Philosophy: books and discussion

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

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

Then we'd best stop it now!

[FlorenceArt]

What's wrong with Schopenhauer? I have never read him (like most philosophers I'm afraid).

[GeoffC]

why, like most philosphers, are you afraid sweet Priestess . ?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

What's wrong with Schopenhauer? I have never read him (like most philosophers I'm afraid).

Well there's nothing "wrong" with him, (I was being sarcastic) - I even have a quote from him as my signature! He was one of the first modern European philosophers to be open to the links between western philosophy and Indian philosophy - which in part probably accounts for why he is kind of "non-u" person in contemporary philosophy. Oh, and he did have some rather dodgy views on women!

There are some really nice uploads of his work on MR - mostly done by Patricia I think - and they are certainly worth a read.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

why, like most philosphers, are you afraid sweet Priestess . ?

I am afraid I have not read most philosophers, is what I mean, o honored First Acolyte.

In fact, I think I could probably count the classic philosophers I have read on one hand...

Originally Posted by TGS

Well there's nothing "wrong" with him, (I was being sarcastic) - I even have a quote from him as my signature! He was one of the first modern European philosophers to be open to the links between western philosophy and Indian philosophy - which in part probably accounts for why he is kind of "non-u" person in contemporary philosophy. Oh, and he did have some rather dodgy views on women!

There are some really nice uploads of his work on MR - mostly done by Patricia I think - and they are certainly worth a read.

Indian philosophy and women. Neat! I have to try and read him, some time. I don't have a TBR list because it would be too depressing, but I'll put his name in that cobwebby corner of my mind where I keep the philosphers I'd like to read some day.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

What's wrong with Schopenhauer? I have never read him (like most philosophers I'm afraid).

There's nothing "wrong" with Schopenhauer, outside of being a member of the human race. To paraphrase Twain; worse I can say of no one.

Personally I enjoy reading Schopenhauer. He is known as the pessimistic philosopher because his writings tend to be, well, pessimistic. He admired Eastern religions because he saw in them an attempt to negate the Will. As I understand him, Will is that force that permeates all of life and is the force that struggles against nature to insure its own survival. He seemed to be of the opinion that the universe would be vastly improved if this force were to be annihilated. He wasn't an advocate of personal suicide, however, because it only extinguished the individual, not the Will, and as such was ineffectual.

When I'm feeling really down, reading Schopenhauer somehow cheers me up. I don't fully understand why, but I think we've all had moods when we wanted to slap the next person who asked us to cheer up, smile, or have a nice day. Those times were made for Schopenhauer.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

There's nothing "wrong" with Schopenhauer, outside of being a member of the human race. To paraphrase Twain; worse I can say of no one.

Personally I enjoy reading Schopenhauer. He is known as the pessimistic philosopher because his writings tend to be, well, pessimistic. He admired Eastern religions because he saw in them an attempt to negate the Will. As I understand him, Will is that force that permeates all of life and is the force that struggles against nature to insure its own survival. He seemed to be of the opinion that the universe would be vastly improved if this force were to be annihilated. He wasn't an advocate of personal suicide, however, because it only extinguished the individual, not the Will, and as such was ineffectual.

When I'm feeling really down, reading Schopenhauer somehow cheers me up. I don't fully understand why, but I think we've all had moods when we wanted to slap the next person who asked us to cheer up, smile, or have a nice day. Those times were made for Schopenhauer.

LOL, I just read your comment on one of Patricia's uploads, where you said the same thing.

I think I will download the English translations on MR, but I'd rather read a French translation. There are several available in ePub form at fnac.com.

Although I know very little about Eastern philosophies, I am also interested in an alternative to the modern Western belief that happiness comes from imposing your will on the outside world, which is a rather violent outlook if you think about it. From what I understand about Buddhism, it is more about being at peace with oneself and the world.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure I trust Michel Onfray very much. I read his book on presocratic philosophers, and of course I can only agree on his opinion of Plato But I was a little doubtful as to the opinons he assigned the pre-socratic. Was he really talking on the basis of serious historical research (given that most of their writings are lost, much of what we know about them is hearsay, often from hostile witnesses), or was he projecting his own opinions on them? He admits himself that some of his assertions are subjective and emotional judgments, and he doesn't give any hints as to the facts they may be based on. That makes me feel a bit uneasy, and also his personality and the fact that he founded his own school of philosophy.

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.

Yes, I agree with this. Or is it that desire itself is unclean, regardless of its object? In any case, this is something that weighs heavily on us today still.

[TimMason]

Onfray is one of those people that needs to construct an enemy in order to say anything. In his case, the enemy is a rather amorphous "establishment", and he has managed to convince himself that this "establishment" has been unfair to the presocratics. I think you are probably right to suspect that he often projects his own opinions upon his lost heroes.

I think that a tradition that identifies the objects of desire as being problematic is closer to the way psychologists look at desire today than is one which sees desire itself as a Bad Thing. Although one may feel that there is an ambient, diffuse condition of longing - for what, one knows not - there are also fairly sharply differentiated kinds of desire. The impulse that makes it difficult to pass the Fnac without rushing in and buying an iPad, or buying more DVDs than one will ever have time to watch, is different from the gay impulsion that takes me home to my wife each evening. Anticipating the pleasure that I may get from an evening in the Baron Rouge is different from the joy I anticipate when meeting an old friend whom I have not seen for some years. And, as both Blake and Sade stand witness to, there are other, less socially acceptable desires, which spring from different cognitive sub-systems.

From this point of view, the admonition to eschew desire as such is wrong-headed. One might argue that the reasonable man or woman should cultivate those impulsions and wants that can be encouraged without causing harm to oneself or to others, and ought to curb those that are harmful.

Blake would disagree: "the tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction." Although I am a stipended horse, I think I see what he meant.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

From this point of view, the admonition to eschew desire as such is wrong-headed. One might argue that the reasonable man or woman should cultivate those impulsions and wants that can be encouraged without causing harm to oneself or to others, and ought to curb those that are harmful.

I'm not sure anyone is offering and admonition to eschew desire, more like a recommendation not to cling to either the objects of desire nor the desire itself.

Many years ago I remember offering some tea to a very esteemed Buddhist monk. I asked if he would like sugar in it and I he replied that he would, in fact he would like four sugars in it. I looked askance at him obviously somewhat shocked - and a little disappointed - that such an esteemed person should be indulging in the decadent bodily pleasure of drinking sweet tea with such abandon. He just smiled and wondered aloud who was most attached to his tea, him or me, and to whom that attachment was causing suffering.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

I think that a tradition that identifies the objects of desire as being problematic is closer to the way psychologists look at desire today than is one which sees desire itself as a Bad Thing. Although one may feel that there is an ambient, diffuse condition of longing - for what, one knows not - there are also fairly sharply differentiated kinds of desire. The impulse that makes it difficult to pass the Fnac without rushing in and buying an iPad, or buying more DVDs than one will ever have time to watch, is different from the gay impulsion that takes me home to my wife each evening. Anticipating the pleasure that I may get from an evening in the Baron Rouge is different from the joy I anticipate when meeting an old friend whom I have not seen for some years. And, as both Blake and Sade stand witness to, there are other, less socially acceptable desires, which spring from different cognitive sub-systems.

From this point of view, the admonition to eschew desire as such is wrong-headed. One might argue that the reasonable man or woman should cultivate those impulsions and wants that can be encouraged without causing harm to oneself or to others, and ought to curb those that are harmful.

I see the fruits of this line of thinking all the time in modern US society. It seems to be a way of avoiding responsibility for our actions. But I think (hope?) we may be growing out of it. It used to be "acceptable" to blame a woman for her own rape. But no one would seriously propose that any more. Unfortunately society "grows wiser" by decades & centuries and we live within the short time we live.

These days we like to blame intermediaries. Guns are bad. Guns kill people. Blame the weapons - not the killers. We can't control ourselves with a weapon nearby so we should not be trusted with one. Or, it was the alcohol (substitute whatever you want here) - not me!

Or the opposite - externalize & alienate the desire: "I'm not to blame, it was a 'crime of passion', I shouldn't be held responsible for that!" The desire is not a part of us. We are victims of it and it has made us victimise others. No amount of reason can oppose desire. We can never learn to control our passions - so don't try. We're the victim here, driven by uncontrollable desire.

Originally Posted by TimMason

Blake would disagree: "the tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction." Although I am a stipended horse, I think I see what he meant.

I think you're taking Blake out of context there. Wasn't that one of Blake's proverbs of hell? I'm not sure he was actually promoting that point of view, but it's been awhile since I've read "Marriage of Heaven and Hell."


Troy

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's a shame that none of Michel Onfray's works seem to be available as e-books. I'm unfamiliar with him and would like to find out more than just the brief Google search I just did. His Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam seems interesting, as well as do some of his political works and his thoughts on hedonism.

I wonder what he meant by contact with yogis? Since our knowledge of the presocratics is largely confined with a few exceptions to fragments and secondary sources, I wonder where he got that information?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'm not sure anyone is offering and admonition to eschew desire, more like a recommendation not to cling to either the objects of desire nor the desire itself.

I believe some schools of presocratic philosophers did something like that, but it wouldn't make sense in our world.

[TimMason]

I think you're taking Blake out of context there. Wasn't that one of Blake's proverbs of hell? I'm not sure he was actually promoting that point of view, but it's been awhile since I've read "Marriage of Heaven and Hell."

If you look at all the proverbs of hell, there are some that Blake almost certainly felt to be just. For example, when he wrote: "Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion," this chimes with what are known of his opinions at the time. Others are more debatable. But on the whole, Blake's vision is dialectical. He saw the Devil as, in many ways, God's equal partner, believing that one should listen to both, and that the Devil's voice had been silenced or muffled by Law and Religion. It was the poet's task to let that voice be heard.

Blake was in no way meek and mild as a person. Several incidents in his life suggest that he himself was no stranger to anger, and that he could be aroused to violence. And he was surely no friend to the horses of instruction; his relationship with his teachers was often antagonistic - see what he wrote about Reynolds!

But as has been said, many have wandered into the labyrinth of Blake's poetry, never to return.

[FlorenceArt]

René Girard's take on desire is somewhat restrictive, but very thought-provoking. He is interested in desire only insofar as it is shaped by what he calls the mimesis - the impulse to imitate. This impulse is a wonderful thing, it is one of the things that allow us to learn and grow as human beings and social beings. But it has a nasty side effect, in that it can also express itself in the impulse to own what the other has, thereby creating conflict.

Try a little thought experiment: place 10 children in a room with 10 identical toys. What do you think will happen? At least 2 or 3 of the children will end up fighting for the same toy. Because we value things and desire them only insofar as someone else values and desire them.

As I said, this conception of desire is too restrictive in my view. There are other forms of desire that have nothing to do with mimesis. I don't know if Girard only ignores them because they are not useful to his theory, or if he truly believes that they don't exist.

Still, my impression is that many of the human desires that seem most pointless and destructive fit within Girard's reasoning perfectly. How many of the things that seem so important to us are important only because of their social value - we want them because we know they will make others jealous, because they will show how cool/rich/powerful we are. Because, in a way, by acquiring objects of desire, we hope to become an object of desire ourselves. Drive a Ferrari and you get all the chicks. Something like that