Open Sesame ... enter at your own risk

[FBM]

Topic split from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 03#p462203 - Charlou

Now, back on topic: One history course I did concerned itself with the fall of the Ancien Régime in France, and one of its strands focused on the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who apparently made the notion of "The Light of Reason" fashionable once again. (This course caused me to turn my study schedule upside down. I set out to do one year of history, two years of philosophy, three of sociology and four of anthropology and finished up jettisoning anthropology and sociology as soon as I was allowed to instead, but that is just an aside.) I was impressed by the rôle reason apparently played in history, but the more I studied, the more I had to revise that opinion. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Reason, while not ineffectual, is a vastly overrated factor in historical developments. That recognition also helped me realise that it is also a lot less of a determinant of our behaviour as individuals (and no, I am not excluding myself) than we would like to think.

To tie that more clearly to the OP, would you say that you once believed that the enlightened life was founded on or led by Reason, and that now you don't believe that?

[Hermit]

Now, back on topic: One history course I did concerned itself with the fall of the Ancien Régime in France, and one of its strands focused on the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who apparently made the notion of "The Light of Reason" fashionable once again. (This course caused me to turn my study schedule upside down. I set out to do one year of history, two years of philosophy, three of sociology and four of anthropology and finished up jettisoning anthropology and sociology as soon as I was allowed to instead, but that is just an aside.) I was impressed by the rôle reason apparently played in history, but the more I studied, the more I had to revise that opinion. Eventually I came to the conclusion that Reason, while not ineffectual, is a vastly overrated factor in historical developments. That recognition also helped me realise that it is also a lot less of a determinant of our behaviour as individuals (and no, I am not excluding myself) than we would like to think.

To tie that more clearly to the OP, would you say that you once believed that the enlightened life was founded on or led by Reason, and that now you don't believe that?

More than that. I think that at this stage 'the enlightened life' is more of a concept with potential than reality. The more I studied the more I was forced toward the unpleasant recognition that the concrete ways of our reasoning are ultimately predicated by our material existence. Adam Smith's seminal publication on capitalism is an example, particularly when he wrote about "the invisible hand" and how private greed leads to public good. His eloquent and noble work was doing no more than being a rationalisation after the fact of an economic process that was already well on the way with some extrapolation thrown in as a bonus. Today it serves us as a justification for being rich or more likely, aspiring to be rich. [sarcasm]We need not worry about barely subsisting and the starving billions of humans, because we deserve what we got and they have the opportunity to get where we are. Oh, if only they tried, but that's entirely up them, isn't it?[/sarcasm]

Despite these opinions I am an optimist. Some time in the future most of us may come to the recognition that there is no such thing as free will, that everything that happens is ultimately determined. Curiously, (at first sight) that very recognition will give us the means to engineer our freedom, dignity and 'self determination' into existence much like the Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his shoelaces.

Enough of this in this thread, I think. It's not an area I am particularly keen discussing anyway.

[FBM]

More than that. I think that at this stage 'the enlightened life' is more of a concept with potential than reality. The more I studied the more I was forced toward the unpleasant recognition that the concrete ways of our reasoning are ultimately predicated by our material existence. Adam Smith's seminal publication on capitalism is an example, particularly when he wrote about "the invisible hand" and how private greed leads to public good. His eloquent and noble work was doing no more than being a rationalisation after the fact of an economic process that was already well on the way with some extrapolation thrown in as a bonus. Today it serves us as a justification for being rich or more likely, aspiring to be rich. [sarcasm]We need not worry about barely subsisting and the starving billions of humans, because we deserve what we got and they have the opportunity to get where we are. Oh, if only they tried, but that's entirely up them, isn't it?[/sarcasm]

I'd agree. I think most of our 'reason' is ad hoc rationalizations for doing what we want to do. I don't see reason as the source of behavior.

Despite these opinions I am an optimist. Some time in the future most of us may come to the recognition that there is no such thing as free will, that everything that happens is ultimately determined. Curiously, (at first sight) that very recognition will give us the means to engineer our freedom, dignity and 'self determination' into existence much like the Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his shoelaces.

[/quote]

I'm not convinced that being either an optimist or a pessimist is better than being simply a realist, but I see what you mean and applaud the sentiment.

