-
Brendan Golledge
138All thinking animals (such as birds and mammals) appear to be hardwired to try to improve their emotional state. That one seeks after the "good" and tries to avoid the "bad" seem to be intrinsic to what "good" and "bad" are. Thus, hedonism is the default value system for animals such as ourselves.
Hedonism works fine for most animals because they aren't as smart as us and have very limited ability to imagine good and bad beyond their physical needs. But humans have imagination, so that we can invent good and bad that have no relation to our actual needs.
The emotional logic of hedonism (here just meaning to seek after good feeling for its own sake) is thus circular. We often have thoughts (usually unconsciously) that go like this: "I believe in X. Believing in X makes me feel good. Feeling good is intrinsically good. I will believe in X more." Nowhere in this thought process is there a check to see if X is actually true.
It seems to me that the most generalized way of avoiding belief in falsehoods that feel good is to disbelieve in the statement, "Feeling good is intrinsically good." This would mean belief in an objective morality. That means that there is a distinction between what is actually good and what feels good. There is no concept of "truth" in the absence of an objective morality, because then there would be no value to tell you not to believe whatever makes you feel good. For a hedonist (which is what most people are), there is no difference between what is true and what makes them feel good. But a genuinely truthful person has to be willing to feel pain in order to know what is true.
Having hard life circumstances helps in being honest, even without much self-reflection. If life punishes you harshly for believing in foolishness (such as by denying you food or turning you into a social outcast), then it does not take a philosopher to figure out that one needs to change one's behavior. It seems to me that rich people can often be the most foolish (especially if they did not have to work hard to earn their wealth), because their wealth protects them from the consequences of their stupid opinions.
Choosing an objective morality is very hard, because all values are arbitrarily asserted. This is because of the is-ought dilemma. There is no way to take a physical measure of goodness. So, moral argumentation only works when the person you're arguing with already shares at least some of your arbitrarily asserted moral values. Humans are extremely social creatures, so we most-often take our objective morality from social pressure, which is usually (but not currently in the west) rooted in tradition. It is hard to do anything else but look outside of ourselves for guidance, because values are arbitrarily asserted, and the primary thing inside of ourselves that we can use as a reference is that we want to feel good, which is not a basis for an objective morality, as discussed above. So, people are always looking outside of themselves for some guidance on what they ought to do.
If humans are hardwired to lie to themselves to make themselves feel good, then it becomes clear that our opinions are not to be trusted. A great deal of our energy is spent in foolishness, and most of our personal opinions are false.
I will discuss how I believe people have dealt with this phenomena in the past. I believe that Buddhism and Christianity both deal with what I have described above. To paraphrase, it seems like Buddhism says that people cause themselves to suffer by caring about stuff outside of their control. And as for Christianity, if you define "pride" as lies we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good, then it becomes immediately clear that pride is indeed a very big problem that humans have to deal with.
I believe that religion at its highest is conscious attention paid to one's inner state. Buddhism and Christianity (I pay most attention to Christianity because it is in my tradition) are the religions most concerned with this. This is why these are virtually the only two religions that have a concept of monasticism; these religions believe more so than other religions that inner work is good for its own sake. These two religions provide their own objective moral framework for the believer to use as a yardstick in his own inner work.
I believe that many Christians mistake their own private conscience as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This would explain how it is possible that there is so much confusion in the church, while each individual believer is so sure that he's right. Anyway, this insight made prayer easy for me. I just sit quietly without distractions and wait for some thought or "voice" to pop into my head. I consider what it has to say and maybe have a dialogue with it. This is how one orders one's inner world.
There are books that have been written on how to do inner work, but I think this is the most important piece of advice. It is simply to be quiet, not distract yourself with anything, and pay attention to the thoughts that spontaneously arise from within one's self. With practice, you will be able to teach yourself about yourself.
Since I do not believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, taking Christian morals uncritically is not suitable for me when I have to make a moral choice in my inner work. I have come up with my own objective morality, but discussing that would require a whole other discussion. Having a proper discussion on the moral precepts in traditional moralities would as well.
