Ever the authoritarian, eh? — Wayfarer

Authority and dogma are not opposed to mysticism, they can and often do go hand in hand.

This cannot be the core of spiritual practice since it is not valuable in and of itself. — Agustino

If that isn’t the meaning of ‘life eternal’ then what is?

And the mystics were frequently at odds with the ecclesiastical authorities.

What's wrong with threats of divine punishment? Threats of divine punishment are useful for those who cannot see the negative effects of immoral actions. — Agustino

It may be true that the 'ignorant masses' need and will respond to threats of divine punishment, or else they will not behave morally; and even then, perhaps they will not...

Sociopaths and psychopaths...? I don't know what to do about them; they are often highly intelligent.

So, threats of divine punishment could be seen as a form of "noble lie". I don't know how wide their effectiveness is these days, in any case. On the other hand, perhaps if education, and if necessary medication, were adequately improved, there would be far fewer people who required such threats in order to behave well towards their fellow humans.

First the politicians need to improve; they have become such a pathetic lot. :-}

And the mystics were frequently at odds with the ecclesiastical authorities. — Wayfarer

In cases where their experiences and insights were expressed in unorthodox terms. And this is by no means only the case with religious authorities; give people too much power and what happens?

People read statements like mine, and they object that it is all too reductionist, depressing, mechanistic, and so forth. Much the way people (me too) respond to your antinatalist statements. The difference between your view and mine is that you think people can help it, I think people can't help it. Yes, we could cease to reproduce -- but the commitment and prolonged concentration that universal, species-ending non-reproduction requires is not one of our features -- and it isn't going to happen. — Bitter Crank

People read into their happy emotions too easily. Sex happens at a time of optimal contentment. Feelings of oxytocin start pouring in and dopamine and all of a sudden every care in the world is washed away in ideas of future ideals of two parents and babies in household, etc.

Let's back up though. What does my term of instrumentality really mean? It means that the world keeps turning, the universe keeps expanding, that energy keeps on transferring, and entropy keeps on its steady path. That is to say, that happiness is always on the horizon (hope swinging I mentioned in other posts). When goals are "obtained" are often not as good or too fleeting compared to the effort to get it (yes yes, eye roll eye roll... it's not the goal but the process to get there BS., not buying it..just slogans to make people not think about it).. we still need to maintain ourselves, our bodies, our minds, our comforts, our anxieties, our neuroses, our social lives, our intellectual minds, etc. etc. etc. It's all just energy put forth to keep maintaining ourselves, that does not stop until death. Why ALL of THIS WORK AND ENERGY? Does it really need to be started anew for a next generation?

We really are living in the eternal twilight of Christian sentiments. There is "something" special that we are DOING here.. It all MEANS something to "FEEL" to "ACHIEVE" to "INTELLECTUALIZE" to "CONNECT".. all buzzwords of anchoring mechanisms to latch onto as our WILLFUL nature rushes forward, putting forth more energy but for to stay alive, keep occupied, and stay comfortable.. All the while being exposed to depridations, sickness, annoyances, and painful circumstances that inevitably befall us.. It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people.

It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. — schopenhauer1

Of course, it doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. I thought we agreed on that. Is our main difference that I think more people get added the same way more squirrels keep getting added, and you think people are going out of their way to reproduce for some sort of reason?

The reproductive urge operates whether anybody (squirrel or human) wants it to operate or not. It just does.

The ordinary folk that I rub shoulders with every day don't seem to have lapsed into a nihilistic funk — Bitter Crank

I disagree, people in my experience are either 9-5 zombies on a treadmill that's increasingly delivering less real prosperity for the average person, or they're retreating into fantasy worlds of various sorts (sucking the teat of various kinds of consumerism).

We are tremendously advanced in terms of technology, and that's keeping our heads above water, but the morale situation is pretty dire - consider suicide rates (particularly among men).

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, that's just sublimated Christianity - but what's the basis for it in a world of inane matter that's basically one damn thing after another?

Nihilism is just a phase of development, don't be so dramatic. — praxis

I don't understand how you can say it's a phase, there's no escape from it if the world is as science describes it.

It's rather analogous to various forms of Idealism being nothing more than ultimately inconsistent ad hoc stopping points, a staggered series of refusals to face the ineluctability of solipsism given the methodologically solipsistic starting point of Cartesianism.

