GETTING DOWN TO THE “ROOTS” OF HUMAN NATURE – REALLY?
This article begins
by describing neural pathways associated with empathy then goes on at great
length to describe empathetic processes at higher levels of analysis. These
levels - the psychological, social, and cultural - provide a number of
explanations of empathetic processes. These include the formation of concepts
of self that have greatest meaning within social contexts and that are fed,
maintained, and changed by cultural beliefs and values; the display of social
actions based on varying notions of self and others; and the power of cultural
concepts to define and animate, and motivate selves and groups.
The key researcher
admits this but insists that the solution is in the brain, not in modifying or "renovating"
notions of self, others, beliefs, values, and social norms. He writes:
"[T]he
picture remains incomplete. We still need to map a host of other
empathy-related tasks — like judging the reasonableness of people’s arguments
and sympathizing with their mental and emotional states — to specific brain
regions. And then we need to figure out how these neural flashes translate into
actual behavior: Why does understanding what someone else feels not always
translate to being concerned with their welfare? Why is empathizing across
groups so much more difficult? And what, if anything, can be done to change
that calculus?"
It is implied that
psychological and social efforts to introduce more empathetic beliefs, values,
and social norms in the hope of achieving more empathetic behavior have failed.
In the short-term cases he mentions, he's correct.
However, if his
implication of the failure of cultural renovation is meant as a statement about
human nature and history, or an indictment of human agency and culture for
failing to be determinative, re-/innovative evolutionary forces, then we need
to reconsider our entire understanding of the past 200,000+ years of human
cultural evolution. That the emergence of symbolic language was an act of brain
physiology not a socio-cultural innovation. That the invention and spread of
complex tool use was driven by the workings of brain meat not innovation and
cultural diffusion. That agriculture, urban living, laws, treaties,
International protocols and conventions, and the liberating and humanizing
principles of civilizations, including those of the Enlightenment, arose from
the brain and not from the efforts of embodied yet socially defined and
culturally motivated selves. That the matter of "just" wars against
fascism, movements for racial liberation and human rights, for example, leading
to psycho-socio-cultural transformations and the opening of new pathways toward
the betterment of Humankind are, at their root, brain activity.
"I get that
these are complicated problems,” he told me. “I get that there isn’t going to
be any one magic solution. But if you trace even the biggest of these conflicts
down to its roots, what you find are entrenched biases, and these sort-of
calcified failures of empathy. So I think no matter what, we have to figure out
how to root that out.”
Ah, yes, tracing
human behavior "down to its roots." Identifying "Entrenched
biases" and "failures of empathy" and figuring out "how to
root them out."
I think a better
argument can be made for investigating the psychological make-up, the child
rearing experienced, and the social and cultural transformations persistently
worked for by persons who have had the greatest impact on Humankind - Spinoza,
Lincoln, Twain, Churchill, the Roosevelts, Nyerere, King, Mandela, and many,
many other men and women. It is in their embodied socially active selves, their
deep inner personal commitments to humanity and humaneness, and the actions
they took that we can expect to find the roots of empathy, and the means of understanding
and addressing the conditions under which it flourishes and fails.
By all means, study
the brain and reveal its relationship to the higher, more complex levels of
being human. It is, I believe, from studying this relationship that further and
better knowledge will be developed about complex human behaviors - from the
mind-body problem to or place in the universe - not in reducing complex human
thought and behavior to the properties and processes of bodily matter.
HOW DARWINIAN IS CULTURAL EVOLUTION?
Understanding culture
and the beliefs and values of specific cultures from a strictly Darwinian
selection point of view is not a new approach.
The most recent attempt was by Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene in which he coined the term "meme" as the basic unit of cultural evolutionary selection and set in motion the study (I hesitate to call it a discipline or sub-discipline) of memetics. British psychologist Susan Blackmore (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore) is for Dawkins what Thomas Huxley became forDarwin
I didn't jump on the memetic bandwagon at first because, well, it was a bandwagon. But mainly I didn't and still don't like the approach because it smacks of the old, unsubstantiated Kroeberian and Whiteian take on culture as having a superorganic existence and processes of its own, independent of its symbiotic hosts, the minds of individuals.
Scott-Phillips ofDurham University
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1642/20130368
The most recent attempt was by Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene in which he coined the term "meme" as the basic unit of cultural evolutionary selection and set in motion the study (I hesitate to call it a discipline or sub-discipline) of memetics. British psychologist Susan Blackmore (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blackmore) is for Dawkins what Thomas Huxley became for
I didn't jump on the memetic bandwagon at first because, well, it was a bandwagon. But mainly I didn't and still don't like the approach because it smacks of the old, unsubstantiated Kroeberian and Whiteian take on culture as having a superorganic existence and processes of its own, independent of its symbiotic hosts, the minds of individuals.
Scott-Phillips of
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1642/20130368
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN?
RETURN TO REALISM
Here’s a good essay
on the return of realism and the end of postmodernism and its attack on the
natural and social sciences. How so many bought into the PM notion that reality
is nothing more that our linguistic formulations is beyond me. Yes, we use
mind-imbedded language to engage the natural and social worlds but that does
not justify the PM conclusion that that engagement is the only reality.
PM seemed to me akin to a mob intent on destroying science and its notions of arriving at ever-improving knowledge about nature and humans in society because they, the PMers, had failed to destroy those ideas and methods through argumentation and evidence. Language to them was the obscuring enemy that gave a false confidence to scientific knowledge and progress, not the essential medium for engaging and defining natural and social realities and for improving those notions through debate and testing. Perhaps PM was good for criticism within the humanities where it had its beginning, but came undone when it was applied to the scientific pursuit of the hard realities of nature and society.
PM seemed to me akin to a mob intent on destroying science and its notions of arriving at ever-improving knowledge about nature and humans in society because they, the PMers, had failed to destroy those ideas and methods through argumentation and evidence. Language to them was the obscuring enemy that gave a false confidence to scientific knowledge and progress, not the essential medium for engaging and defining natural and social realities and for improving those notions through debate and testing. Perhaps PM was good for criticism within the humanities where it had its beginning, but came undone when it was applied to the scientific pursuit of the hard realities of nature and society.
…
I share Ruse
My only issues with Ruse
"One doesn’t
expect something like this [the universe and life], with its astounding
interdependency and innumerable complex parts functioning in service of the
whole, to just happen. ... Can such a wonderful universe be entirely without
point?"
I think one can
expect such and I don't see a need for a point beyond the meaning we each give
to our lives. Perhaps he is knowledgeable of the biological argument for
unexpectedly complex things to eventually happen in an infinite universe but
doesn't say so, and it's his way of introducing the believer design
counter-argument.
But he continues
with: "Is everything we humans do ... nothing but a cosmic game?"
Again, a rhetorical presentation of the believer position?
I guess so because he
sums up by taking a strong stance in favor of evidence in the scientific sense
of the term. Then, in a cute little twist says that atheists are no different
from believers in that both "believe" what they do based on, in his
view, insufficient evidence.
I am a strong
agnostic yet a pluralist, by default. There is insufficient evidence to be
certain that God exist or doesn't exist. That being said, I do not agree with Ruse
The appeal of natural
science evidence compared to the "evidence" (weak argumentation,
really) of theism is in my view profoundly conclusive in favor of atheism. So,
though a strong atheist I have to go with the atheists when the choosing of one
side or the other is required.
I fail to see any
good for Humankind coming from his approach and doubt I'll read him again
unless he comes to and brings a better point of view.
…
Talk about
mythologizing, here's a retro approach: http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/the-high-tech-resurgence-of-new-age-beliefs/.
I hope the writer is
wrong about the future when he claims: "But in the decades to come, I
expect the line between those who seek transcendence in [science and]
technology and a ‘re-enchantment of the world’ to become increasingly
blurred."
Then again, I've
never had a problem taking a dose of awe and enchantment along with my
experience of Nature through science and reason, except when it's forced on us
in science classrooms and from the halls of power.
We are certainly
rational creatures but at the same time we, on occasion, dare to dream and
think magically. And that's a good thing.
COLIN MCGINN ON THE STATE OF PHILOSOPHY
FAMOUS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, LARGE AND SMALL
I liked the writer's
preferred burial method for himself. See the end of the section on Hamilton
http://www.unz.com/article/vignettes-of-famous-evolutionary-biologists-large-and-small/
http://www.unz.com/article/vignettes-of-famous-evolutionary-biologists-large-and-small/
MORAL LANDSCAPES AND HUMAN VALUES
Here's a tear-down of
my support of Sam Harris and Michael Shermer's effort to derive a morality
"ought" from the "is" of science. See link.
Even I have been troubled by a flaw in my position - namely, my view that moral guidance is inherent in scientific facts about good and harmful ideas and behaviors. Certain things are just bad (harmful or counter to human well-being) regardless of their cultural or temporal setting.
To look at a certain way of thinking or behaving and declare it bad in the above sense is, yes, to impose my personal, Western-influenced values and moral system. But deriving a global morality seems achievable despite allowances for cultural/moral diversity through time. We have enough accumulated knowledge about the full range of human ideas and practices through time on both the harm and well-being scale, as well as our after- or long-term judgments of such ideas and practices in and beyond their cultural and temporal contexts, to conclude that certain ideas and practices should be included in a universal or global morality and others not. Slavery and the Holocaust come to mind as examples of bad ideas and behavior that are universally rightfully deplorable despite their "appropriateness" to the times and values of European planters in the antebellumAmericas
I can't shake off my view that there is a universal, global morality to be found through the science of human behavior. That is, despite the complexity and slipperiness inherent in language, beliefs, values, and the notion of cultural relativity, at present and throughout history and prehistory.
Even I have been troubled by a flaw in my position - namely, my view that moral guidance is inherent in scientific facts about good and harmful ideas and behaviors. Certain things are just bad (harmful or counter to human well-being) regardless of their cultural or temporal setting.
To look at a certain way of thinking or behaving and declare it bad in the above sense is, yes, to impose my personal, Western-influenced values and moral system. But deriving a global morality seems achievable despite allowances for cultural/moral diversity through time. We have enough accumulated knowledge about the full range of human ideas and practices through time on both the harm and well-being scale, as well as our after- or long-term judgments of such ideas and practices in and beyond their cultural and temporal contexts, to conclude that certain ideas and practices should be included in a universal or global morality and others not. Slavery and the Holocaust come to mind as examples of bad ideas and behavior that are universally rightfully deplorable despite their "appropriateness" to the times and values of European planters in the antebellum
I can't shake off my view that there is a universal, global morality to be found through the science of human behavior. That is, despite the complexity and slipperiness inherent in language, beliefs, values, and the notion of cultural relativity, at present and throughout history and prehistory.
KINDNESS
A good book review on kindness, a
frequently abused virtue in modern U.S.
INDIGENOUS
BELIEFS AND
THE MODERN WORLD
“In many indigenous teachings, the
world’s movement is a contest for moral balance and understanding toward
greater unity, and realization of the moral and human balance and harmony
within the cosmic order comprised of all the nations of beings and powers in
the universe."
I might quibble over some things in this short essay but not with its support for pluralism. Discussing what pluralism means and should mean, and what moral systems and virtues should be followed and which ones should not would be a huge if not impossible undertaking. A book that has a similar theme is Indigenous African Institutions by Ghanaian political economist George Ayittey. Both give good reasons for paying attention to the potential value of respecting and learning from long-standing indigenous cultural beliefs and values.
SCIENCE
AND
MORALITY
Intro to the latest issue of Philosophy
Now magazine, an issue dedicated to science and morality. Am interested in
particular about specifics on the process for deriving moral ought from a
scientific is brought up at the end. I like Shermer's take on doing this
(explained in detail elsewhere) and Sam Harris's (not mentioned in the essay).
For that middle step what criteria should be used? Who would decide? How does
the UN establish the moral positions it uses as foundations/justifications for its conventions and protocols? Surely
scientific data, legal precedents and processes, and "reason" come
into play. When scientific evidence on harm, well-being, fairness, planetary
health, for example, are analyzed there surely follows a point where the UN
drafts a resolution and later puts it up for a vote. That middle step between
is's and oughts seems to reside in the moral makeup of the resolution drafters
and in the decision-making processes of those who vote on it. So, yes, there is
no inherent moral ought in a scientific is, but surely we have a rational means
for bridging the gap and unifying science and morality. The fact that there is
no consensus on the meaning of harm, well-being, fairness, etc., does NOT seem
to me to be an insurmountable obstacle, nor should the fact that the
politically and economically powerful usually dictate moral systems keep
Humankind from trying to devise better ones.
CRITICISM
OF RELIGION – A VIEW FROM AFRICA
I agree. No ideology or belief should be
regarded as being beyond examination, challenge, or civil critique – be it
religion, science, or anything between or beyond. Regrettably, in most of
sub-Saharan Africa
challenges to widely accepted belief systems and ancient social norms are still
too often repressed by members of society and governments. This is especially
true in politics but almost equally so regarding religion. The vast majority of
the Africans I have met over the course of my 35-year residence in and involvement with the continent who have been highly
trained in the medical, engineering, agricultural, and biological sciences are
staunchly religious. Also, science education even at the highest levels in Africa , though very good from a technical
methodological standpoint, rarely involves training in critical thinking. I
would even argue that Gould's non-overlapping magisteria approach to science
and religion is equally if not more widely accepted in Africa than elsewhere in the world. I admire Leo
Igwe's courage and determination to raise the level of critical thinking,
skepticism, and secularism in Africa . Though sometimes strongly passionate, he
nevertheless consistently uses a civil, reasoned approach.
STOICISM – PROVIDENCE
For the past six
months I've been reading about and trying to incorporate Stoicism into my
worldview and behavior. Reading the extensive recent writings on the subject of
philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci at CUNY brought my attention to the
ancient Greek school of thought.
There is much in
Stoicism that is intellectually stimulating. It also contains suggested ways of
thinking and behaving that are practically and personally helpful. One of the
most interesting topics is the approach Stoicism
takes to spiritualism and materialism as approaches for understanding and
explaining the processes and meanings of the universe.
The discussion is
often couched in terms of the processes of the universe being the outcome of
providence or atoms. Providence
My position on
the question? Atoms, provisionally. That is, until I am persuaded by a better
argument for it, the providence understanding seems to me to be an
after-the-fact, anthropocentric projection of wished for cosmic intentions.
What do you think?
Here are two
essays in support of both positions and something I wrote on Marcus Aurelius's
advice on the matter:
AFRICAN POVERTY AND RELIGION
I agree. To extractive versus productive
economics, so-called international development, foreign aid and the dumping of
consumer goods, and bad African governance and corruption must be added Islam
and Christianity. Christian Missionaries in
CONSCIOUSNESS – WHY
MATERIALISM FAILS
Best
essay I've read this year on consciousness, the mind-body problem, physicalism
(materialism), science, and the self. The only ideas missing were those of
Thomas Nagel. What really struck me was the notion of the brain as a receiver,
filter, and reconfigurer, not generator, of mind; an organ that is capable of
drawing from its experience and the knowledge, beliefs, and values of the
ethnosphere (and perhaps a cosmic consciousness, hmmm) for its construction and
projection of a self. A much different, in fact opposite, view from that
currently at the forefront of neuroscience research. Fascinating read!
LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION
IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Good
essay on levels of organization in complex biological systems. Although the
writer mentions it he does not discuss if his approach supports strong
reductionism or not.
POST-POSTMODERNISM
Please
consider what this essay is telling us about our times - not only our zeitgeist
but the behaviors we engage in. There's a lot said and I took a number of
positions while reading through it.
First,
I was happy to find someone willing to stick a fork in postmodernism and
declare it dead. Then, when told about pseudo-modernism, that which we are
supposedly now experiencing, I thought either the present is a wasteland where little
we say or do will take root and expand (improve?) the ethnosphere, or the
writer and I are just smugly stuck in our modernist worldview nattering away at
this current cultural crest of human flourishing(?) as our parents did when
they heard us listening to Bob Dylan.
Or,
and this is where I ended up, the human experience, throughout history and
across most cultures, has and continues to be a wild thundering herd of ideas
and behaviors that the most powerful, wealthy, intelligent, and compassionate among
us have had a minimal impact in terms of focusing the herd's energy, much less
taming the nasty rambunctious lot of us.
Why
surely the entirety of human existence has been and continues to be just a
batshit-mad stampede into the uncertain unknown. Where death, preferably in our
60s to 90s, or any time really, is a sweet release from Humankind's mental and
physical mosh pit back into eternal unconsciousness. [For a refreshing
counter-view of Humankind's scientists' finding meaning, and perhaps beauty, in
the universe, see the subject book of this overly harsh review:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/11773491/A-Beautiful-Question-by-Frank-Wilczek.html.]
But
back to the essay on postmodernism. Say it ain't so, that there really is meaning
in the human evolutionary experiment. Or say it is merely the unsurprising way
an emotional, language-bearing, highly adaptable primate would be expected to
think and act. That what we experience in our blink of individual existence is
the symbolic seethings and horsey lurchings of a creature that the Earth and
Universe have provided for yet will ultimately destroy, not rightly or wrongly
but naturally.
The
only meaning that ever existed, exists, or will exist arises in the present,
from our genes and in the selves that our individual bodies (brains) create
from the material we are able to snatch from the ethnosphere. All else is
atoms.
HOW ETHICAL ARE ETHICISTS?
I
found some wisdom in this article that addresses my, as you rightly call it,
perfectionism. But should I act upon it? Hmmm.
The
essay talks about whether moral ethicists are more moral than others then
delved into whether we should pursue moral improvement in ourselves. It
concludes that we should try and improve ourselves when we study moral
philosophy but not expect it to be an easy journey or that we'll succeed, and
they if we fail we hove only ourselves to blame. The writer also gives a
cautionary note on seeking/expecting A+ moral perfection individually and, I
infer, in others including Humankind as a whole.
My
question of whether I should act on what the article offers or not pertains to
doing what others do, e.g., settling for moral mediocrity despite knowing a
better way of being, or trying to align my moral beliefs, values, and behavior
with the best moral teachings I can acquaint myself with.
I
see nothing wrong with the latter path which I think I'm trying to stay on, and
that's okay as long as I don't expect moral perfection in myself and others and
the world at large. [Yes, there are some societal and parental shoulds in
my motiviation but there's a lot of my own shoulds, too.] This means, yes, I
will eat the occasional steak and barbecue pork sandwich, judge others, and
loose my temper and patience occasionally. When I do, I musn't wring my
hands and tear my hair over my failing. But at the same time I can't
settle for mediocrity because that's the norm or for any other reason. Aim
high, you said, when I was applying for graduate school. I think the same
applies to matters of character and behavior. I don't see any other option.
On
that dour note let me add: a sense of humor is a must.
ATHEO-SCIENTISM - A
CRITIQUE
Here
is an outstanding critique of new atheism and its strong scientistic materialism.
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/the-failure-of-of-atheo-scientism/
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/the-failure-of-of-atheo-scientism/
ON RACE AND SLAVERY
Good
interview on race and slavery (link below)....
The
interview did not include the following about the origin of and justification
for colonialism and the Atlantic slave trade:
The
15th-century Portuguese exploration of
the African coast is commonly regarded as the harbinger of European
colonialism. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, granting Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce
any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary
slavery which legitimized slave trade under Catholic beliefs of that time. This
approval of slavery was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. These papal
bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade
and European colonialism. Although for a short period
as in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime".[67] The followers of the church of England and
Protestants did not use the papal bull as a justification. The position of the
church was to condemn the slavery of Christians, but slavery was regarded as an
old established and necessary institution which supplied Europe with the necessary
workforce. In the 16th century, African slaves had replaced almost all other
ethnicities and religious enslaved groups in Europe . (Wikipedia)
EVOLUTION - INEVITABLE
OR LUCK?
Nothing
new here but nevertheless a good summing up of much of our current
evidence-based understandings and speculations. The regrettable dualistic
question of inevitable versus luck aside, the fact that what has happened in
the past can influence the subsequent direction of evolution within certain
determinative contexts is discussed. Also, complexity, emergence, and agency
are hinted at. Certainly good luck, or what I like to think of as favorable
contingencies, played a huge role. An inevitability? Maybe, but so far there's
no convincing evidence for it.
http://aeon.co/magazine/science/was-human-evolution-inevitable-or-a-matter-of-luck/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=29584fd2f5-Daily_newsletter_29_June6_29_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-29584fd2f5-68849993
http://aeon.co/magazine/science/was-human-evolution-inevitable-or-a-matter-of-luck/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=29584fd2f5-Daily_newsletter_29_June6_29_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-29584fd2f5-68849993
MILLENNIAL GENERATION
GIVING
We
help our neediest relatives as best we can afford but could probably do more to
reduce harm, relieve suffering, and increase well-being among needy non-family
members. Interesting essay. I had not heard this about millennials. What do you
think of the essay's ideas? Perhaps you are already giving charitably through
effective altruism or are thinking about it. The writer mentions a few good
options for giving but I'm sure there are many more. Interesting.
http://bostonreview.net/forum/peter-singer-logic-effective-altruism
http://bostonreview.net/forum/peter-singer-logic-effective-altruism
CHILDHOOD NEGLECT/ABUSE AND ITS IMPACT ON LATER
MENTAL ILLNESS AND BODILY DISEASE
Here's
a very good article on new research into how childhood abuse/neglect can
contribute to adulthood physical diseases and mental disorders, and what the
afflicted and their doctors and therapists can do to address these problems
when they arise later in life.
http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/how-childhood-biography-shapes-adult-biology/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=7fa1641ad6-Daily_newsletter_Tuesday_July_7_20157_6_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-7fa1641ad6-68849993
http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/how-childhood-biography-shapes-adult-biology/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=7fa1641ad6-Daily_newsletter_Tuesday_July_7_20157_6_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-7fa1641ad6-68849993
WRITERS ON WRITING
Grace
Paley's stark but priceless advice to writers....
http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/29/grace-paley-advice-to-writers/?mc_cid=2e1e781938&mc_eid=c62fe5e537
http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/29/grace-paley-advice-to-writers/?mc_cid=2e1e781938&mc_eid=c62fe5e537
BARBECUE IS AN AMERICAN
TRADITION - OF ENSLAVED AFRICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS
MEMORY IN THE BRAIN
Peeking
into the brain's filing system. Neuroscientists are building up a
surprisingly clear picture of exactly where our memories live.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33380677
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33380677
STOICISM IN DAILY LIFE
Here's
an interview of Condé Nast CEO Jonathon Newhouse on how he uses Stoicism
in his daily life, the practical application of the Stoic way.
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/27/features-jonathan-newhouse-stoic-ceo-of-conde-nast/
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/27/features-jonathan-newhouse-stoic-ceo-of-conde-nast/
THE BOOK: ON THE
TABOO OF KNOWING WHO YOU REALLY ARE BY ALAN WATTS - REVIEW
Best
book review I've read in a very long time. The year 1966, when Alan Watts' The
Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are was published, was a time of
transition in my life. I began the year as a student at the University of Maryland Munich U.S. Mainz , West Germany Watts ' "radical"
book any time in '66-'67, would I have read it, much less understood it? Highly
doubtful. I was a typical post-adolescent, pre-adult blur of emotional and
hormonal confusion. My highest priority was finding some meaning and purpose
for my life that would alleviate the anxiety and depression caused by my
condition. I chose a palliative approach involving certain legal beverages and
other recreational social activities while off duty, and waited and hoped
better days would somehow come. They didn't arrive for a very long time. I am
certain Watts ' "radical"
book was not to be found in the military base library. It might have led young
airmen astray from their duty to help project military power to support US Watts ' book and if so, what
did you think of it? It sure seems to very well capture the problem of the
self, its place in the world and universe, and the difficulty most humans
have resisting the push and pull of the beliefs and values of society and its
institutions, no matter how harmful they might be to a person, humanity, and
the planet. Interesting book. Just bought the Kindle version. Check out the
following review:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/27/alan-watts-taboo/
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/27/alan-watts-taboo/
VIRTUE AND BASIL FAWLTY
How
to put Stoicism into practice - becoming more virtuous and less like Basil
Fawlty....
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/14/how-to-become-more-virtuous-and-less-like-basil-fawlty-tim-lebon/
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/14/how-to-become-more-virtuous-and-less-like-basil-fawlty-tim-lebon/
MORTAL MOTIVATION
The
writers argue that fear of death is why we humans are 'embedding ourselves in a
cultural worldview that imbues reality with order, meaning, and stability.'
"'The terror of death has guided the development of art, religion, language, economics, and science,'" they write. "'It raised the pyramids inEgypt Twin Towers Manhattan
Seems to me a better argument can be made that there is a more immediate and practical reason for individuals to do these things than a fear of death. Namely, what doing so might gain them in terms of rights and privileges they could obtain from their group for doing so, such as psychological security and material prosperity.
Also, if their theory is correct, what must we conclude about those who live lives of Stoicism whereby they pursue virtuous personal order, meaning, and stability in order to live well in the present, individually and socially? This a Stoic does not because s/he fears death rather because s/he accepts it as reasonable that the pursuit of virtuous personal and social well-being is a life preferable to one without personal virtue and replete with social disharmony. For a seriously practicing Stoic death is not feared and therefore a motivator, it is simply accepted as a cessation of opportunities to live well in the present.
"Knowledge of death 'arose as a byproduct of early humans' burgeoning self-awareness,' they write. 'That knowledge could have incapacitated people,' they say, 'without simultaneous adaptations to transcend death.' So early humans invented a supernatural world in which people do just that. The groups of humans who 'fabricated the most compelling tales' could best cope with mortal terror, function effectively, and pass on their genes."
"'Psychologically fortified by the sense of protection and immortality that ritual, art, myth, and religion provided, our ancestors were able to take full advantage of their sophisticated mental abilities,' the authors write. 'They deployed them to develop the belief systems, technology, and science that ultimately propelled us into the modern world.'"
Being the self-absorbed primates that we are and always have been I would say that the pursuit of food, safe shelter/physical security, and sex we the real motivators for ancestral individual behavior as well as the adherence to cultural norms, not melancholia over one's ultimate death.
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Mortal-Motivation/230303/#sthash.GEBHOalm.dpuf
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Mortal-Motivation/230303/
"'The terror of death has guided the development of art, religion, language, economics, and science,'" they write. "'It raised the pyramids in
Seems to me a better argument can be made that there is a more immediate and practical reason for individuals to do these things than a fear of death. Namely, what doing so might gain them in terms of rights and privileges they could obtain from their group for doing so, such as psychological security and material prosperity.
Also, if their theory is correct, what must we conclude about those who live lives of Stoicism whereby they pursue virtuous personal order, meaning, and stability in order to live well in the present, individually and socially? This a Stoic does not because s/he fears death rather because s/he accepts it as reasonable that the pursuit of virtuous personal and social well-being is a life preferable to one without personal virtue and replete with social disharmony. For a seriously practicing Stoic death is not feared and therefore a motivator, it is simply accepted as a cessation of opportunities to live well in the present.
"Knowledge of death 'arose as a byproduct of early humans' burgeoning self-awareness,' they write. 'That knowledge could have incapacitated people,' they say, 'without simultaneous adaptations to transcend death.' So early humans invented a supernatural world in which people do just that. The groups of humans who 'fabricated the most compelling tales' could best cope with mortal terror, function effectively, and pass on their genes."
"'Psychologically fortified by the sense of protection and immortality that ritual, art, myth, and religion provided, our ancestors were able to take full advantage of their sophisticated mental abilities,' the authors write. 'They deployed them to develop the belief systems, technology, and science that ultimately propelled us into the modern world.'"
Being the self-absorbed primates that we are and always have been I would say that the pursuit of food, safe shelter/physical security, and sex we the real motivators for ancestral individual behavior as well as the adherence to cultural norms, not melancholia over one's ultimate death.
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Mortal-Motivation/230303/#sthash.GEBHOalm.dpuf
http://m.chronicle.com/article/Mortal-Motivation/230303/
STOICISM AND PSYCHOTHERAPY
It
may just be my unrealistic desire for perfection of my self and Humankind, or
just the latest fad or focus among certain vision-questing Western
intellectuals, or that Stoicism is merely a form of common sense or pragmatism,
or that it is the seldom acknowledged basis of the better current CBT approaches. Maybe all
of the above are true. Regardless, Stoicism has much to offer.
I've read a lot about Stoicism for a few months now and have been trying to apply to my daily living its principles on cultivating personal virtues and living well with others. I have found it to be easy to understand, compatible with or at least not in conflict with humanism, agnostic-atheism (taking the Stoic God as Spinoza's God), and Buddhism. I am also noticing gradual improvement in my contentment with my self (warts and all) and my ability to accept and not be debilitated by my past and the complexity of social life. Also, try as I may as a strong anti-dogma skeptic, I have been unable to find fault in any of the Stoic principles. I even find it to be compatible with what many might think is Stoicism's opposite, Epicureanism.
At bottom, Stoicism makes good sense compared to so much of the woo in the world. Best of all it, more than any other approach I've tried in the course of my life, is helping me to work on my personal shortcomings and at the same time be, not perfect, but for most of my waking hours, reasonably content with me in the here and now. Life is too short to be otherwise, right?
I kindly recommend reading (or re-reading) about Stoicism even to my admired friends who seldom struggle with their self and others. Perhaps doing so would be a kind affirmation for you. Here's a good essay on Stoicism and cognitive-based therapy:
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/06/features-stoicism-and-early-20th-century-psychotherapy-by-donald-robertson/
I've read a lot about Stoicism for a few months now and have been trying to apply to my daily living its principles on cultivating personal virtues and living well with others. I have found it to be easy to understand, compatible with or at least not in conflict with humanism, agnostic-atheism (taking the Stoic God as Spinoza's God), and Buddhism. I am also noticing gradual improvement in my contentment with my self (warts and all) and my ability to accept and not be debilitated by my past and the complexity of social life. Also, try as I may as a strong anti-dogma skeptic, I have been unable to find fault in any of the Stoic principles. I even find it to be compatible with what many might think is Stoicism's opposite, Epicureanism.
At bottom, Stoicism makes good sense compared to so much of the woo in the world. Best of all it, more than any other approach I've tried in the course of my life, is helping me to work on my personal shortcomings and at the same time be, not perfect, but for most of my waking hours, reasonably content with me in the here and now. Life is too short to be otherwise, right?
I kindly recommend reading (or re-reading) about Stoicism even to my admired friends who seldom struggle with their self and others. Perhaps doing so would be a kind affirmation for you. Here's a good essay on Stoicism and cognitive-based therapy:
http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/stoicismtoday/2015/06/06/features-stoicism-and-early-20th-century-psychotherapy-by-donald-robertson/
