Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[Walker]

Don't make me laugh, not heard of being your own shrink? why would any intelligent human being pay for their own knowledge?

Because they are depressed or mentally ill.

Having no experience in the matter or interest in researching, by cultural osmosis I’ve deduced:

- Psychiatric analysis, in which one is buying the undivided, detached attention of an expensive and extensive applied education, is quite expensive and as such, is an indulgence for those with either the money, or the required paperwork that gets issued with one or another attached string, whatever the specific paperwork or strings may be.

- Within the scope of modern medical training that focuses on treatment of disease, depression gets a prescription for pills, and probably not a lot of chatter or advice.

[Nick_A]

A_uk

It doesn't in general but in Nick_A's case it matters because he is saying what academic philosophy is and is not with the aim of denigrating it and promoting his guff. As such I think before one can make such a judgement one should actually know what one is talking about.

Academic philosophy is the process of sacrificing human understanding for the knowledge necessary to attain a degree in acceptable opinions. A person has a choice. They can learn what it means to grow in understanding in the direction of wisdom or strive for a degree proving loyalty to opinions.

[Nick_A]

A_uk

Sorry you don't seem to understand the cosmic man mentality.
I look forward to someone demonstrating it one day.

Not a good idea.Those with your mentality will just ridicule or eliminate them. Early spirit killing in institutions of child abuse called schools helps to prevent dealing with these disruptive influences at a later date. Socrates explains the process in the Cave Allegory:

[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

Now, coming out of the sun and not fully accustomed again to living in darkness, a person having experienced the light wants to share even though unsteady but is confronted with experts that at best only confuse everything and at worst kill him.

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

A tough position to be in. A person has to learn to how to avoid the flaming torches and sharpened pitchforks of irate experts chasing them as they try to do something meaningful for humanity. That’s a real education. As Jean Shepherd said, you have to keep your knees loose in order to react to those fast line drives coming your way.

[Belinda]

Dontaskme wrote:

The reason I've brought this up is because in my younger days...I used to milk cows, and did a very good job of it, I has no experience when I first took on my agricultural role in farming.. I just learnt the skills of farming as I went along. It's the same with parenting, no one is handed a manual on how to be a parent, you just have to muddle through the best you can do and hope you are doing it right. You'd think we'd have to have some special knowledge on the subject of raising kids given how much importance is put on what being a successful human represents. But no, no one thinks about that do they, it's just here we are, we have no experience on how to raise a child, and no one says you must have experience and special qualified knowledge on how to do it...we're just left to do it, often single handed when the other half decides to cop out of the whole responsibility.

My husband abandoned me and my 4 kids because he said it was not enough for him and that he wanted to challenge himself further, he some years later qualified as a fully professional osteopath..and in those years where he studied so very hard, he never once paid any child maintenance or wanted any contact with his children ever again. The child support agency could not find him either, he made sure he stayed well out of reach. Now, the question is, does that make him a professional just because he's an osteopath? ... would I trust a person like that?

I understand that today in modern society the dairy industry would not allow any tom, dick or harry to milk their cows.

What you are implying here ..is that you might just as well have said unless you are a professional philosopher and have earned a PHd in the subject to qualify you as such...then you are so totally misplaced and have no business to be participating in any discussion on this Philosophy Now Forum

I am impressed , and I think that obstreperous has helped you to do a good job. I would rather employ you to be a professional dairyman than any philosopher who has not had your experience. True, not all valuable experience is got from academia. Did some experienced dairyman not give you any helpful hints at all? I myself believe that philosophy is useless unless it can be applied to solving real life problems.

If I wanted to employ an osteopath to do osteopathy I'd choose your otherwise untrustworthy husband rather than someone who has not learned the specialised techniques, like why I'd rather choose you to milk my cow. Philosophy is largely specialised techniques to aid clear thinking about abstract problems. Cows , misaligned spines, and one's children are not abstract problems.

In another thread I suggested that the ethic underlying this forum is outreach. So nobody needs a high academic level of philosophic expertise to come here and contribute. It would be short sighted to disdain what one can learn from others who are more experienced in the specialism which is philosophy.

Dontaskme wrote:

Did the maker of all this need to read a manual on how to do it...noooo, of course not.

But the maker of all this is either blind nature , or omnipotent God. Neither of those has any need for a manual of instructions which would be a fallible human artefact. Academic philosophy is rather like a manual of instructions insofar as a philosopher in training gets to learn some very human techniques. Usually when any person is in training for any specialised skill, and that includes philosophy, milking cows, and parenting, it save a lot of time and energy to get advice from somebody who has already learned how to do it.

[Arising_uk]

Having no experience in the matter or interest in researching, by cultural osmosis I’ve deduced:

- Psychiatric analysis, in which one is buying the undivided, detached attention of an expensive and extensive applied education, is quite expensive and as such, is an indulgence for those with either the money, or the required paperwork that gets issued with one or another attached string, whatever the specific paperwork or strings may be.