We are (most of us) "designed" to believe in a religion - once any reason to believe is knocked away, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe, all we can do is clutch at twigs as we swirl down the rushing torrent to oblivion (how's that for drama :) ).

I disagree, people in my experience are either 9-5 zombies on a treadmill that's increasingly delivering less real prosperity for the average person, or they're retreating into fantasy worlds of various sorts (sucking the teat of various kinds of consumerism).

We are tremendously advanced in terms of technology, and that's keeping our heads above water, but the morale situation is pretty dire - consider suicide rates (particularly among men). — gurugeorge

You make some valid observations here.

I don't know how old you are, but age makes a difference. I'm over 70 and a lot of the people I interact with are also. Somewhere along the line, age tends to change the way one looks at things. It isn't a choice, it's a given. Going into old age with a really negative attitude is likely to lead to one dying sooner, rather than later.

I know that for many younger people, the satisfactions obtainable in whatever jobs are available are likely to be few and far between. A lot of the jobs I had were shit holes, and working in them did not contribute to a positive disposition.

Excessive technology is not helping anyone. The fact is, smart phones, smart tablets, sites like Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest, quickly train people to expect frequent stimulation and satisfaction. People thus get sort of addicted to their media and gadgets, and end up interacting with the real world through virtual contact. Bad idea.

I'm not against good gadgets and nice sites, but we need to realize that these things are benefitting Apple, Samsung, FaceBook, Twitter, et al far more than you and me.

I am afraid you are right -- a lot of people are escaping into fantasies, or (in the case of middle-aged men in the rust belt, killing themselves). A lot of male farmers in India are killing themselves too for similar reasons -- they just don't see a future for themselves or their families.

It may be true that the 'ignorant masses' need and will respond to threats of divine punishment, or else they will not behave morally; and even then, perhaps they will not...

Sociopaths and psychopaths...? I don't know what to do about them; they are often highly intelligent. — Janus

Sociopaths and psychopaths aren't all bad or immoral though. For example, about 1/100 persons is a psychopath. You've quite probably met some of them, lived with them, been friends with them, etc.

So not all psychopaths are the cold-blooded rapists and murderous, scheming serial-killers you hear about on the news. Most of these people live relatively normal lives. In fact, some of the dangerous psychopaths score relatively low on corresponding medical assessments - though it is true that most of the dangerous ones tend to be around those who score very high. Psychopathy tends to be more of a personality than anything else - it's true that having this sort of personality does predispose you to certain immoral behaviour, which becomes more tempting than it would be otherwise.

Some prime psychopathic traits:
• Low fear and high pain tolerance.
• High self-confidence and assertiveness in social settings.
• Impulsivity.
• Defiance of authority.
• Difficulty with empathy.

Psychopathy itself seems to be a gradation from less psychopathic to more psychopathic. Take someone like Elon Musk - it's very likely that Elon is a psychopath. In fact, many in positions of leadership will have at least some psychopathic traits. If you think about it, many Presidents will come to mind, both current and past.

Now I would imagine that most criminals who commit crimes don't have something mentally wrong with themselves per say. They're just immoral.

So, threats of divine punishment could be seen as a form of "noble lie". — Janus

It's not a lie at all, threats of divine punishment are absolutely true. Someone who commits an immorality will get punished by the action itself, the punishment actually is inescapable. But failing to be aware of the punishment, many expect to encounter it in the future.

On the other hand, perhaps if education, and if necessary medication, were adequately improved, there would be far fewer people who required such threats in order to behave well towards their fellow humans. — Janus

I think it's a fantasy to think medication can make people more moral.

I would say that for most people the existentially salvific aspect of religious belief consists predominately in social involvement, in communion; otherwise it is no better than the consumerist fantasies you mention.

Materialism as a worldview is only debilitating and dehumanizing if it is taken to be a repudiation of what I would want to claim are natural human values.

I would say that for most people the existentially salvific aspect of religious belief consists predominately in social involvement, in communion — Janus

Why would social involvement or communion be salvific? I think that's not what salvation is taken to mean. Social involvement or communion MAY (depending on personality type & circumstance) be helpful in getting you to feel good and positive about your life. But salvific? I think not.

