction and zero about truth. Truth doesn't need anyone to affirm it to be true - it is indifferent to whether it is acknowledged or not. — Agustino

This is truth as an alien object. This truth is an asteroid in the dark of pre-human time. What can "faith" mean if religion is an obsession with this person-independent object? How does this not reduce religion to metaphysical arrogance? He who sees the Thing in its Truth gets to call the shots, right? Because this non-human object is the ground of authority, right? The Law is brought down from the mountain by "Moses" the Metaphysician/Theologian of the Objective Divine. He who questions the objectivity of this object is a blasphemer, a revolutionary. For him the hemlock or the cross?

t0m, a portion of one of your replies has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

Thanks very much! I'm flattered & glad to be here.

It is hope that is the opiate of the masses. Existence is an instrumental thing. We survive, to survive, to survive. We entertain, to entertain, to kill time, and not be bored. We are deprived and need to have our desires fulfilled to have yet other desires. What keeps this whole instrumental affair going? Hope is that carrot. The transcendental (i.e. big picture) view of the absurdity of the instrumental affair of existence is lost as we focus on a particular goal/set of goals that we think is the goal.. We think this future state of goal-attainment will lead to something greater than the present. Hope lets us get caught up in the narrow focus of the pursuit of the goal. But then, if we get the goal, another takes its place. The instrumental nature of things comes back into view as we contend with restlessness. Then, we narrow our focus (yet again) to pursue (yet again) what is hoped to be a greater state than the present. The cycle continues. — schopenhauer1

This strikes me as totally anhedonic. In my experience people only turn to hope when they suffer. Hope arises from suffering, a sense of 'there's a reason to endure this negative experience', 'I'm enduring this negative experience because of x' is produced. But, you naturally lose that hope when you are presently enjoying yourself. There's no need to imagine a better future when the present is good.

We entertain, to entertain, to kill time, and not be bored. —

I think what's missing here is that things entertain us *because* they are pleasurable. And not say, as just some means to escape suffering. Why am I listening to music right now? As some sort of contemplative loss of self in order to escape the dreariness of my existence? Or because it genuinely sounds good? It seems self-evident to me right now that it is the latter. Although in the past when I could barely feel pleasure I would have said the former.

[quoteIt is hope that is the opiate of the masses. Existence is an instrumental thing. We survive, to survive, to survive. We entertain, to entertain, to kill time, and not be bored. We are deprived and need to have our desires fulfilled to have yet other desires. What keeps this whole instrumental affair going? Hope is that carrot. The transcendental (i.e. big picture) view of the absurdity of the instrumental affair of existence is lost as we focus on a particular goal/set of goals that we think is the goal.. We think this future state of goal-attainment will lead to something greater than the present. Hope lets us get caught up in the narrow focus of the pursuit of the goal. But then, if we get the goal, another takes its place. The instrumental nature of things comes back into view as we contend with restlessness. Then, we narrow our focus (yet again) to pursue (yet again) what is hoped to be a greater state than the present. The cycle continues.
[/quote]

I think hope is inherent in our cultural bias towards the future, towards the open possibilities that lie ahead. But our desires, what we hope for are not our desires. The house, the wife, the kids, the job... is the dream of a society, a collective dream, which many take as their own, which even when it is satisfied, can't satisfy. The things we hope for are not ours, and because of this we are not satisfied even when we achieve what we have hoped for. So yes it is like an opium dream, good as long as it lasts. but always depressing, always on a run, and we don't even have to put a spike in our veins, but many do.

I think hope is inherent in our cultural bias towards the future, towards the open possibilities that lie ahead. But our desires, what we hope for are not our desires. The house, the wife, the kids, the job... is the dream of a society, a collective dream, which many take as their own, which even when it is satisfied, can't satisfy. The things we hope for are not ours, and because of this we are not satisfied even when we achieve what we have hoped for. So yes it is like an opium dream, good as long as it lasts. but always depressing, always on a run, and we don't even have to put a spike in our veins, but many do. — Cavacava

Well put (Y) . Instrumentality is the always restless need for something that is not in the present.

But, you naturally lose that hope when you are presently enjoying yourself. There's no need to imagine a better future when the present is good. — antinatalautist

But then it is over and time moves forward. What is at the end of this? What brings you to this forum? Shouldn't you be blissed out on the highest high?

But then it is over and time moves forward. What is at the end of this? — schopenhauer1

But you only ask these types of questions because you are not enjoying yourself. "What is the point?" "What is the end?" These questions only arise because of the larger issue at play here - your anhedonia. Philosophical pessimism is a consequence of depression/anhedonia, and not the other way around. People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed.

The most important issue is not whether the world is good or bad (and what follows from that - whether one should suicide, whether one should have children, etc), but rather whether one is enjoying their existence or not.

People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist

I agree, though maybe a dialectic is involved. I think the news makes some people "sick." It's an endless story about disaster, crime, suffering. Part of us likes it, so many of us tune in. But this swamps us with information we can find little use for.

We are thereby called away from our projects, from the differences we can make in our actual "little" mostly non-newsworthy lives.

We are not geese who just fly South every winter and scavenge for morsels of worms without reflecting on it. We can see our situation while we live it out- the only animal to do so on Earth. — schopenhauer1

You're right. The faculty of reflection is highly developed in us. This leads to a conflict, between us and reality. We can project meaning, vague as it may be, onto this reality. Unfortunately, our meaning, whatever that means, doesn't seem to have a real image, something it can map on to. I think that's the gist of what you want to say.

Madness! A distinguishing feature of madness is losing touch with reality. A madman hallucinates and suffers from delusions - the point being that the insane have expectations and thoughts that don't match with reality. How then are your views, which are unrealistic, different from that of a madman?

Clark, truth is perceptual, it extends no further than an individuals perception, so I`m lost when you refer to "the truth" What is darkness and despair for one may be reason for inspiration and hope for another..One may also evolve into that other. There is nothing substantive to be discovered here. You discuss simply state of mind, and states of mind are in constant flux.