- Within the scope of modern medical training that focuses on treatment of disease, depression gets a prescription for pills, and probably not a lot of chatter or advice.

Yeah well, that's your privatised health service for you. Over here we have the NHS and CBT.

[Arising_uk]

Academic philosophy is the process of sacrificing human understanding for the knowledge necessary to attain a degree in acceptable opinions. ...

Well for sure is you want to get a third class degree you can do this but if you want to get a upper class degree you need to say what you think of it all.

A person has a choice. ...

They do.

They can learn what it means to grow in understanding in the direction of wisdom or strive for a degree proving loyalty to opinions.

Or they can get an upper class degree by also saying what they think along with understanding what the others have said.

I'm at a loss to how you know all this, have you studied Philosophy?

[Arising_uk]

A_uk

Sorry you don't seem to understand the cosmic man mentality.
I look forward to someone demonstrating it one day.

...

Not a good idea.Those with your mentality will just ridicule or eliminate them. Early spirit killing in institutions of child abuse called schools helps to prevent dealing with these disruptive influences at a later date. Socrates explains the process in the Cave Allegory: ...

Oh! I get it now. Your 'Cosmic Man' is not Einstein's hope, it's your religious indoctrination looking for a second-coming to lead you like a sheep into the slaughter house. It's not the dream of a method to raise all men but the dream of the serf to follow their betters. This is why I dislike what you propose as your religious indoctrination has us as flawed, riven with original sin and incapable of ever staring unblinkered at reality. In need of a saviour rather than able to bootstrap ourselves to the Tree of Life.

[Nick_A]

Or they can get an upper class degree by also saying what they think along with understanding what the others have said.

So the stuffy upper class wannabes can say what they think in a manner appealing to the established upper class. Sheesh! It doesn’t seem like many behinds are being pinched with this crew.

I'm at a loss to how you know all this, have you studied Philosophy?

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” ~ Frank Zappa

It wasn’t necessary for me to go to college in order to get laid so I could read books instead. I did eventually go to college to study psychology but the teachers were all victims of psychology so could not intelligently teach it. It soon became obvious that the fallen human condition was the real problem and ignored in modern psychology so I was drawn to find those with real understanding as opposed to advocates of indoctrination.

[Arising_uk]

So the stuffy upper class wannabes can say what they think in a manner appealing to the established upper class. Sheesh! It doesn’t seem like many behinds are being pinched with this crew. ...

Who said anything about the upper-classes? Over here degrees are marked third class, second class, upper second class and first class.

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” ~ Frank Zappa

Over here you go to university and do both.

It wasn’t necessary for me to go to college in order to get laid so I could read books instead. I did eventually go to college to study psychology but the teachers were all victims of psychology so could not intelligently teach it. ...

I take it you didn't pass then.

It soon became obvious that the fallen human condition was the real problem and ignored in modern psychology so I was drawn to find those with real understanding as opposed to advocates of indoctrination.

What 'fallen human condition'? Psychologically speaking this sounds like the result of a religious indoctrination.

[Nick_A]

A_uk

What 'fallen human condition'? Psychologically speaking this sounds like the result of a religious indoctrination.

No. it is for anyone who hasn't yet fallen psychologically asleep to indoctrination. The human condition in short is the human tendency to make the obviously absurd appear to be and defended as normal.

[Greta]

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” ~ Frank Zappa

Reply is to the forum, not the OP, who cannot be trusted to speak civilly. Frank Zappa had no time for pushy religious types:

Anybody who wants religion is welcome to it, as far as I'm concerned--I support your right to enjoy it. However, I would appreciate it if you exhibited more respect for the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination.

Meanwhile, Einstein gave mixed messages. Prevarication is not surprising in those who think deeply about the nature of reality, considering all angles.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgement on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God.

Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

Note: Einstein differs significantly from the theists trying to claim him as one of theirs: his "infinitely superior spirit" has no interest in morality. Nor did whatever I felt during my peak experience. Einstein's comment is a complete repudiation of all Abrahamic religions, with their God and Allah solely interested in human morality. They were clearly created by Man in his own Image.

Einstein sensibly saw morality as an exclusively human concern - rules of engagement within cooperative groups. He would certainly not want religious "morality" taught in schools, especially given that throughout history religions have shown themselves as unable to resist abusing power as any self-obsessed despot.

The principle of "power corrupts" has largely held firm throughout all of history. That is why peace and prosperity have tended to follow political systems that diffused power amongst both competing individuals and of competing groups, denying one person or faction total control (and rampant theft from the state). Secular systems.

People are currently being fooled into Trumpian nihilism because, yes, modern society actually is becoming increasingly crowded and ugly. The governments are big, mechanistic and focused only on the welfare of powerful institutions. However, there are many worse systems, such as those under the yoke of theism or where the usual checks and balances on untrammelled power have been eroded.

