Interestingly, the "flatting" actually comes out of understanding the infinite on its own terms, of the "higher" value itself.

Since the infinite is beyond the world, it does not depend on what occurs within it. The "higher state" to is not something achieved by a wordly goal or action.

Niether the greed of the consumerist nor the restraint of the ascetic creates meaning. Both confuse actions of the world with Meaning, as if Meaning were defined by making the most money or enduring the most pain.

In either case, they misunderstanding Meaning to be about what the self gets in the world.

Here "egoism" doesn't refer to a crass notion that ethics is whatever an individual wants, but rather to how it always our status at stake in ethics, value and metaphysics.

The soul who accepts egoism is noble because they do not pretend metaphysics is not about their worth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Bingo. Exactly.

His was an insanely creative mind which could take ideas and view them from many perspectives in ways that had never even been imaginable before. — Wayfarer

Well said. He can be an obnoxious thumb in the eye, but he's thought provoking. With Nietzsche we wade in deeper, hopefully to come out on the other side.

Modern culture is a flatland. That is the meaning of the 'one dimensional man'. There is no 'vertical dimension' against which higher or lower can be judged. — Wayfarer

I personally recognize a vertical dimension. The fundamental idea that I poetize upon and read the tradition in light of is that of the evolution of Freedom's self-consciousness. That's the greatest story I've ever been told. It's the German version of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. The "I" or "ego" is a Byronic/Satanic figure. But Hegel (as I read him) interprets Christ as this same incarnate freedom conscious of itself as such. His philosophy(or a variant of his philosophy) would be the (or one possible) conceptual elaboration of the intuitive/pictorial content of Christianity. But note that progress and therefore a vertical dimension is at heart of this vision. Our real difference is perhaps the "post-political" or "Hellenistic" aspect of this idea. I don't think the world can be "fixed." It is nakedly the collision site of billions of "wills-to-power." Sophistry is an old dragon. Mind has seduced mind with rhetoric for thousands of years. I'm even OK with the idea that we just have better and worse forms of rhetoric, but only because my "world transcending" software is in good working order. To be clear I'm talking about theoretical freedom or the ideal that Fichte mentions approximating. I still live in the real world. But the goal is serene autonomy, and that goal structures my moves in the real world.

I was contrasting Kant and Hegel, who I believe really were great philosophers in the grand tradition of philosophy - therefore, 'masters' - and Nietszche, who in my view was not. — Wayfarer

A matter of taste. The vision of the world as will-to-power is pretty grand metaphysics.

You can go beyond metaphysics, or you can fall short of it. There's a big difference.

Here's a crucial passage:

From this tendency, and especially from the convictions and doctrines of F. von Schlegel, there was further developed in diverse shapes the so-called irony.[51] This had its deeper root, in one of its aspects, in Fichte’s philosophy, in so far as the principles of this philosophy were applied to art. F. von Schlegel, like Schelling, started from Fichte’s standpoint, Schelling to go beyond it altogether, Schlegel to develop it in his own way and to tear himself loose from it. Now so far as concerns the closer connection of Fichte’s propositions with one tendency of irony, we need in this respect emphasize only the following points about this irony, namely that [first] Fichte sets up the ego as the absolute principle of all knowing, reason, and cognition, and at that the ego that remains throughout abstract and formal. Secondly, this ego is therefore in itself just simple, and, on the one hand, every particularity, every characteristic, every content is negated in it, since everything is submerged in this abstract freedom and unity, while, on the other hand, every content which is to have value for the ego is only put and recognized by the ego itself. Whatever is, is only by the instrumentality of the ego, and what exists by my instrumentality I can equally well annihilate again.

Now if we stop at these absolutely empty forms which originate from the absoluteness of the abstract ego, nothing is treated in and for itself and as valuable in itself, but only as produced by the subjectivity of the ego. But in that case the ego can remain lord and master of everything, and in no sphere of morals, law, things human and divine, profane and sacred, is there anything that would not first have to be laid down by the ego, and that therefore could not equally well be destroyed by it. Consequently everything genuinely and independently real becomes only a show, not true and genuine on its own account or through itself, but a mere appearance due to the ego in whose power and caprice and at whose free disposal it remains. To admit or cancel it depends wholly on the pleasure of the ego, already absolute in itself simply as ego. Now thirdly, the ego is a living, active individual, and its life consists in making its individuality real in its own eyes and in those of others, in expressing itself, and bringing itself into appearance. For every man, by living, tries to realize himself and does realize himself.

Now in relation to beauty and art, this acquires the meaning of living as an artist and forming one’s life artistically. But on this principle, I live as an artist when all my action and my expression in general, in connection with any content whatever, remains for me a mere show and assumes a shape which is wholly in my power. In that case I am not really in earnest either with this content or, generally, with its expression and actualization. For genuine earnestness enters only by means of a substantial interest, something of intrinsic worth like truth, ethical life, etc., – by means of a content which counts as such for me as essential, so that I only become essential myself in my own eyes in so far as I have immersed myself in such a content and have brought myself into conformity with it in all my knowing and acting. When the ego that sets up and dissolves everything out of its own caprice is the artist, to whom no content of consciousness appears as absolute and independently real but only as a self-made and destructible show, such earnestness can find no place, since validity is ascribed only to the formalism of the ego.