I think it's much the other way around, that a change in consciousness usually leads one to engage more in their society, be more loving, etc.

For example, I take those saints who sit in a hut all day on Mt. Athos and don't meet anyone, in continuous prayer, meditation and contemplation of God to be closer to salvation than your average socially engaged lad. So the idea that social engagement is necessary for salvation (or even happiness), exists because there already is something wrong with ourselves, and we cannot become happy just being with ourselves. Instead, we become bored - and it is boredom that pushes as, as it were, to seek engagement. So most engagement is not authentic - it comes as a result of seeking to escape a pain or a discomfort. That's why, for example, even amongst many married people there are lots of conflicts and disagreements and unhappiness. At least, conflict itself is a means of relieving boredom, and it's a relatively simple one, other means take greater creativity and more originality.

Sociopaths and psychopaths characteristically lack empathy and are thus more likely to be lacking conscience and moral intuition. I wasn't referring to extreme cases, but to the garden variety.

I agree with you that people are "punished" by, in the sense that they suffer on account of, their immoral actions, (or more accurately they suffer because of the dispositions that give rise to those actions) but I don't think that can be considered a "threat of divine punishment" or even a divine punishment; it is an outcome of human nature; a natural suffering.

In cases where people do immoral things because of irresistible impulses that are due to imbalances in brain chemistry that are correlated with some psychiatric conditions then medication may indeed cause them to abstain from performing immoral acts they otherwise would have.

What does salvation consist in then, other than loving your neighbour as yourself? it is the removal of focus from the self that saves, as I see it.

For example, I take those saints who sit in a hut all day on Mt. Athos and don't meet anyone, in continuous prayer, meditation and contemplation of God to be closer to salvation than your average socially engaged lad. — Agustino

I don't think hermits are even as close to salvation as properly socially engaged people, unless they are of the rare breed of human that genuinely have no need of human society.

In any case, note I did say "for most people". Most people cannot become hermits.

Sociopaths and psychopaths characteristically lack empathy and are thus more likely to be lacking conscience and moral intuition. — Janus

Sure, they have decreased empathy but they don't lack it completely. Having even a shred of empathy is sufficient to then imagine the rest. For example, if one feels bad when they see a man tortured, but not when they see him get kicked in the leg, then they can imagine feeling bad in the latter case too - or at least imagine that they ought to feel bad, even if they don't.

I agree with you that people are "punished" by, in the sense that they suffer on account of, their immoral actions, (or more accurately they suffer because of the dispositions that give rise to those actions) but I don't think that can be considered a "threat of divine punishment" or even a divine punishment; it is an outcome of human nature; a natural suffering. — Janus

But who made human nature such that you suffer when you do evil? This is a structural occurence - in that sense it is of divine origin.

In cases where people do immoral things because of irresistible impulses that are due to imbalances in brain chemistry that are correlated with some psychiatric conditions then medication may indeed cause them to abstain from performing immoral acts they otherwise would have. — Janus

Hmmm - I'm not so sure they are truly irresistable. I think regardless of imbalance, there is always a degree of self-control that can be exerted if one learns how to exert it. The thing is, the brain isn't necessarily "one person". So one part of the brain may give whatever directions it wants to, there will always be, so long as the person retains consciousness, another part of the brain that can oppose it.

What does salvation consist in then, other than loving your neighbour as yourself? it is the removal of focus from the self that saves, as I see it. — Janus

Well, loving God with your heart, mind, and body is more important than loving your neighbour as yourself, but, salvation consists in none of those I would say. Salvation consists in being at peace (deep inside) regardless of external circumstances.

I don't think hermits are even as close to salvation as properly socially engaged people, unless they are of the rare breed of human that genuinely have no need of human society. — Janus

Why is social engagement a good thing? Most people share this belief, but in my opinion, it's simply because they are afraid of themselves. They cannot stand even a little while with themselves, they get bored, and they're willing to do most of anything to escape that feeling. Just because you're not feeling any pain/discomfort doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing a good thing. You have to think in context. Social engagement is a distraction for most.

