tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post6963956312134055219..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Darwinism and Nature’s Living-DeadnessBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-67002533636881819182019-06-30T09:12:49.229-04:002019-06-30T09:12:49.229-04:00I agree that we're alive. I wouldn't want ...I agree that we're alive. I wouldn't want to say that everything in the universe is alive in the same sense, though, since that would turn "alive" into a weasel word. The over-extension would empty the word of meaning. There are panpsychist theories about the universal application of "consciousness," including an interesting theory that bases consciousness on the processing of information. However we define these things, though, we shouldn't say everything is alive or conscious to the very same degree. Not even Hindu monists would say that. So the dualism between people and the inorganic parts of the universe would pop back up.<br /><br />The point of calling nature "living-dead" is to say that nature is more mysterious than is credited in the materialistic, instrumentalist view, according to which nature is raw material to be exploited at will. My point is that it's hard to miss out on the aesthetic dimension when we attempt to see things objectively, laying aside our personal interests. And aesthetically speaking, nature's mindless form of self-creativity is zombie-like and thus quite horrific. The meaning of our life unfolds, then, as a call to oppose that monstrosity in some ennobling, honourable fashion.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/11/life-as-art-morality-and-natures.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2015/07/opposing-nature-hypermodern-meaning-of.html<br /> Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4509477966173007942019-06-29T22:29:00.404-04:002019-06-29T22:29:00.404-04:00How about the argument that all things have life. ...How about the argument that all things have life. All things. A speck of dust has life. Thus, we are not undead and can never be undead as all things are alive. It really depends on how you define "life". No matter how you see it, we are indeed alive. Either we are a collection of inanimate objects that form to become categorized as "alive" or all things are alive because all things are in motion, always. Even a speck of dust has atoms that are very much active within themselves and active among each other. I understand your discussion, it's very interesting. You're saying all things are undead, technically dead but animate. Death is...what? The state of not being alive? What is being alive? Having life? What is life? There are many definitions of this word and far more interpretations. Without a clear definition, no answer on whether all things are undead, alive, or dead can be determined. Parameters must be set prior to reaching a conclusion. Thanks for the thought provoking words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-16120754041511152182018-07-04T08:19:32.674-04:002018-07-04T08:19:32.674-04:00Indeed! The pantheism I have in mind uses "Go...Indeed! The pantheism I have in mind uses "God" as a metaphor. When Nietzsche said "God is dead," he meant that the myths of the monotheistic God are no longer aesthetically compelling. So the belief in that personal kind of intelligent designer is obsolete and no longer respectable in late modernity. But that says nothing about the strange, horrific self-creativity of nature, which is all the divinity we need.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-23120098865601763152018-07-04T07:21:27.201-04:002018-07-04T07:21:27.201-04:00From ``God is dead`` to ``undead zombie God``?
From ``God is dead`` to ``undead zombie God``?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-80403388345492477302017-10-08T13:50:06.011-04:002017-10-08T13:50:06.011-04:00Interesting. I asked because Google Translate coul...Interesting. I asked because Google Translate couldn't handle "undead." <br /><br />Jesus' raising of Lazarus might count as an earlier instance of a zombie, written in NT Greek. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-8089874402644015692017-10-08T10:59:12.233-04:002017-10-08T10:59:12.233-04:00There is.