I have written books and posted essays on how to order one's inner world before, but most people don't read them. So, the goal of this post is just to convince people that there is a problem in living without self-reflection (that your opinions are probably flattering lies), and that drawing conscious attention to organizing one's inner world is an activity worth doing. I figure if I can convince someone of this, then he has a mind of his own and may be able to make some progress in this regard without any further help from me.
I might call this subject "subjective science", because like in the objective science we're all familiar with, there is a structure to one's inner world which can be studied, understood, and manipulated. However, one's inner state can't be shared with other people the same way one can take measurements of physical bodies, so that one's study has to always be personal. I think the difficulty/impossibility of taking accurate measurements of one's inner state causes the scientifically minded to discount the importance of subjective experience. But this throws your life out of balance because YOU ARE your subjective experience, so discounting the importance of it discounts the importance of one's own life.
I think religious traditions are a mixture of good psychology, bad science, and lots of random circumstances from their historical development. It can be hard to separate them. I think serious religious traditions are on the edge between pseudoscience (like astrology) and a genuine area of study in its own right, which as of yet has no name. When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject. I would invite you to study this subject. You can do much of the work without even getting out of your chair (although using something or another as a guide would be very helpful). -
schopenhauer1
11kI think religious traditions are a mixture of good psychology, bad science, and lots of random circumstances from their historical development. It can be hard to separate them. I think serious religious traditions are on the edge between pseudoscience (like astrology) and a genuine area of study in its own right, which as of yet has no name. When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject. I would invite you to study this subject. You can do much of the work without even getting out of your chair (although using something or another as a guide would be very helpful). — Brendan Golledge
It all comes down to "why do anything?". Once you go through the dialectic, it leads to questioning procreation and survival. And rightfully, it questions modern secular philosophies like hedonism, "economics as religion", and existentialism. This doesn't mean to then turn to the warm embrace of religion. That is a falsehood as well.
However, the universality of some religious ideas (the One, Nirvana, etc.) can counteract the absurdity of minutia-mongering. If you JUST figured out how that transmission works, you would be a better person, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to start an innovative X, more useful. If you JUST figured out how to solve the meaning and essence of words (philosophy of language debates), or the best physics model (theoretical physics debates), or know the intricate details of any subject, you will be edified with your knowledge. You will be BETTER, you will be USEFUL. QUESTION ALL OF THIS THINKING, whether you think minutia-mongering is more USEFUL, makes you BETTER, or you think MEANING comes from delving deeper into the minutia of a topic at hand you think is important.
As for the "religious experience", people generally seem to mean "flow states" or "meditative psychological states". These are ways to preoccupy the chatter of the restless mind. -
T Clark
14kI enjoyed your OP. It's well-written and clear. I found a lot to disagree with and I think you make many over-broad statements that aren't necessarily consistent with my understanding of ethnology, human psychology and cognitive science, and sociology. I also think your tone is a bit presumptuous - expressing your opinions as fact. On the other hand, I was surprised to find I agree with you on some important points. Some thoughts:
All thinking animals (such as birds and mammals) appear to be hardwired to try to improve their emotional state. That one seeks after the "good" and tries to avoid the "bad" seem to be intrinsic to what "good" and "bad" are. Thus, hedonism is the default value system for animals such as ourselves.
Hedonism works fine for most animals because they aren't as smart as us and have very limited ability to imagine good and bad beyond their physical needs. But humans have imagination, so that we can invent good and bad that have no relation to our actual needs. — Brendan Golledge
I agree that a lot of human and animal motivation and behavior is hardwired, but I think your take is over-simplistic. As I understand it, animal, including human, behavior doesn't aim at improving their "emotional state." It aims at maintaining the equilibrium of their living systems - homeostasis. Emotions are, among other things, a sign that things are out of balance and a motivation to act.
It seems to me that the most generalized way of avoiding belief in falsehoods that feel good is to disbelieve in the statement, "Feeling good is intrinsically good." This would mean belief in an objective morality. That means that there is a distinction between what is actually good and what feels good...
