tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post7359117529442105202..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Brassier’s Nihilism and the Creation of MeaningBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-69142344711683296142022-01-10T12:59:55.174-05:002022-01-10T12:59:55.174-05:00It's been a while since I looked at Brassier, ...It's been a while since I looked at Brassier, so I'm not sure how he'd respond. His argument is more metaphysical, I think, so I don't know if he'd take much notice of specific developments in physics. And I'd have to know the context of that statement of his to decipher its meaning. He writes in a pretentious, Continental-philosophical style, which means he unnecessarily complicates things. So the confusion could be due to his wording.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-63913660844148100172022-01-08T01:40:00.649-05:002022-01-08T01:40:00.649-05:00Hi Benjamin
It it Brassier statement that:
"...Hi Benjamin<br /><br />It it Brassier statement that:<br />"I think that it is possible to understand the meaninglessness of existence, and that this capacity to understand meaning as a regional or bounded phenomenon marks a fundamental progress in cognition."<br />a concession for a subject like us to understand meaning as a spatial temporal snippet("as a regional or bounded phenomenon") in the grand scheme of univers indiference and likely extinction? <br />How do understand his statement ?SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-55669427043922857892022-01-06T10:03:19.951-05:002022-01-06T10:03:19.951-05:00Hello Benjamin and Happy New Year!
I have just fo...Hello Benjamin and Happy New Year!<br /><br />I have just found this intriguing Critique of Nihilism about Ray Brassier "objectivism "and want to add one more critique, if not already adressed by you and other commentors.<br />Since B. is most interested in science and ontology , I would like to know if he adressed the hard problem of consciousness . <br /><br />Starting from his argument that science is objective about the facts/ontology, I reject his claim on the basis that science is incomplete and it is not yet a fully descriptions of facts, ontology and the existence(not to say that it will not ever come to this point).<br />If I would take the stance to debunk his "objective" meaning using QM only about the "deadness of nature",we found that in MWI of QM life objects along with inanimate ones are already there in many other universes and this is a growing interpretation supported by Sean Caroll and many other(my favourite is Copenhagen ortodox interpretation).<br /><br />Along with transhumanists approach to life extension and space conquering plus consciousness , may be the "free will" we sure can debunk his argument that only deadliness nature can have meaning but above categories of nature not<br />For my life meaning, I take science as a tool to navigate in life, instrumental for consciousness and life entertainment with cultural and technological progress and curios to see where it leads us. Certainly, it inform us about the an-organic matter and death too, but that is not the full picture I will argue on.<br /><br />Looking from time lap perspective, who says that meaning should be eternal anyway:) as he implies in his arguments. <br /><br />Is he willing to "walk the talk" since his philosophy implies suicide or is another charade and phoniness implicit in his self refuting nihilism?:)<br /><br />Sure, we can put arguments onwards but my few cents on your blog and looking forward for more intriguing posts ! SicaRacaricahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13750815014181477271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-11238416313143550242018-07-04T08:35:18.946-04:002018-07-04T08:35:18.946-04:00Thanks Sir,
I began reading one or two of your pi...Thanks Sir,<br /><br />I began reading one or two of your pieces just now and enjoyed them immensely. I usually comment tersely caustically relative to my beliefs in God or contrasting them to what I know of about other authors and their writings. It would not be to circumscribe fixate or belittle your mutivalence arguments. <br /><br />Here is one on this piece!<br /><br />Neo-Jungian and still clings to a shred of ``science-fiction`` like abstruse metaphysical hope but a hope still!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-2517439834193232092015-11-30T14:09:23.044-05:002015-11-30T14:09:23.044-05:00The key question here is whether the subjective me...The key question here is whether the subjective meaning we project onto ourselves and our activities is up to the task of sustaining civilization, due to the absence of objective meaning. I tackle this issue in my aesthetic take on moral value. See, for example, "Life as Art" and the other articles in the Ethics section of the Map of the Rants. In a nutshell, I think aesthetic values of beauty and ugliness can be objective. The problem is that nature is objectively monstrous. <br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/11/life-as-art-morality-and-natures.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2015/08/is-nature-beautiful-or-monstrous.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/02/map-of-rants.