Enough of this in this thread, I think. It's not an area I am particularly keen discussing anyway.

Damn. It was just getting interesting.

[Hermit]

I'm not convinced that being either an optimist or a pessimist is better than being simply a realist

There is nothing that suggests that realism is some kind of superior middle ground in the spectrum ranging from optimism to pessimism. Either the supreme pessimist asserting that humankind will end in a violent conflagration tomorrow or the supreme optimist predicting that humankind will eventually settle in distant galaxies and have god like powers may turn out to be supremely realistic. It just depends on the actual outcome. Until such time we can't really determine who is being realistic.

[charlou]

I'm not convinced that being either an optimist or a pessimist is better than being simply a realist

It's all subjective, of course. Realists go a step further than the value laden outlook and, eschewing faith-based superstition and dogma, base their understanding of reality on evidence. Whether or not any evidence is a true indicator of reality is impossible to know objectively, but at the same time it's the most honest and therefore useful approach to 'enlightenment'. IMO ... of course.

[FBM]

I'm not convinced that being either an optimist or a pessimist is better than being simply a realist

There is nothing that suggests that realism is some kind of superior middle ground in the spectrum ranging from optimism to pessimism. Either the supreme pessimist asserting that humankind will end in a violent conflagration tomorrow or the supreme optimist predicting that humankind will eventually settle in distant galaxies and have god like powers may turn out to be supremely realistic. It just depends on the actual outcome. Until such time we can't really determine who is being realistic.

I wouldn't suggest it as a superior middle ground, nor as the most accurate predictor of the future. Seems to me to be the most internally peaceful way of dealing with the world. But to each his own. I wouldn't knock either one, but if I had my druthers (not entirely clear, given the 'free will' thing), I'd stick with a realistic approach.

I'm not convinced that being either an optimist or a pessimist is better than being simply a realist

It's all subjective, of course. Realists go a step further than the value laden outlook and, eschewing faith-based superstition and dogma, base their understanding of reality on evidence. Whether or not any evidence is a true indicator of reality is impossible to know objectively, but at the same time it's the most honest and therefore useful approach to 'enlightenment'. IMO ... of course.

Yep. I'd phrase it a little differently, but I think it boils down to pretty much the same thing. I try to stick to experience and necessary inference and keep my moods/attitudes out of it insofar as possible. Not always successful, but I'm generally more laid back and less critical than I used to be.

[charlou]

I try to stick to experience and necessary inference and keep my moods/attitudes out of it insofar as possible. Not always successful, but I'm generally more laid back and less critical than I used to be.

Same, though with a differring degree of success perhaps.

I do like to indulge my emotions to appreciate nature, entertaining my fascination with it, the elegance of the interplay of it, even in the most horrific aspects ... and I find my emotions necessary for engaging empathically with others, including animals other than humans.

Balance is good ... and none of the above is detrimental to realism when ones emotions are acknowledged as such.


ETA: I think empathy helps me be less critical (or perhaps better described as more discerning? insightful?) of others and therefore more laid back, in as much as I understand and accept our foibles for the largely emotional drives they are.

[FBM]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking emotions. Empathy, compassion, etc, are good ones. Some aren't so good (in the sense of being healthy, nor morally), like greed and hate. Emotions are our real driving forces as far as I can tell. But I don't base my ontology on them or allow myself to be overwhelmed by them, whether positive or negative. Emotions, like rational thoughts, come and go.

[LaMont Cranston]

Seraph, The fact that you have not experienced that "state of awareness" called enlightenment (for lack of a better term) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It does. I've "visited" some of those places of heightened awareness, and I've met and known some other people who spend a lot more time there than I have. If you'd actually like to talk about some of this stuff, I'm more than willing.

The Shadow knows...

[charlou]

>snip drivel<

The Shadow knows...

[Rum]

>snip drivel<

The Shadow knows...

+

The Shadow knows indeed...

[LaMont Cranston]

Rum, Thanks for the post! You reminded me that I need to pick up another bottle of Baccardi when I'm at the store today. Over the years, I've tried many kinds of rum, but Baccardi and Coke really is a drink for all seasons...

[Hermit]

Bürmp.