απέθαντος (a-PEH-than-dos) [/a/=not and ...There is.<br />απέθαντος (a-PEH-than-dos) [/a/=not and /peth/=stem of the verb "to die"] Also<br />νεκροζώντανος (neh-croh-ZOH-nda-nos) [from the stems /nekr/ and /zon/, dead and alive]<br /><br />Both are neologisms of course, since the concept is absent from ancient greek mythology. The international word "zombie" is also in use for the run-of-the-mill walking dead.<br /><br />The first truly undead creatures in the modern sense came in vogue in Greece around the 17th century; Vampires (in Greek, vrykolakes or vourdoulakes) corpses of people who reanimated because they were not buried by a priest and/or were despicable people in life. Probably an import from the respective eastern european legends.EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37600358969604932802017-10-08T08:39:58.767-04:002017-10-08T08:39:58.767-04:00Ah, great! Is there a Greek word for "undead&...Ah, great! Is there a Greek word for "undead"? Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-56770435260525312742017-10-07T13:37:13.026-04:002017-10-07T13:37:13.026-04:00I may not have been as active in my translations, ...I may not have been as active in my translations, but I still read your articles. I have already earmarked both of these for translation. ;)EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-71812403730532566522017-10-05T10:22:48.666-04:002017-10-05T10:22:48.666-04:00Thanks, Evan. This is one of my older articles, al...Thanks, Evan. This is one of my older articles, although it's a foundational one. I have some more recent articles on religion you might interested in:<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2017/08/the-fraud-of-theology.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2017/09/a-critique-of-presuppositional.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-33308816401870255732017-10-03T16:55:50.588-04:002017-10-03T16:55:50.588-04:00Hey there, Ben. I uploaded a translation of this a...Hey there, Ben. I uploaded a translation of this article in Greek <a href="https://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/bc-darwinism-and-natures-undeadness/" rel="nofollow">on my blog today</a>.EvanThttp://onthewaytoithaca.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-76022544869202660832013-06-16T12:28:01.834-04:002013-06-16T12:28:01.834-04:00Thanks, Matt Segall. I've responded on your bl...Thanks, Matt Segall. I've responded on your blog.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28213043699934007162013-06-15T18:14:44.315-04:002013-06-15T18:14:44.315-04:00Another great post, though I have a few thoughts I...Another great post, though I have a few thoughts I'd be curious to know your reaction to. I've posted them on my blog: http://footnotes2plato.com/2013/06/15/life-after-darwin-another-response-to-benjamin-cain/Matt Segallhttp://footnotes2plato.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-75859611203596498782013-01-04T09:23:26.688-05:002013-01-04T09:23:26.688-05:00I haven't written much directly on this social...I haven't written much directly on this social question, although this is one of the topics I'm currently discussing with R. Scott Bakker. I'm writing something now which might show up on his blog, Three Pound Brain, about posthuman scenarios, given that the conflict between the scientific picture of the self and the naive, intuitive one will eventually come to a head. <br /><br />I also talk a lot on this blog about the esoteric and the exoteric. Most people either aren't clever enough to understand the implications of modern science or lack the interest and so won't as a matter of fact attempt to learn. Thus, the divide between those with deep knowledge and those with only politically correct prejudices or delusions arises organically.<br /><br />If, somehow, everyone did become aware of nature's undeadness and came to believe that God is literally dead, I imagine most people--the theists--wouldn't be happy. There would be chaos and mass panic. But it's hard to predict what would happen, because it's so hard to see how everyone could come to this discovery. It's quite hypothetical and unlikely. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45702183766446427742013-01-03T11:59:10.351-05:002013-01-03T11:59:10.351-05:00So what do you predict the "social consequenc...So what do you predict the "social consequences of the scientific picture" will be? If every human on the planet suddenly became aware of nature's undeadness, what do you think would happen? Are there certain articles you have written that you would point me to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-12591396774220767402012-11-21T09:31:26.815-05:002012-11-21T09:31:26.815-05:00The point is WE CANNOT KNOW how any life will go, ...The point is WE CANNOT KNOW how any life will go, therefore it is by definition a risk, more than that it is a guarantee of new suffering, as there has never been a pain-free life. And the fact is that it is a risk which does not need to be taken. There is no good reason for transforming Nothingness into Being, which is what every procreator does. The universe is not deprivated by the non-existence of humanity. The never-born are not deprivated by never existing. Again, all defences of procreation come down to irrational, wooly, wish-fulfilment and an inabiltiy or unwillingness to face up to the ephemeral and meaningless nature of existence.