There are, for example, many millionaires who made a lot of money, quit working, and then suddenly found that they are depressed, bored, and all the rest. Some of them even went as far as committing suicide. So when such people are taken out, whether by their own choice, or by another's choice, from society, they break apart. Why? Because they don't know how to be with themselves. That's a weakness, not a good thing in my opinion - it makes you into a slave.

Few are the people who, like Pascal, or Montaigne, learned to spend large amounts of time by themselves without much social interaction, without breaking apart, going mad, etc. It's a skill, and I think one that it's very important to learn.

Well, loving God with your heart, mind, and body is more important than loving your neighbour as yourself, but, salvation consists in none of those I would say. Salvation consists in being at peace (deep inside) regardless of external circumstances. — Agustino

Why would social involvement or communion be salvific? I think that's not what salvation is taken to mean. Social involvement or communion MAY (depending on personality type & circumstance) be helpful in getting you to feel good and positive about your life. But salvific? I think not.

I think it's much the other way around, that a change in consciousness usually leads one to engage more in their society, be more loving, etc. — Agustino

I said that salvation (and I would add here, in it's fullest expression) consists in loving your neighbour as yourself. You say it consists in loving God and possessing inner peace under all circumstances. As I see it, loving God just is loving your neighbour as yourself. What else could it be? It is not loving an abstract principle of eternity or the infinite. Although we may be intellectually or poetically inspired by contemplating such things I can't see how they can inspire love; which for me consists in fellow feeling. If you can love your neighbour as yourself, then you will necessarily possess inner peace under all circumstances, which is salvation.

What else could it be? — Janus

The Bible gives them as two separate "rules" - since I'm going to sleep I don't have time to go in more depth than that now.

If you can love your neighbour as yourself, then you will necessarily possess inner peace under all circumstances, which is salvation. — Janus

So what does this have to do with social engagement? You can love your neighbour as yourself and have fellow feeling without actually being engaged in society. If you disagree, then it follows that someone locked in prison and away from all contact with other people cannot possess inner peace under all circumstances, and hence cannot attain to salvation. Nor can a hermit on Mt. Athos for that matter.

Sure, they have decreased empathy but they don't lack it completely. — Agustino

For me it is obvious that to the degree that one lacks empathy for others one will be more likely to commit immoral acts.

But who made human nature such that you suffer when you do evil? This is a structural occurence - in that sense it is of divine origin. — Agustino

Sure, on the presumption that God is nature, then what is natural is also divine; but that is a point unrelated to the argument as far as I can tell.

We can understand what is natural to human beings and necessary for their flourishing, if we can understand it at all, without presuming that it is of divine origin, in other words. I don't believe religion is the ground of ethics, the ground of ethics is empathy and phronesis.

Hmmm - I'm not so sure they are truly irresistable. — Agustino

For you maybe not; but then perhaps you are not possessed by such urges that are due to neurochemical imbalances, as some others are. You really have no way of knowing what it is like.

Why is social engagement a good thing? — Agustino

Few are the people who, like Pascal, or Montaigne, learned to spend large amounts of time by themselves without much social interaction, without breaking apart, going mad, etc. It's a skill, and I think one that it's very important to learn. — Agustino

By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much.

I already answered your question about social engagement and loving your neighbour below. You were presuming a meaning I didn't intend is all.

I disagree, people in my experience are either 9-5 zombies on a treadmill that's increasingly delivering less real prosperity for the average person, or they're retreating into fantasy worlds of various sorts (sucking the teat of various kinds of consumerism). — gurugeorge

That's a staggeringly egregious over-simplification.

(how's that for drama :) ) — gurugeorge

It seems more like senseless hyperbole. >:O

By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much. — Janus

What do you mean by social engagement without bodily interaction?

Well for one thing if a solitary artist or thinker produces work that is read by others, that is a form of engagement. On the other hand if we think and feel creatively we interact with a whole society in our thought and feelings, even if we never leave the house. And what we do on here' would that count as "bodily interaction"?

Well for one thing if a solitary artist or thinker produces work that is read by others, that is a form of engagement. On the other hand if we think and feel creatively we interact with a whole society in our thought and feelings, even if we never leave the house. — Janus

Alright, but at some point one must engage, or had to have engaged, in bodily interaction, no?

what we do on here' would that count as "bodily interaction"? — Janus

I wouldn't say so. Certainly not literally.