Choosing an objective morality is very hard, because all values are arbitrarily asserted. This is because of the is-ought dilemma. There is no way to take a physical measure of goodness. So, moral argumentation only works when the person you're arguing with already shares at least some of your arbitrarily asserted moral values. Humans are extremely social creatures, so we most-often take our objective morality from social pressure, which is usually (but not currently in the west) rooted in tradition. It is hard to do anything else but look outside of ourselves for guidance, because values are arbitrarily asserted, and the primary thing inside of ourselves that we can use as a reference is that we want to feel good, which is not a basis for an objective morality, as discussed above. So, people are always looking outside of themselves for some guidance on what they ought to do. — Brendan Golledge
This is confusing. You say you are looking for objective morality, but you also acknowledge that moral values are arbitrary. Perhaps a better word would be "formal" rather than "objective."
If humans are hardwired to lie to themselves to make themselves feel good, then it becomes clear that our opinions are not to be trusted. A great deal of our energy is spent in foolishness, and most of our personal opinions are false. — Brendan Golledge
This is one of those presumptuous statements I was talking about. As I've said, we are not hardwired to make ourselves feel good by lying. Can our opinions be trusted? Sure, maybe, sometimes, often. This is the biggest issue in western philosophy and you've side-stepped it with six words - our opinions are not to be trusted. You say we spend a lot our time in foolishness - more pontification on your part.
I believe that religion at its highest is conscious attention paid to one's inner state. Buddhism and Christianity (I pay most attention to Christianity because it is in my tradition) are the religions most concerned with this. This is why these are virtually the only two religions that have a concept of monasticism; these religions believe more so than other religions that inner work is good for its own sake. These two religions provide their own objective moral framework for the believer to use as a yardstick in his own inner work. — Brendan Golledge
Now we get into the part where I agree with some of what you say. My goal in life is to become more self-aware, what you call paying conscious attention to my inner state, and philosophy is one of the ways I pursue that goal. I can't speak with any authority about Buddhism or Christianity, but I question your assertion those two religions are the ones most concerned with that. My personal adult experience is with Taoism, and, as I understand it, it is all about self-awareness.
I believe that many Christians mistake their own private conscience as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This would explain how it is possible that there is so much confusion in the church, while each individual believer is so sure that he's right. Anyway, this insight made prayer easy for me. I just sit quietly without distractions and wait for some thought or "voice" to pop into my head. I consider what it has to say and maybe have a dialogue with it. This is how one orders one's inner world. — Brendan Golledge
You describe your inner world as if it's the only way to see these things. It's not. On the other hand, I also have experienced that voice pop into my head. For me, that voice is not how I "order my inner world." It is a sign that I have done so.
There are books that have been written on how to do inner work, but I think this is the most important piece of advice. It is simply to be quiet, not distract yourself with anything, and pay attention to the thoughts that spontaneously arise from within one's self. With practice, you will be able to teach yourself about yourself. — Brendan Golledge
That's my cue to roll out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once a month here on the forum.
You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet. — Franz Kafka
your opinions are probably flattering lies — Brendan Golledge
Such disrespectful arrogance. Why should anyone listen to you?
there is a structure to one's inner world which can be studied, understood, and manipulated. However, one's inner state can't be shared with other people the same way one can take measurements of physical bodies, so that one's study has to always be personal. — Brendan Golledge
I don't disagree that it might be difficult to study our and other's inner lives, but it certainly is not impossible. We do it all the time - colloquially and scientifically.
a genuine area of study in its own right, which as of yet has no name. — Brendan Golledge
I don't know what this means.