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16333013979246343381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-66026773026644809482012-11-21T09:14:27.966-05:002012-11-21T09:14:27.966-05:00I'm actually gathering my thoughts to write a ...I'm actually gathering my thoughts to write a post that's directly on antinatalism (AN). There's a dilemma, I think, for utilitarian AN, which is that this AN is either incoherent or it rests on a dubious empirical assumption. From what I understand, the utilitarian argument for AN, made by David Benatar, says something like, “Suffering is bad, we should be compassionate towards those who suffer, and since suffering is inevitable, nonlife is better than life.” But this seems to me to justify murder to save people from their pain. In fact, this was the logic of the serial killer character in the movie Seven. He killed people to end their suffering and to prove to everyone that we all deserve death. (This is a well-known problem with basic utilitarianism, which is that it justifies evil means for the sake of a greater good.)<br /><br />And yet if suffering is bad, pleasure must be good. So if it turns out that we feel more pleasure than pain, life becomes better than nonlife, after all, and antinatalism is false. So when the antinatalist says we should spare the unborn the burden of living, and that this assessment is based on compassion for the inevitable suffering a person will go through, the antinatalist is conceding the positive value of pleasure. But if pleasure is good, so must be the conditions of pleasure’s possibility, such as consciousness, intelligence, and so on. At the very least, the value of these conditions must be mixed since they produce both pleasure and pain. And this is where I think the antinatalist must bring in a dubious empirical assumption, which is that we feel more pain than pleasure, and indeed that this is a necessity or at least a probability, so that there’s no reason to think that the pleasure of future generations will outweigh their pain. It seems to me a tall order indeed to quantitatively prove any of those latter statements. The incoherence of philanthropic AN would lie in the concession that the value of human life must be *mixed,* in which case we could hardly be *confident* or *certain* that procreation is bad. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm still thinking about it. But we agree that many people project their ideals onto nature. Existentialists, though, would grant that values are subjective.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-10605410716658878132012-11-21T03:33:01.815-05:002012-11-21T03:33:01.815-05:00We know each individual human life is guaranteed t...We know each individual human life is guaranteed to contain suffering. Most people believe that to engender suffering is wrong. If you don't have a religious perspective, then there can be no moral justification for procreating. Those who call themselves 'humanists', 'secularists', believers in 'Progress' etc would do well to wake up and realise that they are simply projecting their emotional needs on to a silent universe.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16333013979246343381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-71851781651198244822012-11-20T09:08:14.091-05:002012-11-20T09:08:14.091-05:00Thanks for reading, Karl. If nature is absurd and ...Thanks for reading, Karl. If nature is absurd and horrible, though, I'm not sure why our response should be, as you say, reasonable.<br /><br />I write somewhat indirectly on the question of antinatalism in my Dec 2011 blog post, "Should we procreate to honour our ancestors?" <br /><br />You might also be interested in my comments on Woody Allen's philosophy and on the film, Melancholia, in "Woody Allen's Curious Intellectualism" (May, 2012).Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-46626300574045787142012-11-20T03:48:25.346-05:002012-11-20T03:48:25.346-05:00Life in a naturalistic framework is simply meaning...Life in a naturalistic framework is simply meaningless and horrible once viewed clearly. Antinatalism is the only reasonable response once one has decided theism is not an option.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16333013979246343381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-83550501247878573962012-10-23T15:40:45.738-04:002012-10-23T15:40:45.738-04:00I read through those three articles. You certainly...I read through those three articles. You certainly don't write philosophy of mind like a lay-reader! I'm not sure I'd still call myself an expert, though, since I've been out of that literature for a few years. I'm more interested now in the social consequences of the scientific picture than in the technical philosophy of mind topics.<br /><br />Still, I do have some questions about and comments on your articles that might indeed make for an interesting email exchange. (I love the radical tone of your writing, by the way.) Is your email address already published somewhere on the web? I can't find it at your blog. If not and you'd rather not publish it here, I have a work-around: I can give you an email address here that I use but that I don't care much about, and once we connect through that address, I can give you the email address I use more frequently.