True, in the eyes of others the appearance which I present to them may be regarded seriously, in that they take me to be really concerned with the matter in hand, but in that case they are simply deceived, poor limited creatures, without the faculty and ability to apprehend and reach the loftiness of my standpoint. Therefore this shows me that not everyone is so free (i.e. formally free)[52] as to see in everything which otherwise has value, dignity, and sanctity for mankind just a product of his own power of caprice, whereby he is at liberty either to grant validity to such things, to determine himself and fill his life by means of them, or the reverse. Moreover this virtuosity of an ironical artistic life apprehends itself as a divine creative genius for which anything and everything is only an unsubstantial creature, to which the creator, knowing himself to be disengaged and free from everything, is not bound, because he is just as able to destroy it as to create it. In that case, he who has reached this standpoint of divine genius looks down from his high rank on all other men, for they are pronounced dull and limited, inasmuch as law, morals, etc., still count for them as fixed, essential, and obligatory. So then the individual, who lives in this way as an artist, does give himself relations to others: he lives with friends, mistresses, etc; but, by his being a genius, this relation to his own specific reality, his particular actions, as well as to what is absolute and universal, is at the same time null; his attitude to it all is ironical.
— Hegel

Does Hegel successfully transcend or obliterate this view?

Becoming aware of the vertical dimension is a clinical description of what happens through metanoia or religious conversion. Of course the mainstream believer will understand no such thing, he or she will simply describe it in the vocabulary and lexicon of the culture in which they're situated. But from a cross-cultural perspective, there are elements that can be identified and mapped against each other. It doesn't mean that all the traditions are the same or say the same things or have the same goals, but they do provide the vertical axis which is entirely absent on contemporary Western culture.

So, do I think there is a genuine higher truth? You bet, but I don't demand that it is only seen in terms of one or another tradition. Of course it's a lot easier for those who do, because they don't have to put up with pluralism and all the apparent contradictions that appear between the various cultural forms, which is an inevitable shortcoming of my style of popular perennialism. But I will gladly own up to my weaknesses, and if you really can show me further faults and shortcomings, then I will try to own them too. — Wayfarer

I disagree entirely with this. The truly admirable part of religious conversion consists in the recognition and realization of something greater that one is part of; and not of something "higher", which presupposes authority.

The "mainstream believer" will always express their idea of what is greater in terms of their tradition's conception of what is "higher"; i.e. in terms of scriptural authority as it is interpreted by their chosen tradition. The different conceptions of authority in different religions are very different, and cannot be "mapped against one another". For example Christianity accepts Christ as the one truly messianic authority by virtue of being God, and Islam rejects that completely because for it to belief that a mere man could be Allah is the height (or depth) of blasphemy.

So you say that different religions provide "the vertical axis"; but this is untrue, instead they provide vertical axes (which, as I already said, present different, and incommensurable, models of heirarchical authority).

The essence of religion consists in binding (joining) oneself ('religion' from the Latin, 'religare': 'to bind') to something greater than oneself, and does not necessarily involve the vertical notion of authority at all. In fact I would argue that true religion necessarily consists in rejecting all authority whatsoever, precisely because one recognizes the irreconcilable natures of the different conceptions of authority instantiated by the various institutionalized religions.

So, for me the fatal shortcoming of your "style of popular perennialism" is that it glosses over the intrinsic and irreconcilable differences between religions, and tendentiously interprets sacred scriptures in ways that are alien to their meaning and which seek, ironically, to undermine the very idea of their being one true authority, or any "genuine higher truth".

This is not at all to condemn organized religion holus bolus, since it is arguable that it is very necessary for many people who are not capable of, or willing to, think for themselves.

This is not at all to condemn organized religion holus bolus, since it is arguable that it is very necessary for many people who are not capable of, or willing to, think for themselves. — John

But it does condemn comparative religion holus bolus, doesn't it?

The question that it leads me to ask is: do you think all religions are false, or that only one of them could be considered to be true, and if so, which one, and why?

The essence of religion consists in binding (joining) oneself ('religion' from the Latin, 'religare': 'to bind') to something greater than oneself, and does not necessarily involve the vertical notion of authority at al — John

How is 'greater' not 'higher'? When one is converted from, say, alchoholism or some other vice, to a moral or spiritual awakening by thus 'binding oneself', is it not fair to say that this amounts to realising a 'higher truth'?

The "mainstream believer" will always express their idea of what is greater in terms of their tradition's conception of what is "higher"; i.e. in terms of scriptural authority as it is interpreted by their chosen tradition. — John

How is that not what I already said?

The different conceptions of authority in different religions are very different, and cannot be "mapped against one another". — John

Have you ever happened upon any of those well-known books about world religions, like Huston Smith's book, World Religions? Joseph Campbell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces'? That is what those books do.