When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject. — Brendan Golledge
This doesn't strike me as a particularly true or particularly useful way of looking at things. -
Tom Storm
9.2kIt seems to me that the most generalized way of avoiding belief in falsehoods that feel good is to disbelieve in the statement, "Feeling good is intrinsically good." This would mean belief in an objective morality. That means that there is a distinction between what is actually good and what feels good. There is no concept of "truth" in the absence of an objective morality, because then there would be no value to tell you not to believe whatever makes you feel good. For a hedonist (which is what most people are), there is no difference between what is true and what makes them feel good. But a genuinely truthful person has to be willing to feel pain in order to know what is true. — Brendan Golledge
Sounds like a fairly conservative take on good. I am uncertain what 'good' means and how it can be identified. The only thing I can say is that to cause suffering deliberately would appear to be bad. Does it follow that to prevent suffering is good?
Aren't all human choices motivated by wanting to feel satisfied in some way, regardless of whether it involves pleasure or pain? Isn't that why we have the idea of psychological egoism? Even when people act in ways that appear to be self-sacrificing or aimed at benefiting others, they are actually motivated by the pursuit of personal satisfaction, whether it be through direct pleasure, the avoidance of guilt, or the fulfilment of a sense of duty.
Doing good to satisfy a philosophy or please a god would ultimately seem to be a pursuit of personal pleasure. Do you think one can transcend self-interest?
For a hedonist (which is what most people are), there is no difference between what is true and what makes them feel good. — Brendan Golledge
I'm not sure in what sense you mean this. Most people are not overly concerned by what is true. I would say a lot of hedonists I know feel some guilt about having pleasure while a relative or some other people are suffering. But they will justify or work to overlook this. -
wonderer1
2.2kI think religious traditions are a mixture of good psychology, bad science, and lots of random circumstances... — Brendan Golledge
Considering that psychology is a science, your statement there seems a bit incoherent.
I think we could reasonably say, that history shows religious traditions disseminate passable folk-psychologies, as evidenced by the fact that there are societies still maintaining those traditions.
However, to suggest that religious traditions result in good understanding of psychology, seems rather naive to me. Not to say that consideration of religious perspectives doesn't contribute to psychological insight, but I could tell you horror stories about the results of a strongly religion based 'understanding' of psychology. -
Wayfarer
22.9kAll thinking animals (such as birds and mammals) appear to be hardwired to try to improve their emotional state — Brendan Golledge
Contentious statement. First, there is no way of knowing, or of testing, whether animals have emotional states. ‘Thinking animals’ is also a contentious claim, as what ‘thinking’ implies, and whether animals are capable of it, is vaguely defined and probably untestable. Then the first paragraph glides directly into ‘animals such as ourselves’, when it is precisely self-consciousness, language and abstract thought that differentiates h.sapiens from other organisms. Ergo the argument is based on questionable foundations. -
Wayfarer
22.9kI detest behaviourism. I know dogs have moods, because I've owned many. But then domestic dogs have existed in a symbiotic relationship with humans for 50,000 years. Cats, it's hard to tell. Animals play - I'm sure fish jump and whales breech for the sheer fun of it. But it's still a leap to say that this reflects an emotional state in the human sense, it could well be anthropomorphic projection. And also that, on this basis 'hedonism' underlies animal, and therefore human behaviour.
This OP contains many sweeping claims. -
Wayfarer
22.9kBehaviourist after making love: 'That was wonderful for you, dear. How was it for me?'
-
Wayfarer
22.9kI'll add that whilst I question whether animals think and have emotional states, I don't question that they are subjects of experience. In fact I'm strongly drawn to the idea that the appearance of life just is the appearance of subjective awareness, even if in very rudimentary form.
-
T Clark
14kFirst, there is no way of knowing, or of testing, whether animals have emotional states. ‘Thinking animals’ is also a contentious claim, as what ‘thinking’ implies, and whether animals are capable of it, is vaguely defined and probably untestable. — Wayfarer
I am surprised, shocked actually, to hear you say this. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has seen animals, much less owned them as pets, would not understand that animals have the same kinds of emotions we do and that those emotions fill the same role as ours. To deny this conflicts with with my personal experience and my understanding of ethology, human psychology, and biology. Evolution does not build new genetic and organic structures from nowhere. It builds them out of what is already there. The bones of our inner ears started out as the jaw bones of fish. Ditto with our mental capacities.