Meanwhile, in his final year of life, Einstein makes clear how he felt about theists trying to co-opt him as one of their own:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

[Nick_A]

“If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.” ~ Frank Zappa

Reply is to the forum, not the OP, who cannot be trusted to speak civilly. Frank Zappa had no time for pushy religious types:

Anybody who wants religion is welcome to it, as far as I'm concerned--I support your right to enjoy it. However, I would appreciate it if you exhibited more respect for the rights of those people who do not wish to share your dogma, rapture, or necrodestination.

Meanwhile, Einstein gave mixed messages. Prevarication is not surprising in those who think deeply about the nature of reality, considering all angles.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgement on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God.

Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

Note: Einstein differs significantly from the theists trying to claim him as one of theirs: his "infinitely superior spirit" has no interest in morality. Nor did whatever I felt during my peak experience. Einstein's comment is a complete repudiation of all Abrahamic religions, with their God and Allah solely interested in human morality. They were clearly created by Man in his own Image.

Einstein sensibly saw morality as an exclusively human concern - rules of engagement within cooperative groups. He would certainly not want religious "morality" taught in schools, especially given that throughout history religions have shown themselves as unable to resist abusing power as any self-obsessed despot.

The principle of "power corrupts" has largely held firm throughout all of history. That is why peace and prosperity have tended to follow political systems that diffused power amongst both competing individuals and of competing groups, denying one person or faction total control (and rampant theft from the state). Secular systems.

People are currently being fooled into Trumpian nihilism because, yes, modern society actually is becoming increasingly crowded and ugly. The governments are big, mechanistic and focused only on the welfare of powerful institutions. However, there are many worse systems, such as those under the yoke of theism or where the usual checks and balances on untrammelled power have been eroded.

Meanwhile, in his final year of life, Einstein makes clear how he felt about theists trying to co-opt him as one of their own:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side," edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

You have a personal war with theists which is fine. This thread is about the potential for man on earth to become the cosmic man. The question of God is a separate issue. I've described my beliefs on the Panentheism thread. Einstein invites us to ponder why we aren't the cosmic man. He wrote:

Creation may be spiritual in origin, but that doesn’t mean that everything created is spiritual. How can I explain such things to you? Let us accept the world is a mystery. Nature is neither solely material nor entirely spiritual.

Man, too, is more than flesh and blood; otherwise, no religions would have been possible. Behind each cause is still another cause; the end or the beginning of all causes has yet to be found.................................

....................And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its ‘I am better than thou’ creed.

This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed.

The secularist does not experience their own pettiness. The Great Beast convinces them of their imagined greatness.

The question becomes why we don't "know thyself" but insist on justifying our imagination? Greta want to fight theism at the expense of the ability to witness the human condition as it exists in her. The Great Beast smiles its approval.

Now it's off to Montauk Point

[Greta]

Einstein as quoted above:

And as man becomes conscious of the stupendous laws that govern the universe in perfect harmony, he begins to realize how small he is. He sees the pettiness of human existence, with its ambitions and intrigues, its ‘I am better than thou’ creed.

This is the beginning of cosmic religion within him; fellowship and human service become his moral code. Without such moral foundations, we are hopelessly doomed.

This is the appreciation that the Earth is part of a greater system, and the solar system is art of a greater system, and the Milky Way, and perhaps the universe itself.

This is what Einstein was referring to. Being aware that human activity scuttling on the surface of the Earth is part of something greater, not the be-all-and-end-all. The danger is being exclusively focused on the social and forgetting about the nature from which societies sprang, and the nature of the cosmos and how it shaped, and continues to shape our destinies.

Trump and his new age theist supporters are not "cosmic people". Rather they are fixedly focused on the social and largely oblivious to nature, be it inner or outer. That's their preference. I personally find plants, animals, rocks, space and thought experiments to be as compelling as human society, and less mired in BS and triviality.

[Dontaskme]

But the maker of all this is either blind nature , or omnipotent God. Neither of those has any need for a manual of instructions which would be a fallible human artefact. Academic philosophy is rather like a manual of instructions insofar as a philosopher in training gets to learn some very human techniques. Usually when any person is in training for any specialised skill, and that includes philosophy, milking cows, and parenting, it save a lot of time and energy to get advice from somebody who has already learned how to do it.

But my point was/is always, this one here, me, puts all my trust in the one that made this one here, namely,me the not so fallible artefact.

How did it learn such a skill, who taught it to do this, did it read how to do it from a philosophy, science, physics, biology, geography, maths text book or maybe it read how to do it from the bible or the koran?

I mean...just who was/is it that wrote the very first book?

.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist ... I am fascinated by Spinozas Pantheism
I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers because
he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and body as one not as two separate things

I believe in Spinozas God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind

This firm belief a belief bound up with a deep feeling in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world
of experience represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as pantheistic

Treating soul and body as one, is a denial of the idea of soul. This demands mortality. Spinoza does not have a "god" technically, he is an atheist.
In his time people were either dead atheists or living pantheists. His works are remarkable in that he proves the existence of god only to completely unpack the meaning of the word to end up with a deterministic universe bound by the necessity of cause and effect.