So, for me the fatal shortcoming of your "style of popular perennialism" is that it glosses over the intrinsic and irreconcilable differences between religions, and tendentiously interprets sacred scriptures in ways that are alien to their meaning and which seek, ironically, to undermine the very idea of their being one true authority, or any "genuine higher truth". — John

That's a pretty hostile and unfriendly thing to say, John.

In my experience we philosopher types just itch to play the authoritative parent role. So we end up with frustration, since we are all trying to condescend to one another, vying perhaps to be the viceroy of the supreme Parent (science, rationality, true religion). This is like wanting to be the eldest child left in charge while the supreme (but also invisible) Parent is absent. — fQ9

It seems likely that you are generalizing and projecting your own desires here; this doesn't resonate with me at all.

But it does condemn comparative religion holus bolus, doesn't it?

The question that it leads me to ask is: do you think all religions are false, or that only one of them could be considered to be true, and if so, which one, and why? — Wayfarer

Not at all; I have no problem with the discipline of comparing religions to one another, and I don't know what I said to make you think otherwise.

You are ignoring a third possibility; which is that religions are not true or false at all in any propositional sense of "truth". I do think that some religions may be more practical (in the spiritual sense) insofar as they might be in greater accordance with the actuality of the human spirit. But then, this would most likely vary historically; so that a religion which is practical at one moment in history might be impractical at another.

How is 'greater' not 'higher'? When one is converted from, say, alchoholism or some other vice, to a moral or spiritual awakening by thus 'binding oneself', is it not fair to say that this amounts to realising a 'higher truth'? — Wayfarer

As I said, I dislike the term "higher" because it carries the baggage of attachment to authority, or 'judgement from on high'. I don't believe in judgement (other than human judgement) at all, but I do acknowledge that many people need to believe in it in order to cope with, or manage, their lives. In other words the idea of higher judgment and authority is for those who cannot, or do not want to, think for themselves, trust their own judgements and be their own authorities.

How is that not what I already said? — Wayfarer

Perhaps it is what you already said; the point was that I don't think there is any other coherent idea of 'higher'.

Have you ever happened upon any of those well-known books about world religions, like Huston Smith's book, World Religions? Joseph Campbell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces'? That is what those books do. — Wayfarer

I read Campbell's book thirty five or so years ago, and probably dipped into some Huston Smith, as well. In any case, the only thing that religions all have in common, in my view, is that one can be spiritually converted (in the sense that one's life can be radically transformed) by coming to care more about something greater than oneself than one cares about oneself. But this "conversion" can be as true of a philosopher, a scientist, a lover, an artist, or even a Marxist, or any other completely secular person not affiliated with any institutionalized religion, as it can be of the faithful adherent of any tradition.

And just to think, you're someone I might have actually been friends with! Just shows you can't be too careful with 'people you meet on the Internet'. — Wayfarer

I'm just being honest as to what I think, or "blunt" to use your own words. Basically I am saying that I think you are "missing something", just as you first said to me, and which I did not take personally, incidentally. On the contrary, I took it as a signal that you think it is a good idea to be brutally honest about one's opinions, instead of being excessively polite. If I came across as being annoyed when you said that to me it was only because you didn't back it up with an argument as to what I am purportedly missing, and why you think I am missing it. I have tried to provide such an account and argument in regard to what I think you are missing; and I am certainly open to being convinced otherwise by further argument.

So, I am not making a personal attack on you at all, and it is regrettable if you cannot help seeing it that way. If you don't feel you could be "friends with me" because I have my own strongly held ideas that are not compatible with yours, and perhaps irreconcilable with them, then I totally understand; although I don't see that as being inevitably so unless one or both of us is unwilling to change our views on the basis of convincing arguments.
:s

How is 'greater' not 'higher'? When one is converted from, say, alchoholism or some other vice, to a moral or spiritual awakening by thus 'binding oneself', is it not fair to say that this amounts to realising a 'higher truth’? — Wayfarer

In terms of ethics, for sure.

Otherwise, not really. All the truths in question are of them— how they act, how they are ethically better than before, what their life involves absent a vice, etc. In every case, these are a worldly truth, not any sort of metaphysical realm higher than themselves or the world they live in.

With respect to the infinite of Meaning (as opposed to ethics), this person who overcomes their vice has no more worth than anyone else. Indeed, their newfound ethical self is no more Meaningful then their old one beset by vice. It’s in worldly terms, in action, in ethics, in their existence, they are “higher” or “greater.” Their life hasn’t suddenly gained greater importance because they’ve abandoned vice.

In this respect, John is right about the plurality you give to religious truths being a problem. Religions are concerned with the world. They pose themselves as the solution to worldly problems, to death, to injustice, to vice, by their particular belief system and no-one else. The honest Christian cannot say: “It does not matter if you follow Jesus or not,” for it deems itself to be the only solution to these intractable worldly problems which (supposedly) need an answer.