I don't propose we get into a discussion about this here. I'm interested in the subject but I'm not qualified to make my case any better than I have here. It would also be out of the scope of this discussion as expressed in the OP. -
T Clark
14kGranted, but not clearly relevant to what I was interested in discussing with ↪Brendan Golledge. — wonderer1
I think it is relevant. You say the validity of the psychological understanding expressed by religious beliefs is somehow invalid because of the consequences of actions by religious institutions. If that's true, and I don't think it is, the same can be said for the physical, chemical, and technological knowledge resulting from science. -
T Clark
14kNo, I didn't say anything about actions by religious institutions. — wonderer1
You wrote:
I could tell you horror stories about the results of a strongly religion based 'understanding' of psychology. — wonderer1
How is that different from what I said? Perhaps you can provide an example of one of the horror stories. -
T Clark
14kMy father, shortly before he entered seminary, spanked me until I was black and blue when I was six months old, and my mother stayed with him. — wonderer1
I'm sorry it happened to you, but I don't see how it is relevant to your point. Both religious and non-religious people do things like that.
I don't want to pry any deeper, so I'll leave it at that. -
Brendan Golledge
138Oh wow I thought I'd reply to everything during my lunch break, but it looks like there is too much.
-
Brendan Golledge
138I found a lot to disagree with and I think you make many over-broad statements that aren't necessarily consistent with my understanding of ethnology, human psychology and cognitive science, and sociology. I also think your tone is a bit presumptuous - expressing your opinions as fact. — T Clark
I wouldn't be surprised if I made some mistakes. It felt like years ago that my opinions on things developed to the point where there was no name for what I believed, and then I just kept thinking. And then when I try to share my ideas, most people don't engage or are vacuously hostile. So, I have very little other than my own opinions of my ideas as a check on whether they are right or not.
I agree that a lot of human and animal motivation and behavior is hardwired, but I think your take is over-simplistic. As I understand it, animal, including human, behavior doesn't aim at improving their "emotional state." It aims at maintaining the equilibrium of their living systems - homeostasis. Emotions are, among other things, a sign that things are out of balance and a motivation to act. — T Clark
Well, obviously all of our instincts, desires, and emotions are wired to keep us alive. But it seems to me that the way emotions do that is that they make us try to make ourselves happy. It seems like a common-sense thing that we prefer to be happy rather than sad.
I've thought before that instincts appear to be those behaviors which act without thinking (like blinking), desires are from the body but require conscious action to act upon (like hunger), and emotions require conscious thought for both the feeling to occur and to act upon them (like happiness). I spend most of my time focusing on emotions because they are most under our control.
This is confusing. You say you are looking for objective morality, but you also acknowledge that moral values are arbitrary. Perhaps a better word would be "formal" rather than "objective." — T Clark
That word choice may have been better. I suppose I think a morality has to seem "objective" to the believer in order to mean anything, even if in reality there are many conflicting moralities believed in by different people with no way of proving which is right.
If humans are hardwired to lie to themselves to make themselves feel good, then it becomes clear that our opinions are not to be trusted. A great deal of our energy is spent in foolishness, and most of our personal opinions are false.
— Brendan Golledge
Now we get into the part where I agree with some of what you say. My goal in life is to become more self-aware, what you call paying conscious attention to my inner state, and philosophy is one of the ways I pursue that goal. I can't speak with any authority about Buddhism or Christianity, but I question your assertion those two religions are the ones most concerned with that. My personal adult experience is with Taoism, and, as I understand it, it is all about self-awareness. — T Clark
I suppose we are very similar in that respect. I am not an expert on every religion, so I am not surprised if I neglected to mention some other religion which is more inward focused.
