For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:44 pmYeah, I noticed already.
My sweet honey-tongued spirit medium and guide told me to look out for angels bearing forks
The armour of your dharma saves your karma from the embalmer!So, is it the case that philosophy is best pursued in real conversation...and is academic philosophy a distortion of its original therapeutic impulse?..The philosophy teacher's discourse could be presented in such a way that the disciple, as auditor, reader, or interlocutor, could make spiritual progress and transform himself within."[7]
Hadot shows that the key to understanding the original philosophical impulse is to be found in Socrates.
What characterizes Socratic therapy above all is the importance given to living contact between human beings.
Hadot's recurring theme is that philosophy in antiquity was characterized by a series of spiritual exercises intended to transform the perception, and therefore the being, of those who practice it; that philosophy is best pursued in real conversation and not through written texts and lectures; and that philosophy, as it is taught in universities today, is for the most part a distortion of its original, therapeutic impulse. He brings these concerns together in What Is Ancient Philosophy?,[7] which has been critically reviewed.[8]'
-----------Dear Earlier Self,
I am writing this to you as you are taking your first philosophy courses in college. You are seventeen, a freshman in college and you are trying to make sense of it all: what is academic philosophy and how does it relate to the broader society. I am now thirty-seven, went through academic philosophy as a student and a professor, and I am trying to make sense of it all. Perhaps what I say might be helpful to you...
http://theroughground.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... sophy.html
Hadot’s "Philosophy as a Way of Life", "What is Ancient Philosophy", and "The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius" are helpful for seeing philosophy as therapeutic and transformative practice, an aspect of philosophy that has been occluded by a narrow focus on rationality and the idea that truth is impersonal. This is, however, not merely a matter of historical interest. Wittgenstein, for example, was aware of the spiritual, therapeutic, and transformative dimension of philosophy. Frege'sdogmatic rejection of psychologism is now no longer universally accepted by analytic philosophers as an obvious truth. There is a growing acknowledgement that philosophy as abstraction from human being in the service to Truth is fundamentally wrong, that philosophy is essentially grounded in human life. I see this not as a matter of academic versus non-academic philosophy but as a possibility for a correction within academic philosophy. Works by Princeton professor of philosophy Alexander Nehamas, such as "The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault" and "On Friendship" might be signposts for the direction of academic philosophy, or they might be disregarded as wooly-headed and soft, literature not philosophy, and this too might be seen as a signpost, a sign of philosophy’s inability to self-correct, of its increasing narrowness and irrelevance.… Pierre Hadot ....
Thank you so much for this.fooloso4 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:34 pm marjoram_blues:
Hadot’s "Philosophy as a Way of Life", "What is Ancient Philosophy", and "The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius" are helpful for seeing philosophy as therapeutic and transformative practice, an aspect of philosophy that has been occluded by a narrow focus on rationality and the idea that truth is impersonal. This is, however, not merely a matter of historical interest. Wittgenstein, for example, was aware of the spiritual, therapeutic, and transformative dimension of philosophy. Frege'sdogmatic rejection of psychologism is now no longer universally accepted by analytic philosophers as an obvious truth. There is a growing acknowledgement that philosophy as abstraction from human being in the service to Truth is fundamentally wrong, that philosophy is essentially grounded in human life. I see this not as a matter of academic versus non-academic philosophy but as a possibility for a correction within academic philosophy. Works by Princeton professor of philosophy Alexander Nehamas, such as "The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault" and "On Friendship" might be signposts for the direction of academic philosophy, or they might be disregarded as wooly-headed and soft, literature not philosophy, and this too might be seen as a signpost, a sign of philosophy’s inability to self-correct, of its increasing narrowness and irrelevance.… Pierre Hadot ....
Of course as the Great Beast grows in its power and influence, humility and the inner appreciation of our place within creation lessens. Pride and vanity become dominant influences. There can only be the struggle for prestige opposing common intellectual and emotional space which stands in opposition to the intent of the dialectic and degenerates it into the pursuit of politically correct lies reconciling philosophical discussion. It is called progress."The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also." ~ Simone Weil
Oxymorons like "spiritual secularism" do that to me. I think it's a way secularists have of making themselves feel better about themselves -- a way of alleviating of their existential angst.marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:45 pmReflex wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pmThat answers my question.marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:55 am
It's not an oxymoron. You would recognize this if you make time and effort to read and reflect rather than reflexively react.