Your pluralism of “higher” truths is disrespectful to any religion which holds itself to be a “higher” truth. To the Christian, for example, you would announce that their belief Jesus was the “higher” truth was a falsehood. You would claim other beliefs could also be a solution to the intractable worldly problems. “Higher” metaphysics always have this problem because they understand themselves as the only solution to worldly problems and meaninglessness.

You are ignoring a third possibility; which is that religions are not true or false at all in any propositional sense of "truth". I do think that some religions may be more practical (in the spiritual sense) insofar as they might be in greater accordance with the actuality of the human spirit. But then, this would most likely vary historically; so that a religion which is practical at one moment in history might be impractical at another. — John

Doesn't this have much the same problem as Wayfarer's pluralism though? If no religion is true, aren't you being just as disrespectful? How can this position accept the dogmatism which is inherent in most religious beliefs?

If religion is only practical, it's more or less rendered nothing more than a cultural whim. No longer is an immoral soul at stake, the particular scared tradition needed or the worth of the world dependent on the practice of that religion. It useful or true only so long as people find it useful or truth. In that case, what differentiates your position from one of secular "flattened" values, where spirituality and religion is eschewed from metaphysics?

I respect all religions and the right of their adherents to believe according to their scriptures. It is a thorny social problem, though, when doctrines are taken prepositionally instead of metaphorically, because this tendency, at its worst, is what constitutes fundamentalism. By extension, any move towards taking doctrines literally is a move towards fundamentalism. In this uni-spatial dimension, only one religion can be the true one., and it is the tendency of those who do not think much to believe just this about their own chosen religion. It is also the tendency of those whose interests lie in controlling the "masses" to promote fundamentalism.

If there is an afterlife, then some religions might turn out to be more true than others as to their understanding of that; but since such a thing is completely unknowable to us (at least at present) then doctrines concerning immortal souls, resurrection, or reincarnation cannot have any genuine propositional sense for us.

In any case, do you believe it is a good idea to be motivated to live an ethical life by a desire to attain eternal life? The notion I think comes closest to making sense of eternal life is Spinoza's idea of gaining eternity now by seeing things sub specie aeternitatis. Beyond that possibility, I don't think we have any idea what "form" an eternal life could take.

Notice that I had amended that last barbed comment I made which was written in haste, before your quote of it appeared.

I don't believe in judgement (other than human judgement) at all, — John

That's what I mean by the 'one-dimensional' - nothing higher than individual judgement - nihil ultra ego' - as befits out individualist age.

When you go to a martial arts dojo, one thing you learn to do, is bow. It's something I learned from Buddhists, and it's an implicit recognition of something or someone worthy of reverence, venerable - that's what I mean by 'higher'. And I know that it grates - I think it's a valuable exercise to ask why it grates, why it is such a blatantly non-PC thing to say.

the only thing that religions all have in common, in my view, is that one can be spiritually converted (in the sense that one's life can be radically transformed) by coming to care more about something greater than oneself than one cares about oneself. But this "conversion" can be as true of a philosopher, a scientist, a lover, an artist, or even a Marxist, or any other completely secular person not affiliated with any institutionalized religion, as it can be of the faithful adherent of any tradition. — John

But, how could it? You mean, all 'views' are actually interchangeable - Marxist, scientist, whatever. But you've just sternly taken me to task for saying that religious ideas can be mapped against each other. Now anything will do! One can be very dedicated to anything, it could be said 'he practices his bassoon religiously'. But I am trying here to articulate the common vision of philosophy and philosophical spirituality - that is the idea of 'higher truth'. And I claim you can still discern that in Kant and Hegel, but it is what Nietszche deliberately sets out to destroy. And due to the one-dimensional nature of cultural discourse - it doesn't matter! It's all the same! Truth, falsehood - whatever. Which is exactly the kind of nihilism that Nietzsche both foresaw, and helped engender.

Notice that I had amended that last barbed comment I made which was written in haste, before your quote of it appeared. — Wayfarer

No problems; I am often enough guilty of "saying things in haste" myself.

You mean, all 'views' are actually interchangeable - Marxist, scientist, whatever. — Wayfarer

I'm not saying all views are interchangeable, but that all views that support caring for something greater are compatible with spiritual transformation. So, note that I don't believe that any doctrinal, conventional or ideological view is, merely inasmuch as it is a particular view, causative of transformation. I rather think doctrinal views are like symbolic vehicles that some people need in order to achieve the shift that we call spiritual transformation.

Unfortunately I don't have time for more than this right now.
:)

I have no problem with the discipline of comparing religions to one another, and I don't know what I said to make you think otherwise. — John

It was this:

The different conceptions of authority in different religions are very different, and cannot be "mapped against one another". — John

In my experience we philosopher types just itch to play the authoritative parent role. So we end up with frustration, since we are all trying to condescend to one another, vying perhaps to be the viceroy of the supreme Parent (science, rationality, true religion). This is like wanting to be the eldest child left in charge while the supreme (but also invisible) Parent is absent. — fQ9

It seems likely that you are generalizing and projecting your own desires here; this doesn't resonate with me at all. — John

Hi, John. I was trying to characterize what I see as an obstacle to freedom, which I might call an idolatry of Authority. On my own journey toward an increased sense of freedom and completeness, it was quite a moment when I realized that what Spengler called "ethical socialism" was optional rather than necessary. I realized I didn't have to find some universal truth or method. I didn't have to find and speak the One Truth. Among other things I find the desire to dominate or will-to-power in this notion of the single path/method/truth. That's what I mean by "we are bound by our desire to bind." The "I" is not yet negative or pure enough if it still leans on something external or objective. Letting go of this kind of dominance is still arguably will-to-power, but I consider it a sublimation.

An afterlife is worldly though, not metaphysical. For a religions claims to be true, for them to be right in some way, depends on the existence of a particular afterlife, on a relationship between existing states (our lives on Earth in the first instance, an existing afterlife in the second). It's entirely propositional. Rather than unknowable to us, it is just unknown (or rather unconfirmed), as we haven't yet got to observe the context of an afterlife.

No doubt it is fine to be motivated to live an ethical life, whether because of a belief in eternal life or not, but what does that have to do with metaphysics or religious claims about the world? It's a description of a utility to religious belief (some people are motivated to act ethically be the promise of eternal life), not of religious beliefs themselves and what they understand is so important.

You are saying to the religious person: "It's great you are motivated to be ethical by the promise of eternal life, but you don't really know what you're talking about, so we don't have to believe what your saying or act in the way you demand." It's disrespect for what makes their belief and what it is so important.

In any case, do you believe it is a good idea to be motivated to live an ethical life by a desire to attain eternal life? The notion I think comes closest to making sense of eternal life is Spinoza's idea of gaining eternity now by seeing things sub specie aeternitatis. Beyond that possibility, I don't think we have any idea what "form" an eternal life could take. — John

I think that's an error. It's a problem drawn from imagining eternal life is infinite. Considered as an infinite, it's impossible to define an afterlife because it would have to be without beginning or end. It's an outright contradiction: if an afterlife were infinite, it would have to always be around. We couldn't live on Earth and then have an (infinite) afterlife begin.

Since we are finite states, it's also impossible to define what constitutes an infinite life. It doesn't allow for the definition of any state or moment to constitute an afterlife. In an infinite afterlife, no-one could be or do anything-- it's absent everything that constitutes life.

But the infinite account is a misreading of just about every notion of the afterlife. Though afterlives are often "eternal (i.e. without end)," they are transfinite, rather than infinite. Instead of being without beginning or end, afterlives are actually finite, only endlessly emerging or repeating. After death, the individual retains their identity, their personality, their relationships, (sometimes) their property (buried with them) or some combination thereof. This is how people imagine it-- a solution to the worldly problem of death: a world (i.e. finite) in which there is no death.

Desperately holding on to an afterlife is sort of the opposite of seeing the world sub specie aeternitatis. It's an attempt to hold onto the world, to carry on the relevance of one particular subjectivity forever, rather than understand Substance or infinite which is always expressed.

To see the world sub specie aeternitatis is to understand it doesn't depend on you or anything you encounter. No matter what is happening in the world, Substance is so. Every state is expressing it, any state will express it. All states (logically) dependent only on themselves. Nihilism is dead (Meaning is necessary). God is dead (non-existent, Real, infinite). Idealism is dead (things are themselves, not logically defined by another finite state). Ethics are given in themselves (things themselves express moral value).

For someone who sees sub specie aeternitatis, an afterlife life is just another place in the Universe. Yet more instances of existence, subject to various worldly, political and ethical concerns (e.g. who gets in, are any religions right, etc.). An afterlife really has nothing to do with Substance, the infinite, Meaning or logic (i.e. metaphysics).

n other words the idea of higher judgment and authority is for those who cannot, or do not want to, think for themselves, trust their own judgements and be their own authorities. — John

This is roughly how I see things. Of course we assimilate messages from various authorities in order to construct our selves in the first place, so I see it as a transition from leaning on influences to finally embracing one's own authority. Ideally we fuse and update our influences to adapt to an always changing reality. We have to make it new, keep it fresh, add features, debug.

Some may find this interesting.

But in Thought, Self moves within the limits of its own sphere; that with which it is occupied – its objects are as absolutely present to it [as they were distinct and separate in the intellectual grade above mentioned] ; for in thinking I must elevate the object to Universality.[40] This is utter and absolute Freedom, for the pure Ego, like pure Light, is with itself alone [is not involved with any alien principle] ; thus that which is diverse from itself, sensuous or spiritual, no longer presents an object of dread, for in contemplating such diversity it is inwardly free and can freely confront it. A practical interest makes use of, consumes the objects offered to it: a theoretical interest calmly contemplates them, assured that in themselves they present no alien element. – Consequently, the ne plus ultra of Inwardness, of Subjectiveness, is Thought. Man is not free, when he is not thinking; for except when thus engaged he sustains a relation to the world around him as to another, an alien form of being. This comprehension – the penetration of the Ego into and beyond other forms of being with the most profound self-certainty [the identity of subjective and objective Reason being recognized], directly involves the harmonization of Being: for it must be observed that the unity of Thought with its Object is already implicitly present [i.e., in the fundamental constitution of the Universe], for Reason is the substantial basis of Consciousness as well as of the External and Natural. Thus that which presents itself as the Object of Thought is no longer an absolutely distinct form of existence [ein Jenseits], not of an alien and grossly substantial [as opposed to intelligible] nature. — Hegel