It seems clear at least that Christianity is more inward focused than many other religions. Take Islam, for instance. All the commands are outward focused, like professing a belief in Muhammad, taking a pilgrimage, giving to the poor, etc. The two main commandments in Christianity are to love one's neighbor as one's self and to love God with all one's heart. And the 7 deadly sins (I know this is a Catholic thing) are inward orientations of the soul rather than particular actions. And the Jewish commandments are also outward focused (although Jesus said they are aimed at loving God and neighbor). I've seen interviews from 2 different Jews who said for instance that they don't care if people hate Jews; they only care about how people treat Jews. And they said themselves that Judaism is more Earthly focused than Christianity.
You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.
— Franz Kafka — T Clark
I'd never heard that quote before. Maybe I should read Franz Kafka.
When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject.
— Brendan Golledge
This doesn't strike me as a particularly true or particularly useful way of looking at things. — T Clark
I believe values (what we care about) are the root of our emotional experience, and our emotions drive what things we think about, and what we think about drives what we do. So, studying the self is really the same as studying values. And that's really the same as morality. And this is also what religion is concerned with. -
Brendan Golledge
138If human beings prefer to feel happy rather than to feel sad, and if we have the capacity to lie to ourselves, then it seems immediately apparent that we have the problem of lying to ourselves to make ourselves happy. I would think that the main point of disagreement would be how common this is.
Given that there is enormous disagreement about a variety of topics which people have strong opinions about (politics, religion, economics, morality, etc), it seems clear that most people have to be wrong about much of what they believe. If 10 people have conflicting opinions about a subject, then it's clear that it's not possible for more than 1 out of 10 to be right. It is clear that this is the state of affairs for many subjects that people get worked up over. I believe that much of people's false beliefs come from pride, but I admit I have not demonstrated this.
I will give some examples of stuff that I'm guessing may not have been clear.
Starting with how we lie to ourselves: It seems to me that in whatever way a person happens to be gifted, he tends to think that that is the most important thing. For instance, a beautiful woman may think that being beautiful is most important, a smart person may think that being smart is most important (I have done this before), a physically fit person may think that being physically fit is most-important. We tend to elevate whatever we are good at and dismiss whatever we aren't good at.
Much of entertainment involves unconscious deception. It seems to me that fans of spectator sports sometimes get so worked up because they imagine that they actually have some connection to the team involved when they really don't. Video games can give a false sense of accomplishment (I have fallen prey to this). Social media gives a false sense of social validation (I think this is something more common to women). Participating in great and distant causes (like voting for a political party, or giving to a charity to help people in Africa) can be a way of feeling good about ourselves while we neglect the simple and humble things in our own lives that we have much more control over.
I came up with a pride filter once. It seems to me that the only thing that we experience having control over (whether or not free will truly exists) is our choices. So, the only thing it is proper to congratulate ourselves on is that we have made good choices. Self-congratulation about any other thing involves deception, because in reality, anything else good in our lives is outside of our control. It is better in those cases to feel grateful. I tried practicing for a few months rejecting every positive feeling about myself that did not come from choosing to do my best, and it was exhausting. I later decided that it was easier to focus positively on good things than to avoid the bad (as Paul says once in the New Testament).
On the feeling of offense: It seems to me that people can only ever be offended by the truth. If you will tell a beautiful woman, "You're ugly and no man will ever want you," she'll probably pay it no attention. Same as if you told Elon Musk for Bill Gates, "You're a poor stupid loser." So, whenever a person gets offended by an idea, he is admitting that he finds truth in what he is offended by.
It is also possible to be offended by circumstances rather than ideas. For instance, most people probably find flat-Earthism to be ridiculous, and so they aren't offended by the idea. But they may get offended if their kids were to be taught the subject at school.
On harsh pointless judgment: It seems to me that the emotional motivation for harsh judgment is distraction from our own faults. For a truly humble person, if, for instance, he saw a fat smoker on the street, he'd probably notice that those were bad things, and then move onto the next thing without being bothered. Or maybe he'd feel sorry for the guy. However, a person who maybe had a drinking problem (but was a healthy weight and didn't smoke), might see the fat smoker and think, "That guy has no self-control. What a loser." The motivation for this kind of judgement is to distract from one's own faults. I think sometimes you have to judge, such as when you decide whether to work at a certain company or whether to marry a certain person. But in those situations, there is a specific purpose for the judgment. If one judges just for the sake of it, then there's a pretty good chance that whatever you throw at the other person is actually an arrow pointed right back at yourself.