Alright, but at some point one must engage, or had to have engaged, in bodily interaction, no? — Buxtebuddha

Absolutely! All those meditating, praying hermits were raised by mothers and fathers or in orphanages or whatever...by others in any case... and schooled by others as well, and all that involves. in fact actually is, bodily engagement and socialization. I believe all this gets internalized. so it is possible that some people can thrive with little actual social contact later in their lives. My argument was that if their lives are rich and creative, then they are still engaging with their internalized society, through ideas, feelings and memory. They are still very much socially mediated humans, in other words, even if they choose to live solitary lives.

For you maybe not; but then perhaps you are not possessed by such urges that are due to neurochemical imbalances, as some others are. You really have no way of knowing what it is like. — Janus

Hmm, arguably I was possessed by such urges at one point, when I was diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder and OCD. But over time the compulsions disappeared - at first they didn't disappear, but I stopped giving in to them even though I felt them. And over time I stopped feeling them completely. That's why I say that it's one of the things you have to learn to manage. Mindfulness and meditation were very helpful for me.

These issues are interesting. I think most doctors do not spend sufficient time with their patients (due to the way this work is bureaucratically structured) to be able to help them really change. The brain has neuroplasticity, which basically allows old habits to change into new habits. So, as long as someone has consciousness, there will always be a gap between impulse and response, which can allow the brain to use its neuroplasticity to change.

For example - you may not be able to get significant results in whatever mental illness you're facing by going 1-2hours/week to a doctor or professional. But if you lived with that professional 24/7 and you were the only patient in his or her care, then I'm quite certain that we'd see very different results.

So, from the inside, a mental illness of the likes of GAD or OCD feels like the whole world is different than in its absence. So curing it feels like looking out the window and seeing the tree red, and suddenly you don't see it red anymore, you see it normally. That's the kind of difference we're talking about.

And I think really these problems are often entrenched habits of mind, and the patient has to break out of the habit as it were, which is often very difficult. Bringing this into awareness though, that takes effort, and mindfulness is very helpful for that.

By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. — Janus

Well, neither am I. I consider things like this forum, talking over the phone, etc. as equally social interaction. But you must actually interact with another person in real-time. So I would not consider reading a book social interaction, or painting in your home, etc.

If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much. — Janus

It's hard to think of a situation since we usually do need the rest of society to survive. But suppose someone was living alone in a hut in the jungle, and they were also a poet. Would they be actively socially engaged? And how?

I have a feeling you consider things like reading and writing poetry to be social engagement, even if you do them entirely alone, without input from others. Why is that?

Of course, it doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. I thought we agreed on that. Is our main difference that I think more people get added the same way more squirrels keep getting added, and you think people are going out of their way to reproduce for some sort of reason?

The reproductive urge operates whether anybody (squirrel or human) wants it to operate or not. It just does. — Bitter Crank

Well, there are plenty of much used methods of preventing birth, so any deviation from that would be more likely intentional. There are the rare "accidents", but is that the norm anymore for how people are born? Not in the first world at least. In the third world, with less access to health care, it is at least implicit that it will happen, and thus desirable by at least one of the parties. So, new people being born seems to be something people want. So again, why is it that it needs to be expanded?

I don't understand how you can say it's a phase, there's no escape from it if the world is as science describes it. — gurugeorge

How could it not be a phase, people regularly work through it. Why should it be any different on a societal level? In any case, I don't know if it's a necessary phase or just something that a particular route of development requires.

Science, by the way, is just one method of examining the world. There are other methods and perspectives. I don't know what you mean when you suggest that 'the world could be as science describes it'.

We are (most of us) "designed" to believe in a religion ... — gurugeorge

Assuming you're referring to cultural conditioning rather than intelligent design or something, I would hesitate to claim 'design' as that implies conscious intent. I'm sure it is conscious intent on the part of some individuals, but most are followers who don't question tradition and cultural norms.

... once any reason to believe is knocked away, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe, ... — gurugeorge

Of course there is, the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. And to be clear, any such narratives don't need to be based on a "material universe."

... all we can do is clutch at twigs as we swirl down the rushing torrent to oblivion (how's that for drama :) ). — gurugeorge

Part of a silly narrative, sounds like.