Note: I didn’t say a secular person can’t also be spiritual, but secularism is not spiritual by definition. But it seems clarity doesn’t matter nowadays so long as everyone is in agreement.
Clarity always matters, especially on a philosophy forum where not everyone is in agreement with their understanding or interpretation of a word or concept.
My response to you was accurate re the term 'secular spirituality' not being an oxymoron.
Your response is to turn green, roll your eyes and change focus.
At least the 3 first names, which I'm more familiar with, can hardly be said to have embraced anything close to the "secular spirituality" described in the Wikipedia entry referenced in the OP. I mean, Carl Sagan, for goodness' sake!! The man is on record speaking against New Age thinking and pseudoscience. That does not mean Dawkins and other outspoken critics of religion are against the concept of spirituality from a humanist, secular perspective. Neither do I. It's just that I don't see any critical thinker subscribing to views from Osho or any orher type of Eastern syncretism. There have been, anyway, other types of secular religions proposed without these so called "spiritual" elements. And many ritual elements found in traditional religions are somehow found in other modern, more diversified cultural forms, so it's not like you have to choose a religious umbrella to experience them.Greta wrote: Are Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose new agers? If so, then I agree with you that New Age romanticism and secular spirituality are synonymous. Seriously, why paint with such a broad brush? I thought you'd be more rigorous.
Eusociality and sociality might have things in common, just like agency in the paramecium might have something in common with human agency, but humans cannot be reduced to parameciums. There are quite distinct properties and variables determining human behavioral patterns, which make us different from bees, ants and termites. And that's why humans today are different than humans 3000 years ago, while insects remain unchanged. They don't have a history.Greta wrote: Whatever humanity is, it's far closer to eusocial organisation than any other organisational model. Neither you nor Dubious will be able to point to any organisational model in nature that is even nearly as close to the way humans organise themselves as eusociality. Basically, humanity is developing an extension of eusociality.
Sure, I never doubt diversity is the way the go, but I'm also aware of the ways people can be cheated into believing they are moving forward and immersed in diversity, in other words, fooled by the appearance of difference, while they are actually made to fit certain limited patterns of culture, which can be conveniently handled by those in power (or those who want to make sure you buy what they want you to buy). That's exactly what happens with this "secular spirituality" thing, just another watered-down version of traditional religions, perfectly aligned with the modern comfortable tendency to be the same, but look differently, with as little effort as possible. All this solved in the sphere of consumption.Greta wrote: Whatever, the point is that diversity is needed in a society that organises itself so people of different temperaments are needed, including those who think everyone should be more like them
Once you plant the seed, you can't stop its growth. The topic evolves and as long as we don't digress out of topic , there's no reason to be alarmed.marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:05 am
There is no sense in which I started this discussion with a view to 'endorse a [particular] type of secularism'. There seems to be an instinct to attack any interest in this aspect of the human condition with false accusations.
There is no attack on materialism as suggested.
Marj and I could not have made it more clear that secular spirituality need have nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. Your response above is very weak, displaying mechanistic thinking and a general lack of comprehension. There is not much point wasting time unless you can lift your game.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:05 pmAt least the 3 first names, which I'm more familiar with, can hardly be said to have embraced anything close to the "secular spirituality" described in the Wikipedia entry referenced in the OP. I mean, Carl Sagan, for goodness' sake!! The man is on record speaking against New Age thinking and pseudoscience.Greta wrote: Are Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose new agers? If so, then I agree with you that New Age romanticism and secular spirituality are synonymous. Seriously, why paint with such a broad brush? I thought you'd be more rigorous.
No alarm here.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:13 pmOnce you plant the seed, you can't stop its growth. The topic evolves and as long as we don't digress out of topic , there's no reason to be alarmed.marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:05 am
There is no sense in which I started this discussion with a view to 'endorse a [particular] type of secularism'. There seems to be an instinct to attack any interest in this aspect of the human condition with false accusations.
There is no attack on materialism as suggested.
An inappropriate analogy that misses the point. A chimp would have been a better example because the difference between human social structures and those of other other eusocial animals is not great.Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:05 pmEusociality and sociality might have things in common, just like agency in the paramecium might have something in common with human agency, but humans cannot be reduced to parameciums.Greta wrote:Whatever humanity is, it's far closer to eusocial organisation than any other organisational model. Neither you nor Dubious will be able to point to any organisational model in nature that is even nearly as close to the way humans organise themselves as eusociality. Basically, humanity is developing an extension of eusociality.