I will quit here because I'm supposed to be working. -
wonderer1
2.2kSo, I have very little other than my own opinions of my ideas as a check on whether they are right or not. — Brendan Golledge
Perhaps this is a problem with considering a monastic life to be conducive to developing psychological insight? Considered from a neuroscientific perspective, a monastic life could be considered to be starving one's brain of the input that comes with interacting with diverse people in diverse situations. It doesn't seem to me like a monastic life would be very conducive to developing robust intuitons regarding human psychology.
To take it back to Christianity, do you think the diversity of people who Jesus is purported to have associated with might have been relevant to Jesus being particularly psychologically insightful? -
Tom Storm
9.2kYou do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.
— Franz Kafka
— T Clark
I'd never heard that quote before. Maybe I should read Franz Kafka. — Brendan Golledge
There's a kind of companion quote which I prefer and it comes from Pascal - “All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
Re Kafka - I suspect that if you don't discover him in your 20's, he may be less affecting. I like The Metamorphosis and The Trial best. -
Joshs
5.8k
Perhaps this is a problem with considering a monastic life to be conducive to developing psychological insight? Considered from a neuroscientific perspective, a monastic life could be considered to be starving one's brain of the input that comes with interacting with diverse people in diverse situations. It doesn't seem to me like a monastic life would be very conducive to developing robust intuitons regarding human psychology — wonderer1
I suspect the lion’s share of those intuitions are formed by early adulthood , which may explain why philosophers like Heidegger, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were able to generate profound psychological insights while living essentially monastic lives. -
T Clark
14kwhen I try to share my ideas, most people don't engage or are vacuously hostile. So, I have very little other than my own opinions of my ideas as a check on whether they are right or not. — Brendan Golledge
I am a big fan of introspection, so I have no problem with looking within for answers, but that doesn't compensate for opinions that are just objectively wrong.
Well, obviously all of our instincts, desires, and emotions are wired to keep us alive. But it seems to me that the way emotions do that is that they make us try to make ourselves happy. It seems like a common-sense thing that we prefer to be happy rather than sad. — Brendan Golledge
You make two unrelated statements. First you say the way emotions help keep us alive is to try to make ourselves happy. This is mostly wrong. Then you say that we prefer to be happy than sad, which is generally true, but irrelevant.
I've thought before that instincts appear to be those behaviors which act without thinking (like blinking), — Brendan Golledge
These are reflexes, not instincts.
desires are from the body but require conscious action to act upon (like hunger) — Brendan Golledge
Desires are from all over the place. Some are definitely instinctive others are learned or socially mediated. Acting on those desires may be based on conscious decisions but are not necessarily. In my experience, conscious action is more likely to restrict the fulfilling of desires than support them.
It seems clear at least that Christianity is more inward focused than many other religions. Take Islam, for instance. All the commands are outward focused, like professing a belief in Muhammad, taking a pilgrimage, giving to the poor, etc. The two main commandments in Christianity are to love one's neighbor as one's self and to love God with all one's heart. And the 7 deadly sins (I know this is a Catholic thing) are inward orientations of the soul rather than particular actions. — Brendan Golledge
This seems like a very simplistic analysis. More than that - it's presumptuous unless you are a student of religion, which you indicate you are not.
I'd never heard that quote before. Maybe I should read Franz Kafka. — Brendan Golledge
I've never been able to read Kafka's books. They are bleak and depressing and I find their lessons obscure unless it is just that we should all despair. I don't know where the quote I provided comes from.
I believe values (what we care about) are the root of our emotional experience, and our emotions drive what things we think about, and what we think about drives what we do. So, studying the self is really the same as studying values. And that's really the same as morality. And this is also what religion is concerned with. — Brendan Golledge
I disagree with just about everything in this paragraph.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum