Philosophy: books and discussion

[troymc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Passion is an emotion. I'm not at all sure consciousness thought, much less intentional action, is possible without it. David Hume believed that the will is the slave of the passions.

Hume claimed that reason was the slave of the passions, not will. This was because he felt the will could be motived by passion or by reason, but not by reason in opposition to passion. He was also generally the exception is this belief. (see here.)

I don't know if you can get from there to the will being the slave of the passions.


Troy

[troymc]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Gotta WANT IT!

Perfectly put!!

You can reason all you want about how your doctor says you need to quit smoking, lose weight, change your diet & exercise - but you gotta want it or you'll never do it.


Troy

[TimMason]

Originally Posted by troymc

Perfectly put!!
you gotta want it or you'll never do it.


Troy

But what the Judaeo-Christian tradition - and in its wake Sade, the Romantics, and Freud - tell us is that what we desire is often (by some accounts *always*) dangerous, scandalous. While Eastern traditions (and there's some evidence that the Greeks were familiar with those traditions) teach that desire is vanity, and that to reduce it is prophylactic, the Edenic tradition equates the object of desire with the impure. To surrender to desire is not simply to risk one's equanimity, but to risk one's soul.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

While Eastern traditions (and there's some evidence that the Greeks were familiar with those traditions) teach that desire is vanity, and that to reduce it is prophylactic,

I'm not sure what you mean by "Eastern traditions", but whatever the expression refers to the predicate "teach that desire is vanity" is an empirical claim that probably cannot be sustained.

[TimMason]

You mean "Eastern traditions" don't teach that desire is vanity, or that desire is not vanity?

[TGS]

Without a quantifier I assumed it to be a universal claim about "Eastern traditions", so my question was about whether I should understand it as such - in which case it is clearly false, or whether the scope of the claim is in some way that is not obvious, delimited - in which case it was an invitation to be a bit more specific.

[TimMason]

I was thinking of something Michel Onfray claims in his lectures on the history of philosophy. He says that the presocratics had made contact with the people that he calls 'yogis', and that their teachings were influential. In particular, if I recall correctly, he argues that the rejection of desire and passion that later was taken up by the Stoics comes from that source. Who exactly he means by 'yogis' isn't altogether clear - or at least wasn't clear to me when I listened to the lecture - but seems to be a general grab-bag of Otherness.

So my point was a weak one. But I don't think this detracts from the main argument I wanted to make, which was that in Christian and post-Christian thinking desire is seen as taking the unclean as its object.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

You mean "Eastern traditions" don't teach that desire is vanity, or that desire is not vanity?

I would say both.

But my primary issue is with the statement: desire is vanity. From my understanding that statement is inverted. Vanity comes from desire - a desire to be something you are not or to be more than you are. Most of the other "sins" are the same - gluttony, envy, adultery, covetousness, etc. They're all examples of uncontrolled desire.


Troy

[TimMason]

Ah - I think I see. When I used the word 'vanity', I wasn't thinking of the sin, but of the idea that desire is *in vain* - pointless, not leading to what is conceived of as its end. The pursuit of worldly goods is, in this view, a mistake.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

So my point was a weak one. But I don't think this detracts from the main argument I wanted to make, which was that in Christian and post-Christian thinking desire is seen as taking the unclean as its object.

In some eastern traditions it is not the object that is the "problem" with desire, it is that desire tout court, and the grasping that accompanies it, will result in suffering whatever the object. The objects of desire themselves are neither clean nor unclean, good nor bad.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Ah - I think I see. When I used the word 'vanity', I wasn't thinking of the sin, but of the idea that desire is *in vain* - pointless, not leading to what is conceived of as its end. The pursuit of worldly goods is, in this view, a mistake.

Oh, yes! Now what you said makes much more sense to me. But is it necessarily correct?

Is a desire to do good in vain? Can I never do good?
Is a desire to be happy in vain? Can I never be happy?

Originally Posted by TGS

The objects of desire themselves are neither clean nor unclean, good nor bad.

I agree with this completely.


It's only in the extremes that there are problems. Trying to rid one's self of all desires, or trying to live life only through desires. Those are the ways to imbalance & inhumanity.


Troy

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Passion is an emotion. I'm not at all sure consciousness thought, much less intentional action, is possible without it. David Hume believed that the will is the slave of the passions.

Originally Posted by troymc

Hume claimed that reason was the slave of the passions, not will. This was because he felt the will could be motived by passion or by reason, but not by reason in opposition to passion. He was also generally the exception is this belief. (see here.)

I don't know if you can get from there to the will being the slave of the passions.


Troy

You're right, of course. Another shining example of what happens when something is posted quickly from memory and not checked against the original source.

.....Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
..........— David Hume (1739-40), Scottish philosopher and historian. A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Book II: OF THE PASSIONS, PART III: Of the will and direct passions, SECT. III: Of the influencing motives of the will.

However, I'm still not at all sure consciousness thought, much less intentional action, is possible without passion or similar emotions. It may work for Vulcans, but humans are wired differently.

[WT Sharpe]

All this talk of the will and eastern religions puts me in mind of Schopenhauer.

[WT Sharpe]

I just learned that Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, has resigned from being chairman emeritus and member of each board of The Council for Secular Humanism.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...tz_resignation

Writing for Utah State University Secular Humanists, Atheists, and Free Thinker (USU SHAFT), Jon Adams speculates it may have been largely due (among other things) to philosophical differences in the Council's direction as of late. It is no secret that he was extremely displeased in the Council's promotion of Blasphemy Day, a day set aside to celebrate free speech by ridiculing religious tenets without fear of reprisal.

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/paul-kurtz-resigns-from-cfi/

I fully understand his disagreement. In my opinion, Blasphemy Day is the worst idea to come forth from unbelievers since the idea for all non-theists to refer to themselves as "Brights." Blasphemy Day sends the wrong message; free speech, yes; in-your-face deliberate antagonism, no.

This is very sad news for all freethinkers. The Council of Secular Humanism under his leadership was always a class act. I would hate to think that it is in danger of becoming just another "God sucks and all theists are crazy" sideshow. Though no one disagreed more with the positions of those of all religious persuasions over the years, Kurtz always did so with intelligence, good humor, and respect for his opponents.

His leadership will be sorely missed.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I just learned that Paul Kurtz, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, has resigned from being chairman emeritus and member of each board of The Council for Secular Humanism.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...tz_resignation

Writing for Utah State University Secular Humanists, Atheists, and Free Thinker (USU SHAFT), Jon Adams speculates it may have been largely due (among other things) to philosophical differences in the Council's direction as of late. It is no secret that he was extremely displeased in the Council's promotion of Blasphemy Day, a day set aside to celebrate free speech by ridiculing religious tenets without fear of reprisal.

http://usu-shaft.com/2010/paul-kurtz-resigns-from-cfi/

I fully understand his disagreement. In my opinion, Blasphemy Day is the worst idea to come forth from unbelievers since the idea for all non-theists to refer to themselves as "Brights." Blasphemy Day sends the wrong message; free speech, yes; in-your-face deliberate antagonism, no.

This is very sad news for all freethinkers. The Council of Secular Humanism under his leadership was always a class act. I would hate to think that it is in danger of becoming just another "God sucks and all theists are crazy" sideshow. Though no one disagreed more with the positions of those of all religious persuasions over the years, Kurtz always did so with intelligence, good humor, and respect for his opponents.

His leadership will be sorely missed.

I like to consider this war that is going in the frame of Hegel's dialectic construct: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
No sign of synthesis yet.

I stop my comment here not to incur in our high priestess's wrath, gentle but rattling.