Yes, that can happen. However, not in this case unless you want to suggest that I am a crystal-waving fucktard again.Conde Lucanor wrote:Sure, I never doubt diversity is the way the go, but I'm also aware of the ways people can be cheated into believing they are moving forward and immersed in diversity, in other words, fooled by the appearance of difference...Greta wrote:Whatever, the point is that diversity is needed in a society that organises itself so people of different temperaments are needed, including those who think everyone should be more like them
No crystals. No homoeopathy. No chakras, aura cleansing, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO or anti-science. No religion. No nuns, priests, ministers, rabbis or imams. No churches, creeds, cults, or even ideologies. No pseudoscience. Whatsoever.... I see spirituality as everyday, something that all but the most damaged routinely engage in. Kindness, consideration, amiability, cooperativeness, empathising, nurturing, defending, supporting, entertaining, listening, appreciating, passionate enthusiasm - these are all spiritual behaviours IMO. Unlike religions, I don't think about any gate that determines X to be a spiritual person or Y not, aside from the worst psychopathies and those who are too wounded to feel happiness.
And again,from page 1:Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:20 pm For those at a back of the classroom who may have missed some earlier comments:No crystals. No homoeopathy. No chakras, aura cleansing, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO or anti-science. No religion. No nuns, priests, ministers, rabbis or imams. No churches, creeds, cults, or even ideologies. No pseudoscience. Whatsoever.... I see spirituality as everyday, something that all but the most damaged routinely engage in. Kindness, consideration, amiability, cooperativeness, empathising, nurturing, defending, supporting, entertaining, listening, appreciating, passionate enthusiasm - these are all spiritual behaviours IMO. Unlike religions, I don't think about any gate that determines X to be a spiritual person or Y not, aside from the worst psychopathies and those who are too wounded to feel happiness.
Conde, do you understand now?
'Solomon describes his book as a search 'for nonreligious, noninstitutional, nontheological, nonscriptural,nonexclusive sense of spirituality, which is not based on Belief [with a capital 'B' ], which is not dogmatic, which is not antiscience, which is not otherworldly,[and] which is not uncritical or cultist or kinky.'
Solomon prefers the term 'naturalized spiritulality', and provides his 'summary Hallmark-card phrase, 'spirituality as the thoughtful love of life'.
In my opinion, most importantly, by a recognition of the centrality of what is often derisively called psycholism and lived experience.I am not prone to use the word 'spiritualism' because in order to be understood one must first dig out from the layers of sediment that have accumulated, and even when one has gone through the effort, as some posts here make clear, the term is still obstinately and willfully misunderstood; but having said that, the self-correction can come about through the work of Solomon, Hadot, Nehamas, and others.How can philosophy self-correct ? The content or syllabus could change…
It varies from school to school and even from class to class. As in other fields, some change comes about when the old guard begins to retire, prevailing views are chipped away at but sometimes swept away. The dissenting views of a few gain traction, students become teachers, and their students come to feel much less pressure to defend their views against a waning prevailing view. In philosophy there may be renewed interest in a philosopher or some aspect of his work seen from a new perspective, cross disciplinary work such as neurophilosophy, philosophical biology, and philosophical problems in physics are currently strong.I am not even sure what is currently studied, or its main focus.
In some sense I think it is. Narrow specialization, jargon, and an emphasis on unassailable arguments runs counter to the tradition of philosophy seeing the big picture. I don’t think things are dire. There is still interesting work being done. For some idea take a click on “interviews” here: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/. I think it fair to say that philosophy today is pluralistic. Whether there will be any truly revolutionary philosophers in our lifetime remains to be seen. Such philosophers are, after all, exceedingly rare. It may be that revolutionary thinking is more likely to come from the sciences. And this is perhaps part of the problem - the success of science led philosophers and psychologists in the 20th century to embrace the trappings of science. An interesting case is political philosophy. Important work by political philosophers often does not fit well in the academic culture of either philosophy or political science. At the same time theoretical physics has become more philosophical. It may be that old divisions will come to loose their clear distinctions. Multidisciplinary work is in one sense a narrowing of fields but in another an enlargement.Is Philosophy really in trouble ?