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-22567716780919581832015-11-11T23:40:21.386-05:002015-11-11T23:40:21.386-05:00I know this is old, but great write up. I just rec...I know this is old, but great write up. I just recently was reading Brassier and found it interesting, but failed to see his dialectic and loved your critique of it -- it really highlighted the issues. I don't understand why he made that move: "Nothing is meaningful, therefore, carry out an enlightenment project." Like you said, there must be some kind of meaning in doing that.<br /><br />I think reductionist accounts that try and explain meaning away are missing the mark. To paraphrase Rollo May, he said that any time you try and give an explanatory reductionist account of a phenomenon, you end up missing part of what was trying to be captured in the first place.<br /><br />Trying to explain away meaning is just playing mental gymnastics. There may not be any cosmic meaning to my existence (I'm not 100% sure, but I feel safe saying there isn't), but that doesn't mean that I don't deem my life as having any meaning. And plenty of other people have meaning and find meaning as well. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01047940307087024707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9818246979702955352014-04-07T10:23:02.136-04:002014-04-07T10:23:02.136-04:00I've written a number of other articles on why...I've written a number of other articles on why I think we create meaning. I doubt it's just a matter of relieving us of our boredom. There are biological and thus natural reasons for our transformation of our environment. As I see it, there's evolution and complexification throughout the universe, so nature's working through us to create yet more in the way of transcendence. <br /><br />You know, I always found that repeated phrase from Ligotti's book, "malignantly useless," off-putting for being poorly chosen. "Malignant" means ill-will or dangerous. Ligotti calls us all malignantly useless. But although we may be dangerous, how are we useless? Is the only way for something to have a use is for it have an ever-lasting effect, in which case we'd be useless because we can't permanently change things? Obviously we do have many uses, including the purposes we assign to ourselves, not to mention our evolutionary purpose. So while I got much out of reading Conspiracy Against the Human Race, I always found that phrase to be a bit of a misfire. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-5129761998192111802014-04-06T20:59:41.264-04:002014-04-06T20:59:41.264-04:00I'm a little late to this,but i thought I'...<br />I'm a little late to this,but i thought I'd post anyway.But don't you sometimes think that there is real burden to create meaning in an otherwise meaning less world? does it not feel a bit silly to impose meaning on objects, to in way conform everything around us to patterns, isn't this the source of all human misery, i mean it's a fallout of an attempt to create meaning and preserve it.Does not everything around us stem from, for the lack of better term,our boredom, that fact that there is almost this sort of yearning on an almost biological level to account for our existence.Isn't this cause for pessimism and therefore sorrow? like ligotti puts it ' malignantly useless'. There very well may be meaning, but all this has resulted in this sort of rudderless amoebic entity that you refer to as "we".<br />- NikhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73746793392990462232013-10-13T14:52:57.045-04:002013-10-13T14:52:57.045-04:00Actually, I don't think subjective truth amoun...Actually, I don't think subjective truth amounts to just made up stuff that doesn't exist. For one thing, the fictions and delusions themselves exist as stories that can impact society, as in the case of religion, for example. For another, as I hint in this article but elaborate on through the links below, the fictions are ironically realized by technology, so that the fictions act as something like blueprints or inspirational possibilities we try to actualize in concrete, natural terms. This is what I mean by the technological re-enchantment of nature.<br /><br />So I agree that nature is fundamentally meaningless, as Brassier says, but here the emphasis is on "fundamentally." Meaning (purpose, ideality, value) nevertheless evolve within nature and we're instrumental in that development. By objectifying nature in our best explanations, we transduce the meaningless facts into the purposive artifacts we create as we apply that empirical knowledge.<br /><br />I agree also that the natural-artificial distinction can be construed as a piece of Cartesian or theistic dualism, but I don't see anything supernatural in my account of how technologies serve as vehicles of ideality which flatter our delusional or premature image of ourselves as being gods. Technology is making us gods, so our myths and values merely get ahead of ourselves.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/09/nihilism-and-re-enchantment-of-nature.html<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/09/mythopoesis-and-consolation-of.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-8892602447463585202013-10-13T11:18:52.213-04:002013-10-13T11:18:52.213-04:00Hmm, that sounds like a fancy of way of saying &qu...Hmm, that sounds like a fancy of way of saying "It's something people make up." If people made it up, there is indeed no such thing. It is a ficition..unless he supposes that ideas are real things, though they are not empirically observable or measurable.<br /><br />This falls into the same trap as other atheist/post-modern approaches to meaning and morality.<br /><br />If the world is fundamentally meaningless, it's meaningless, no ifs ands or buts, not even if humans choose to delude themselves.<br />They are after all part of the natural world.<br /><br />If he believes in a fundamental separation between humanity and the rest of nature, that's very much one of those Christian beliefs that was adopted by the original, Christian enlightenment founders.<br />One of many Christian elements that atheists/postmodernists have to borrow from to have any beliefs, values, or meaning at all.<br /><br />So the challenge then is to find ways to perceive the world logically without destroying it and having to rely on willful self delusion.<br />As you know, it's something I've thought about at length.John the Peregrinehttp://kingdomofintroversion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-30882713274572924632013-10-10T10:01:36.033-04:002013-10-10T10:01:36.033-04:00Well, I do think there's a lot of phoniness in...Well, I do think there's a lot of phoniness in postmodern philosophy. There's some phoniness in analytic philosophy too, but when you eliminate science and logic as standards of thinking, you give charlatans a lot of room to maneuver. <br /><br />I believe Brassier went on after publishing this book on nihilism to criticize it because it lacks a reductive theory of meaning. So his point isn't exactly that there's no such thing as meaning in the universe, but that meaning is a human creation and that the natural world is fundamentally meaningless. In other words, meaning isn't ontologically real, but is only apparent, illusory, epiphenomenal, or something like that.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-80555128832833628202013-10-09T19:02:57.310-04:002013-10-09T19:02:57.310-04:00Philosophy carries weight to the extent it is acti...Philosophy carries weight to the extent it is actionable.<br />If it is not made real through action, it is little more than idle masturbation.<br /><br />This Brassier guy probably has a wife and kids, a family, friends he cares about. His relationships with them mean a lot to him.<br />When driving to his job(presumably at a university) he probably tries not to cut people off out of some sense of civic duty.<br />He probably tries to avoid a car wreck on the way there because he cares about his life and sees value in the lives of others. In no way does he regard them as inanimate.<br />He shows up at his job because he cares about social esteem, money, and simply has a sense of duty(a subjective thing that doesn't exist.)<br />He writes books using words like "ineluctable" to impress people, flatter his ego, and get laid.<br /><br />Every step of the way, his actual universe in no way resembles the lifeless cosmos he likes to write long-winded tracts about.<br /><br />At the end of the day, he maybe even laughs at all the suckers who made him famous in his community by actually taking him seriously as he gets ready to fuck his wife, (a former groupie student of his).<br /><br />Every second of that day he is fundamentally, a liar and a hypocrite denying meaning, purpose, sacredness, and even divinity that if he really examined himself he would find he actually does deeply believe in, and which springs into existence by his very nature and by that of the very universe itself.John the Peregrinehttp://kingdomofintroversion.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-60020433682164142062013-09-21T10:30:40.486-04:002013-09-21T10:30:40.486-04:00I suppose suicide could be interpreted as extreme ...I suppose suicide could be interpreted as extreme compassion,, since that sage prevents himself from harming anyone. But it could just as easily be interpreted as extreme selfishness, since the sage also prevents himself from helping anyone. So that's a wash.<br /><br />I agree that "love" is used in various ways, going back to the difference between the Greek words "eros" and "agape," for example. MLK likely talked a lot about brotherly love. I'm more interested in the emotional kind and in fact I think "brotherly love" now sounds archaic. There are movies in which comrades in arms say, "I love you, man," but this registers as awkward, because the romantic notion of love dominates sex-obsessed Western culture. Sex is used in ads to make money, so the ancient notion of love between mere friends or comrades sounds rather gay in the South Parkian sense ("gay," meaning lamely sentimental). This is only a linguistic point I'm trying to make. I agree there's such a thing as camaraderie. I just think it's lame to use "love" now to refer to it, just as it's awkward now to speak of a happy person as being gay or of a strange event as being queer. Those words have taken on new meanings, so the old meanings become archaic.<br /><br />This lameness becomes especially irritating to me when Christianity gets in on the act, when Christians talk of love as a metaphysical or spiritual force. I'd prefer to speak of nature's creativity, of complexification, evolution, and the emergence of novel properties. That's what's really going on and it's awesome (but note how that latter word has also acquired a new meaning). Natural forces come together and build systems that come and go in great processes of transformation, as do populations clash to transform society. To personify this nowadays by calling it some metaphysical process in which Love comes into the world is to speak in a very cliched way.<br /><br />This point can actually be tested. If you write a poem with the word "love" in it and send it to a good poetry critique website, your poem will be annihilated in the reviews. "Love" is just a very stale, overused word to use. The word means everything and nothing.<br /><br />Anyway, I will look more into MLK's speeches, with a view to writing something about them. Thanks again for the links.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-85280085032436353212013-09-19T19:37:52.374-04:002013-09-19T19:37:52.374-04:00Good question! I have not come across speeches tha...Good question! I have not come across speeches that are explicitly philosophical, but all his speeches contain many philosophical references. The more specific his target (his autobiography being the most) the more explicitly he writes, although his very widespread speeches (such as I Have a Dream) are very thematic within both secular and religious philosophy/imagery. <br /><br />"far from being motivated by compassion, many enlightened Buddhists are inclined to starve themselves to death, to complete their escape from the horrors of being embodied in the food chain"<br /><br />Isn't this extreme compassion, where they cannot bring themselves to harm any other form of life? I actually rib vegetarians/vegans about this sometimes because there are many convincing (and increasing) observations that plants 'feel pain' but we just don't appreciate it because we aren't chemically oriented. <br /><br />I read your essay on love and feel that you sometimes conflate love as emotion and love as philosophy. Love as philosophy is ultimately spiritual and is focused on nurturing creation; whereas your aestheticism could be seen as calculated creation. You mention Sartre and the love that Hedges/MLK/etc are talking about fits in with that perfectly. Indeed, MLK explicitly saw Love existentially after reading Sartre.<br /><br />Similarly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Love" rel="nofollow">M. Scott Peck</a>, "His perspective on love (in The Road Less Traveled) is that love is not a feeling, it is an activity and an investment. He defines love as, 'The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth.'"<br /><br />So my point in bringing all this up is that I've learned that not everything is a debate or has a right answer, often times dialogue and understanding are supreme. Above you write, "We have nonrational capabilities as well, such as our aesthetic taste and the perfectibility of the emotional side of our character, which distinguish virtue from vice. Suppose, then, we enter not the rational frame of mind, but an emotional one based on character, experience, taste, and culture. In that case, when the world’s physicality strikes us, we needn’t suffer the rational person’s dread of nature’s hollowness, because now an altogether different natural interaction occurs: we fill that hollowness with meaning." This is true, and yet you leave out Love, the most powerful muse (in all its forms) in humanity?<br /><br />And so I say about MLK, judge his words not from detached rationalism or even whether they move you specifically, but as experiential understanding of Love as a Path. The aesthetic beauty and amount of life he helped nurture -- from his direct lyricism to the highlights and horrors of the civil rights struggle -- is extraordinary. <br /><br />If you are empathetic and accept the precepts, then see where it leads, I think you may be quite surprised. And for me, this is completely necessary for actual Truth, particularly because it is the most practical path for the vast majority of people based on their personality type and cultural influences. <br /><br />Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-67807966992197585862013-09-18T10:09:21.851-04:002013-09-18T10:09:21.851-04:00I agree that MLK's speeches are worth studying...I agree that MLK's speeches are worth studying. I didn't mean to dismiss everything he's written, or anything like that. I've also argued for pacifism, although not yet on this blog.<br /><br />I just feel that his stuff about a personal God doesn't sit well with the intellectual aspect of his writings or with all the studying he's done. It feels a little forced to me, like he's pandering. I know that there are plenty of intellectuals who are theists. It's just that I can't be sure whether MLK was going for the truth in his speeches or whether he had political motives. <br /><br />And his stuff here about love as the supreme unifying principle of life--that too seems to me little more than a cliche (maybe it became one largely because of his influence). I've got an article on this blog on whether love is the meaning of life, and I just find this to be a meme, not a profound truth.<br /><br />I don't even think this is the ultimate teaching of the major religions. The main point of Judaism, for example, is that God is absolutely transcendent, although his will is worked out in nature especially through his pact with a particular tribe of people. There's nothing there about universal love. Judaism is a tribal religion. Christianity makes the pact universal, but adds the concept of hell. I'm having a fascinating email exchange with an expert on Theravada Buddhism, and he pointed out that, far from being motivated by compassion, many enlightened Buddhists are inclined to starve themselves to death, to complete their escape from the horrors of being embodied in the food chain. The esoteric circles of the main religions tend to preach asceticism and withdrawal, not superheroic, politically-engaged compassion. So MLK might be cherry picking from religions for political purposes (like all politicians).<br /><br />Anyway, I think I should write on MLK. Are there other philosophical speeches of his that you know of? Or are they all philosophical?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-81068751125561125162013-09-17T21:25:56.235-04:002013-09-17T21:25:56.235-04:00Well "for me to find some peace of mind by wo...Well "for me to find some peace of mind by working through the options for a viable philosophy/religion [for me]." That is a fine and worthy goal.<br /><br />However, I need to keep the [for me] part in mind while reading your replies. <br /><br />Personally, I have a very hard time with being "someone" rather than an avatar of different perspectives. It's like my girlfriend says, "People think I don't really seem to care or be empathetic, but the problem is that I'm too empathetic."<br /><br />By that she means we read/listen to people and then evaluate from their experience first and foremost, judging on a few universal criteria. I guess they could be enumerated as: critical thinking (able to listen to reason/data and separate wheat from chaff quantitatively and qualitatively), compassion, dynamicism (change as the world changes) and transferrability (can it be taught to others). <br /><br />In my experience, only a few people display these traits; I'd say around 5%. I've found that the percentage seems consistent regardless of socioeconomic class or metaphysical beliefs, and that these 5% of people are able to get along and understand each other better than they can with the other 95% of their demographic peers.<br /><br />In that spirit, I would reckon that MLK is in the pantheon of humanity and it is a shame that he was killed so young. If he had lived long enough to see the popularization of scientific humanism and work with people like Sagan, then we would have a much different world. <br /><br />Which is to say that the pillars of meaning are based on beauty, love and curiosity. In your quest to find viability through beauty, studying the greats that have highlighted it primarily through love and curiosity will be of great benefit.<br /><br />Here is <a href="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm" rel="nofollow">a speech by MLK</a> that addresses your points about oligarchy, and how he recognized it would destroy all sense of justice and racial progress, leading to mass militarization.<br /><br />"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered...<br /><br />This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing -- embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate -- ultimate reality"<br /><br />Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-87053132416738174392013-09-17T19:35:56.603-04:002013-09-17T19:35:56.603-04:00I'm not sure I understand the question. The bl...I'm not sure I understand the question. The blog's main purpose is for me to find some peace of mind by working through the options for a viable philosophy/religion. It will also be a way to spread the word about my novels, the first one of which will go on sale soon.<br /><br />If you're asking whether I aim to be objective here, my main goal is to produce my best writing, and often that means that I try to channel my muse, to go into a trance and write from an intuitive, gut level. I think that makes for a relatively entertaining blog. These aren't dry philosophical articles I'm writing here, but philosophical rants; some are more philosophical than others and some are more rant-like. But I've also already done a lot of rational work forming the basis for my worldview, in my graduate philosophy years. And I still try to use reason and science to rein in my verbal art.<br /><br />I wonder what triggered this question, though, Mikkel. Did I say something that strikes you as particularly subjective?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-59403086479663412592013-09-17T19:10:56.329-04:002013-09-17T19:10:56.329-04:00Is the purpose of RWUG personal satisfactory expla...Is the purpose of RWUG personal satisfactory explanation or objective?Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-7790309310070974572013-09-17T14:38:10.998-04:002013-09-17T14:38:10.998-04:00Thanks for the links. I read MLK's essay on hi...Thanks for the links. I read MLK's essay on his intellectual development. Yes, it's quite interesting, although I think his talk of a personal God at the end is anticlimactic. It's interesting that he studied existentialism, but I think his remark that the theologian can "use" existentialism is telling. MLK reminds me of Unamuno. These are realistic Christians who see the pitfalls of extreme rationalism and irrationalism (faith), but who nonetheless disappoint by accepting their culture's received wisdom. Frankly, it's their taste in art that bothers me. <br /><br />I like MLK's statement that "Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations." But the question is what faith we should adopt. Here I think something like a taste for originality should be a criterion. MLK's religion simply bores me. I suppose he might have embraced it on pragmatic grounds, to ensure the success of his pacifist project in a Christian nation. In that case, his talk of a personal God would be a matter of pandering; he'd be primarily a salesman, a politician, or some sort of system manager. That too wouldn't be so inspiring. And what's become of his legacy? Obama's in office, but the US is as oligarchic and militaristic as ever, and Obama's a whopping disappointment for liberals.<br /><br />I agree that science, economics, art, and religion *can* also subvert conventional wisdom, although currently economics is highly politicized in the US, and postmodern art is largely irrelevant or likewise captured by power elites in the form of corporate advertizing. Again, theoretically, Christians should be opposing the American systems left, right, and center, but their religion too is utterly, grotesquely compromised and has been for centuries. Finally, as Scott Bakker and I agree, scientific naturalism does indeed have many unwelcome implications, but science also forms part of the political apparatus (think of the pharmaceutical, military, and even financial industries). <br /><br />There's such a thing as popular philosophy (e.g. the Philosophy of Simpsons/South Park/Twilight movies books, etc), but let's face it: "popular philosophy" is an oxymoron. Philosophy is relatively unpopular, because whatever dumbed-down, exoteric form it takes, that form isn't terribly useful. I suppose its most useful form is the happiness/self-help movement, but this takes place mostly in psychological rather than philosophical circles. Philosophy itself is largely unpopular because it's useless for the purpose of cynically maintaining an unenlightened social order. That's why philosophy is for the decadent elites and the outsiders who've escaped from the matrix.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-8730302691231490932013-09-16T23:33:11.984-04:002013-09-16T23:33:11.984-04:00If you enjoyed Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, his Lett...If you enjoyed Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, his <a href="http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/resources/article/annotated_letter_from_birmingham/#socrates" rel="nofollow">Letter From Birmingham Jail</a> is an excellent bookend that repeatedly makes parallelisms between Socrates/rationalism and (word isn't directly used but it's what he's referring to) satyagraha/justice.Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-84970626762437422002013-09-16T23:14:48.624-04:002013-09-16T23:14:48.624-04:00You are right that pure philosophy subverts myths/...You are right that pure philosophy subverts myths/power structures, but so does science, socioeconomics, art and religion. Countless more have been executed for utilizing those methods than pure esoteric philosophy.<br /><br />I do not deny philosophy's power in providing a framework of questioning and skepticism, nor its ability to be foundational in purpose in other disciplines. I merely am suggesting that the approach seems too deep and narrow, ignoring fundamental aspects of humanity.<br /><br />By far the most powerful writer I have ever read concerning this issue is MLK. I highly encourage you to read <a href="http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/pilgrimage_to_nonviolence/" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> and see how his worldview is a combination of rationality and grace; existentialism merged with spirituality and a personal God. Several chapters of his autobiography expound on these connections and his personal struggles. Many of the most interesting personal points are about the nature of MLK's faith and the transformation from God as metaphysical philosophy to omnipresent grace revealed through daily struggle.<br /><br />While I don't anticipate ever experiencing a personal God, MLK's deftness in revealing and respecting the totality of the human condition creates a synthesis beyond compare; present company excepted of course.Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-397846106639180752013-09-16T12:17:26.832-04:002013-09-16T12:17:26.832-04:00I think you're onto something here. In so far ...I think you're onto something here. In so far as philosophy is the love of knowledge, it's not hard to see why philosophers would have a rationalistic temperament. I'd go a step further and say that because reason is accursed, philosophers are more likely to be social outsiders. I'm sure there are extroverted philosophers, including some famous ones, but the act of philosophizing marginalizes you from society, because philosophy is about always being skeptical, always questioning everything. The paradigmatic case of this was that of Socrates, who was executed by the state. This is why philosophy is unpopular: it's not just that people with rationalistic personalities are hard to get along with; it's that philosophy (reason) subverts politically correct myths that make people happy.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-37411889243372024832013-09-16T00:24:49.690-04:002013-09-16T00:24:49.690-04:00"If cognitive science shows that we're an..."If cognitive science shows that we're animals and that we're not as rational as we think"<br /><br />Yes, I was reading some of the modern philosophers' (analytic and continental) takes and seeing that the common theme was to "prove" that one thought or another was more or less likely based on internal logic; a tradition that goes all the way back to the create of western philosophy. The reviews were talking about how much of Kantian thought had been "proved invalid" because people created thought experiments that were against some of Kantian ontology and no philosopher could poke holes in it.<br /><br />To me this is a laughable take on the human condition and it occurred to me: could formal philosophy be largely disconnected from the masses because it only appeals to a couple of very rare personality types, the Myers-Briggs NTers? <br /><br />From this hypothesis, I looked at the language and statements and realized that it had many hallmarks of NT thought. Of course since NTs only make up <a href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp" rel="nofollow">less than 10% of the populace,</a> western philosophy's take on the human condition would be rather limited. <br /><br />Although I'm an INTP, I've always been pragmatic and external oriented, so views that don't lead to direct motivation for behavior have never been very appealing. <br /><br />In my line of work, I've always wanted to find a pure mathematical genius to help, but it is exceedingly hard to find one that is pragmatic. A friend turned me onto one of the top guys at our university and I informally interviewed him, immediately seeing how he could be amazing.<br /><br />At the end I asked, "Let's suppose you come up with a theory that is pure and beautiful and seems perfect, but then when we start plugging in our data we discover we need to make heuristics that fudge over aspects to handle different use cases. How would you feel?" He looked like I had suggested genocide and replied that he would be devastated. <br /><br />I actually think many aspects of post-modernism are terrible because they are hyperlogical to the point of treating thought systems like they are pure mathematics. That is where the "science is just another belief system" can arise. <br /><br />I have watched several interviews with luminaries of the 20th century and when asked about the most important thing in life, they always respond with the same thing: be kind. Bertrand Russell said that this maxim was greater than any philosophy or knowledge he could conceive of. Vonnegut said that any story based in something other than kindness is destined for tragedy, while the simplest daily task based in kindness was divine. Huxley looked for kindness as metaphysical truth. The Dalai Lama says it is the core of every religion.<br /><br />And then of course I've explained why I think "science" shows that many things are functionally irrational.<br /><br />Perhaps many philosophers are asking the wrong questions.Mikkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00169256264012468618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72921177293793290222013-09-15T10:07:42.039-04:002013-09-15T10:07:42.039-04:00This is interesting, because I believe many postmo...This is interesting, because I believe many postmodernists think their irrationalism is more scientifically respectable than the analytic philosopher's rationalism, and this can be traced to the likes of Nietzsche and Hume. If cognitive science shows that we're animals and that we're not as rational as we think, why should we expect philosophical questions to have only rational answers? Nietzsche emphasizes some nonrational mental faculties, such as the will and aesthetic taste. But analytic philosophers think we should solve philosophical problems as if they were quasi-scientific. In this respect, analytic philosophy may be close to a kind of theology whose business is the propagation of noble lies, while the methods and attitudes of the postmodern irrationalists may be more in line with the scientific image.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-46041246891674578882013-09-15T09:06:22.603-04:002013-09-15T09:06:22.603-04:00Well Ray's specific critique as I remember it ...Well Ray's specific critique as I remember it boils down to the irrationality of Nietzsche's affirmation, that it amount's to basically shouting 'Fuck it!' to the infinite and patting yourself on the back afterward. The suicide of reason in the ressurection of life. It's actually a nonanswer, an abdication if you like, in inferential terms. But in narrative terms it makes for one hell of a great yarn... The great, bootstrapping, existential hero.<br /><br />For pragmatic naturalists like Rorty this isn't a bad or unworkable thing at all, I suspect, but I forget his take on Nietzsche.Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com