<br /><br />I'd be happy to write some material for your blog. Thanks very much for the offer! Let's talk about it more by email, so let me know which email address we should begin with.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-10010654122432349522012-10-23T09:32:32.122-04:002012-10-23T09:32:32.122-04:00I'm always amazed at how disinclined so many p...I'm always amazed at how disinclined so many philosophy of mind types are discussing the crazy social implications of their work, but not so Metzinger. He's dialed into the totality of the problem. My guess he found it via word of link like I did. <br /><br />Given that representationalism is your area of expertise, I could use your help! I'm really just an opinionated lay-reader. Either way, it might be interesting to set up an email dialogue that we could simultaneously publish on our blogs. In the meantime, I would love to have you as a guestblogger over at TPB, Ben. Apocalyptic pulp and philosophy is our thing. Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70155064335924325242012-10-22T16:29:43.322-04:002012-10-22T16:29:43.322-04:00Thanks for the thumbs up! I see that you're th...Thanks for the thumbs up! I see that you're the Scott Bakker who writes The Second Apocalypse. It's a small world, since I also went to graduate school at UWO. And by "Tom Metzinger," are you talking about the author of The Ego Tunnel, a book I just referred to in my most recent article/rant here, "Science and the Matrix Metaphor"? I wonder how he found my blog.<br /><br />Anyway, I will indeed check out those links to your blog. Instead of debating, though, let's say we can discuss or explore these ideas (in a forum of your choosing). I tend to get aggressive only when I'm seriously annoyed. By the way, I did my Ph.D. on representational theories of mental content (Fodor, Dretske, and Millikan).<br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-28234225941126844642012-10-22T15:12:25.491-04:002012-10-22T15:12:25.491-04:00Pretty frickin awesome. Tom Metzinger recommended ...Pretty frickin awesome. Tom Metzinger recommended I give this a looksee, and do I see why. Radical, post-intentional philosophy is the future, as heartbreaking as it is. <br /><br />But there is a way for you to think through this problematic outside all the old dichotomies, life/death, real/ideal, natural/spiritual, that has to do with seeing past Dennett, and looking closely at the cognitive implications of his 'stances.' Human cognition is heuristic through and through. If you get a chance, check out, <br /><br />http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/out-danning-dennett/<br /><br />http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/v-is-for-defeat-the-total-and-utter-annihilation-of-representational-theories-of-mind/<br /><br />http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/thinker-as-tinker/<br /><br />I'd love to debate this stuff, Benjamin. Needless to say, I'll be rooting both for and through these pages. Here's to plucking philosophy from ingroup bureaucracies and bringing back it to the AGORA. Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45111233118306208332012-10-19T21:40:12.313-04:002012-10-19T21:40:12.313-04:00Awesome, thanks for the info, I will check it out!...Awesome, thanks for the info, I will check it out!JKXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16559474266901626109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-35701222573763128552012-10-19T09:11:18.558-04:002012-10-19T09:11:18.558-04:00Thanks, JKX, and thanks again for reading. My next...Thanks, JKX, and thanks again for reading. My next rant will be on the Matrix metaphor (following up on Darwinism and Nature's Undeadness), and you don't get cooler than the Matrix movie. ;)<br /><br />I was talking with David Metcalfe, about nature's undeadness, in the comments section of Matt Cardin's thought-provoking blog, linked to in my blog's list of links. In fact, my comments there gave me the ideas for my rant on Darwinism and for my next one, on the Matrix. But what I noticed is that David, who's very knowledgeable about mysticism, doesn't regard the notion of our undeadness as at all scary or depressing. And this reminded me that I've got to address here the difference between optimistic and pessimistic mysticism. <br /><br />If you're interested in looking at our discussion in the comments section, they're found in the Oct 9 post, "Humility and Silence...," at The Teeming Brain blog. Here's the link:<br /><br />http://www.teemingbrain.com/2012/10/09/humility-and-silence-where-true-science-and-true-spirituality-meet/<br /><br />They're more friendly there with the prospect of the paranormal, but Matt Cardin connects horror with religion in fascinating ways.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.com