What the Will is in itself can be known only when these specific and contradictory forms of volition have been eliminated. Then Will appears as Will, in its abstract essence. The Will is Free only when it does not will anything alien, extrinsic, foreign to itself (for as long as it does so, it is dependent), but wills itself alone – wills the Will. This is absolute Will – the volition to be free. Will making itself its own object is the basis of all Right and Obligation – consequently of all statutory determinations of Right, categorical imperatives, and enjoined obligations. The Freedom of the Will per se, is the principle and substantial basis of all Right – is itself absolute, inherently eternal Right, and the Supreme Right in comparison with other specific Rights; nay, it is even that by which Man becomes Man, and is therefore the fundamental principle of Spirit. — Hegel

So Spirit is only that which it attains by its own efforts; it makes itself actually what it always was potentially.... What Spirit really strives for is the realization of its Ideal being; but in doing so, it hides that goal from its own vision, and is proud and well satisfied in this alienation from it. — Hegel

One thing I find problematical in many of these quotes is the usage of the word 'ego'. I think my understanding is more in line with Freud's who of course came along much later than Hegel or Fichte. But that is the view that ego is one's sense of personal identity or 'one's idea of oneself' - more like the 'persona' or person than the self as a fundamental principle. What's confusing is that Fichte and Hegel both use the term 'ego' in a way that is much nearer the Hindu 'atman'. That word also simply means the self (I think the first-person pronoun form). But in the philosophy of the vedanta, 'the self' is not 'the person' or 'the ego', indeed it is the ego with its attachments to the objects of sense which obscures the 'real self', so 'realising the self' is another description for realising moksha, or liberation.

I think that understanding is actually quite similar to the above, but the problem is words such as 'thought', 'ego', 'self', 'other', and 'absolute' are highly ramified, i.e. they have a particular meaning in light of the whole of Hegel's thought. But I think overall, you would agree, that such expressions are broadly speaking religious in outlook.

I still like the software metaphor. Our personalities evolve and (if we're lucky) we attain a state of equilibrium or general satisfaction. We have arrived somewhere. We are on top of some kind of mountain. Maybe it's not the only mountain. Maybe we no longer need it to be the only mountain. We project the height attained backwards as a potential within our younger selves. This is what we were aiming for all along. This is who was trying to get out. So perhaps we write lifephilosophy especially for some analog of that younger self. By assumption he's scaling our mountain. In retrospect we see shortcuts that we could have taken. Self-love conquers time as we pass these shortcuts on. He'll get there/here sooner than we did (or so we hope) and figure out more shortcuts for the next guy.

Our personalities evolve and (if we're lucky) we attain a state of equilibrium or general satisfaction. — fQ9

I think that is rather more modest than what Hegel was shooting for. ;-)

ne thing I find problematical in many of these quotes is the usage of the word 'ego'. I think my understanding is more in line with Freud's who of course came along much later than Hegel or Fichte. But that is the view that ego is one's sense of personal identity or 'one's idea of oneself' - more like the 'persona' or person than the self as a fundamental principle. — Wayfarer

As I understand it, all the petty or "finite" aspects of the self have to be burned away to reveal the I in its purity. The self has to raise itself up to God by abandoning finite content. It has to sift itself. A few more quotes.

There is something in its object concealed from consciousness if the object is for consciousness an “other”, or something alien, and if consciousness does not know the object as its self. This concealment, this secrecy, ceases when the Absolute Being qua spirit is object of consciousness. For here in its relation to consciousness the object is in the form of self; i.e. consciousness immediately knows itself there, or is manifest, revealed, to itself in the object. Itself is manifest to itself only in its own certainty of self; the object it has is the self; self, however, is nothing alien and extraneous, but inseparable unity with itself, the immediately universal. It is the pure notion, pure thought, or self-existence, (being-for-self), which is immediately being, and, therewith, being-for-another, and, qua this being-for-another, is immediately turned back into itself and is at home with itself (bei sich). It is thus the truly and solely revealed. The Good, the Righteous, the Holy, Creator of Heaven and Earth, etc. — all these are predicates of a subject, universal moments, which have their support on this central point, and only are when consciousness goes back into thought.
As long as it is they that are known, their ground and essential being, the Subject itself, is not yet revealed; and in the same way the specific determinations of the universal are not this universal itself. The Subject itself, and consequently this pure universal too, is, however, revealed as self; for this self is just this inner being reflected into itself, the inner being which is immediately given and is the proper certainty of that self, for which it is given. To be in its notion that which reveals and is revealed — this is, then, the true shape of spirit; and moreover, this shape, its notion, is alone its very essence and its substance. Spirit is known as self-consciousness, and to this self-consciousness it is directly revealed, for it is this self-consciousness itself. The divine nature is the same as the human, and it is this unity which is intuitively apprehended (angeschaut)

...
Therefore to attain its infinity the spirit must all the same lift itself out of purely formal and finite personality into the Absolute; i.e. the spiritual must bring itself into representation as the subject filled with what is purely substantial and, therein, as the willing and self-knowing subject. Conversely, the substantial and the true must not be apprehended as a mere ‘beyond’ of humanity, and the anthropomorphism of the Greek outlook must not be stripped away; but the human being, as actual subjectivity, must be made the principle, and thereby alone, as we already saw earlier [on pp. 435-6, 505-6], does the anthropomorphic reach its consummation.

This implies that the spirit, in order to win its totality and freedom, detaches itself from itself and opposes itself, as the finitude of nature and spirit, to itself as the inherently infinite. With this self-diremption there is bound up, conversely, the necessity of rising out of this state of scission (within which the finite and the natural, the immediacy of existence, the natural heart, are determined as the negative, the evil, and the bad) and of entering the realm of truth and satisfaction only through the overcoming of this negative sphere. Therefore the spiritual reconciliation is only to be apprehended and represented as an activity, a movement of the spirit, as a process in the course of which a struggle and a battle arises, and grief, death, the mournful sense of nullity, the torment of spirit and body enter as an essential feature. For just as God at first cuts himself off from finite reality, so finite man, who begins of himself outside the Kingdom of God, acquires the task of elevating himself to God, detaching himself from the finite, abolishing its nullity, and through this killing of his immediate reality becoming what God in his appearance as man has made objective as true reality. — Hegel

I think that is rather more modest than what Hegel was shooting for. ;-) — Wayfarer

You forget perhaps that I'm creatively misreading Hegel with my eyes wide open. I can't drag all of his glorious system into the 21st century. What I can do is assimilate some of his best passages and read them in a new light. I don't view him as an authority. I do love the old dragon, of course. But I'm going to take what I need and build my own system. My creativity these days is largely channelled into synthesizing and purifying this theory of the I or the theory of incarnate or mortal Freedom. The material is already out there. Of course German idealism is thick with it, but we can find it already in "All is vanity" and "Before Abraham was, I am." Or just religion in general, of course. I read these texts from a "realization" that is already past tense for me. I've been here (wherever this is) for almost 10 years, developing and perfecting my own brand of theology, which is hardly my own at all. Of course I know it's not for everyone. But that's OK. That's part of the freedom.

But I think overall, you would agree, that such expressions are broadly speaking religious in outlook. — Wayfarer

I've decided to embrace the term theology for what I'm interested in. Yes, it is religion. I am some kind of unorthodox Christian. One of the reasons I like the Germans is because they continue Christianity, the religion of my childhood. It's nice to connect one's end to one's beginning, to draw circles. I plan to live awhile, of course, but there is and has been a real sense of consummation.

Continuing the thought above:
In "all is vanity" we have what I view as the death of finite personality. Nihilism is like a dark night of the soul. It burns out any kind of God that is not pure spirit. As I understand it, spirit is nothing really other than its own self-consciousness. To say that God is spirit is to say that God is subjective or rather subjectivity itself in its highest state. Hegel insisted that History was the work of God, but I can't follow him there.

The I that am before Abraham was is or can be read as the absolute I. That is perhaps the most strange and beautiful passage in the New Testament. Direct unmediated access that precedes all tradition, though in truth this precedence is projected backwards from tradition's achieved consummation. In retrospect this direct access or spiritual potential was there all along. But the spirit in its finite attachments could only experience this as a threat to its nature, which was entangled in --identified with-- constraints on freedom. God is a devouring fire, the terror of finite personality. What survives the furnace is the perfectly free (because content-less and dis-identified) "I." Of course the empirical self lives on in its idiosyncrasies, so I'm thinking of the evolution of the ego ideal = the sacred.
But I'm aware as I write all of this that's it's just not going to work for or appeal to everyone. I still enjoy giving it the best shape that I can manage on the fly.

That is perhaps the most strange and beautiful passage in the New Testament. — fQ9

Actually it's from Genesis, when the Lord is asked His identity, he answers 'I am that I am'.

Nihilism is like a dark night of the soul. — fQ9

Nietzsche, as you're no doubt aware, predicted that nihilism would become widespread in the West, as a natural consequence of the 'death of God'. He understood, I think in a way that many more recent atheists do not, the sense in which this event removed the foundations for any kind of ethical normatives in Western culture. That was what, as I understand it, the 'uberman' and the will-to-power was supposed to remedy, although, as I have said, I am dubious in the extreme as to whether that was ever going to work.

Spiritual traditions and philosophies are, in my view, the record of those who have explored these questions. That doesn't make them right but on the other hand, they do provide many valuable perspectives, and I think they show up a lot of the things we generally take for granted about such ideas.

Actually it's from Genesis, when the Lord is asked His identity, he answers 'I am that I am'. — Wayfarer

Well, yeah, that's what JC is or was or rather am alluding to blasphemously.

On the other issue:

The world is going to Hell. The world is perfect. This is just my prejudice, but for me the spiritual differs from the political in its transcendence or abandonment of the world. We have to live and act in it, but the spiritual in us (as I understand it) sees through the drama, sees it as nothing, as ripples in the nothingness, or as relatively inessential. So there's something cold and terrible in the spiritual as I understand it. Not cruel or sadistic but detached, statue-like. For me it's a given that the world is noise and confusion that will eventually reclaim me. The true glory of human life is transcending the harried and fearful state of a hunted animal or a guilty child and standing serene and self-possessed in the chaos --seeing it as a nullity. The image of God in a man's soul is (as I see it) the pattern of this autonomy and self-posession. But for me (who hasn't uttered a prayer for decades) this is image as image, or the ideal I.

So "all is vanity" can be read as the voice of God within man as his awakened essence. But there is a world-weariness in that phrase, too. The thrill may indeed come and go for Solomon who was wise and astonished at nothing long since. But the gist is that I refuse to worry about the future of man or even about his present, at least when it comes to theology. Maybe I vote,etc., but that's not the highest. That's not the fruit. That's digging in the garden. Theology (for me) is precisely what finds the silence in the noise and the stillness in the movement.

You are saying to the religious person: "It's great you are motivated to be ethical by the promise of eternal life, but you don't really know what you're talking about, so we don't have to believe what your saying or act in the way you demand." It's disrespect for what makes their belief and what it is so important. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, I'm not saying that at all. I acknowledge that people may accept evidence for an afterlife that I would not. What evidence anyone accepts is up to them; or maybe it isn't, maybe people simply believe what they are disposed to, or are able to, believe. Personally I am constitutionally incapable of believing anything which is not either intuitively self-evident, or able to be rationally, mathematically or empirically demonstrated.

But I would never criticize anyone's deeply held beliefs except in a situation such as a forum like this where people willingly expose their ideas and beliefs to critique.You seem to have changed your tune; it always used to be you going on in a seemingly disparaging tone about people believing what you claim are falsehoods.

I think that's an error. It's a problem drawn from imagining eternal life is infinite. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What exactly do you mean by "infinite" here? I am not proposing that eternal life could be of infinite duration, because it logically cannot be of any duration at all, since the eternal is atemporal; and only temporal phenomena have duration. This is really just a matter of logical definition.

All states (logically) dependent only on themselves. Nihilism is dead (Meaning is necessary). God is dead (non-existent, Real, infinite). Idealism is dead (things are themselves, not logically defined by another finite state). Ethics are given in themselves (things themselves express moral value). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have no idea what you are getting at with these seemingly contradictory and/ or incoherent, even perverse, statements; you need to explain yourself a bit more if you want to receive any response.

OK, maybe you have a different definition of the term "mapped against". For me, for there to be a genuinely credible belief in divinely given authority there must be belief in a posited divine lawgiver. I don't think this idea really exists in Buddhism, or even in Hinduism (specifically Brahmanism).

However the idea of "perfect enlightenment" does exist in those religions which means that fallible humans are revered as spiritual authorities. I think this is a failing in those religions, and is subject to much abuse. But then, in a different way, so is the idea of divine authority as embodied in the leader of the Church, the Imam, or the Rabbi.

In any case I think the idea of divine authority, which is understood to be deliberately given by God via His Grace or revelation, is very different to the notion of spiritual authority gained by self-realized enlightenment, and guaranteed by transmission and succession. So, no, I don't think the two conceptions can be mapped onto one another at all; but they may certainly be compared, as I have just done in a very cursory way.

I think your issue is with religious authority, or authority figures. As you say, Western religion is very different in Buddhism which empowers the lineage of teachers who pass on the torch through a kind of distributed network. The European/Catholic model is based on a central authority and the power flows from and to the centre. But I think it's a mistake to characterise the whole idea of there being a higher truth in those terms. And I get that such expressions are very non-PC - it's interesting why they're like that. I think a lot of it stems from the fear of religion.

IN SPEAKING OF THE FEAR OF RELIGION, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Thomas Nagel

I would never criticize anyone's deeply held beliefs — John

Had the exact same dialogue with AndrewK a few weeks back. We respect people's beliefs, because we respect the right of people to believe them. Not because of their content, however.

We have to live and act in it, but the spiritual in us (as I understand it) sees through the drama, sees it as nothing, as ripples in the nothingness, or as relatively inessential. — fQ9

I don't think so. The Christian message is, after all, 'god so loved the world...' It is true that some forms of 'spirituality' can become sheer indifference, but I don't think that the authentic or worthwhile forms are like that.

In any case, as you know, Hegel had this magnificent scheme wherein the various nations and cultures were the expression of geist (from whence that marvellous word, 'zeitgeist').