'Human consciousness: a tragic misstep'

[Nearly Sane]

Zapffe seems like a proper party dude, especially on Blue Monday

https://iai.tv/articles/human-consciousness-a-tragic-misstep-auid-2352

[Dicky Underpants]

Zapffe seems like a proper party dude, especially on Blue Monday

https://iai.tv/articles/human-consciousness-a-tragic-misstep-auid-2352

Definitely worth investigating.

[Nearly Sane]

Definitely worth investigating.

Can't help but think that Keith Maitland, erstwhile of this parish, would be a fan.

[Dicky Underpants]

Can't help but think that Keith Maitland, erstwhile of this parish, would be a fan.

I believe that KM was only happy when he was miserable. I get the impression that Mr Zapffe 's attitude to life is a bit more complex than that, as was that of his influencers Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe that KM was only happy when he was miserable. I get the impression that Mr Zapffe 's attitude to life is a bit more complex than that, as was that of his influencers Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

Yes, you may well be right. Keith was somewhare between Marvin the Paranoid Android and a grumpy teenager.

[Sriram]

If we don't recognize the basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life....we understand nothing at all about it.

What is the purpose of merely 'thinking' about it and coming up with convoluted concepts? Empty intellectualism! Like running a computer on wrong or insufficient data....Garbage In, Garbage Out.   

[Nearly Sane]

If we don't recognize the basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life....we understand nothing at all about it.

What is the purpose of merely 'thinking' about it and coming up with convoluted concepts? Empty intellectualism! Like running a computer on wrong or insufficient data....Garbage In, Garbage Out.

How do you establish what is 'correct' data?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

If we don't recognize the basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life....we understand nothing at all about it.

I hear the assertion. What then makes you think there is a “basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life”?

What is the purpose of merely 'thinking' about it and coming up with convoluted concepts?

It's interesting.

Empty intellectualism! Like running a computer on wrong or insufficient data....Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Whether it’s “empty” is an opinion, but in any case what you’re trying there is a piece of bad reasoning called the argumentum ad consequentiam. You think that thinking about these things is “empty”, you don’t like that conclusion, therefore there must be more “behind” it.   

[Alan Burns]

I hear the assertion. What then makes you think there is a “basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life”?

Our ability to think of meaning and purpose could well indicate that there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our ability to think of meaning and purpose could well indicate that there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

Why do you think it could indicate that?

I can think about dragons too. Could that well indicate that there are dragons as well?

[ProfessorDavey]

If we don't recognize the basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life....we understand nothing at all about it.

If we don't recognise the universe and life as it actually is, rather than as we might wish it to be from a human-centric perspective ... we understand nothing at all about it.

[Dicky Underpants]

If we don't recognize the basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life....we understand nothing at all about it.

What is the purpose of merely 'thinking' about it and coming up with convoluted concepts? Empty intellectualism! Like running a computer on wrong or insufficient data....Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Well, Sriram, where did you begin in your first steps towards recognising the 'basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life'? I know it didn't just come to you in a flash. Your conclusions were undoubtedly conditioned by the environment you grew up in, with no small input from the classic texts of  Hinduism (and possibly Buddhism), which you probably didn't take at face value, you being an intelligent chap. Well, here's the irony - Schopenhauer was one of the first Europeans to be indebted to oriental philosophy (Buddhism in particular, but Hinduism as well*) and Nietzsche in turn was influenced by Schopenhauer's thought, and reacted against it, whilst fully realising the tragic import of his predecessor's ideas. Zapffe, the subject of this thread, appears to have been deeply influenced by both of them, and the influence of both on European  , indeed world culture has been enormous.
This is no 'empty intellectualism' but massive attempts by human minds to grapple with the universe and life as it actually is. We all have our direct experience of life, but since few of us are entirely original thinkers, then it is often helpful to make use of the labours of previous generations of thought and experience to clarify the warp and weft of our own existence.

*I believe that the last paragraph of Schopenhauer's great work Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung contains a phrase in Sanskrit. There may be others as well.

[Dicky Underpants]

Our ability to think of meaning and purpose could well indicate that there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

The French bio-chemist and Nobel prizewinner Jacques Monod believed that religions and myths all had their origin in evolutionary processes which helped humanity to survive, but which now we must learn to do without. He acknowledged that this can cause immense pain, when the full implications of such an attitude to life became apparent. Nietzsche thought something similar, but neither felt this was a cause for throwing in the towel.

While acknowledging the likely evolutionary origin of a human need for explanatory myths, in the final chapter of Chance and Necessity Monod advocates an objective (hence value-free) scientific worldview as a guide to assessing truth. He describes this as an "ethics of knowledge" that disrupts the older philosophical, mythological and religious ontologies, which claim to provide both ethical values and a standard for judging truth. For Monod, assessing truth separate from any value judgement is what frees human beings to act authentically, by requiring that they choose the ethical values that motivate their actions. He concludes that "man at last knows he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose".[18] While apparently bleak, in comparison to the concepts that humanity belongs to some inevitable, universal process, or that a benevolent God created and protects us, an acceptance of the scientific assessment described in the first part of the quotation is, for Monod, the only possible basis of an authentic, ethical human life. It is reasonable to conclude that Monod himself did not find this position bleak; the quotation he chose from Camus to introduce Chance and Necessity ends with the sentence: "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

from Wiki, on Jacques Monod.

I've just noticed this from the Wiki article on Peter Zapffe:

The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy.

This is exactly what Monod was saying in his philosophical writings (as opposed to the scientific ones).

[Maeght]

Our ability to think of meaning and purpose could well indicate that there is meaning and purpose to our lives.

Don't see why it should.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The French bio-chemist and Nobel prizewinner Jacques Monod believed that religions and myths all had their origin in evolutionary processes which helped humanity to survive, but which now we must learn to do without. He acknowledged that this can cause immense pain, when the full implications of such an attitude to life became apparent. Nietzsche thought something similar, but neither felt this was a cause for throwing in the towel.

from Wiki, on Jacques Monod.

I've just noticed this from the Wiki article on Peter Zapffe:

This is exactly what Monod was saying in his philosophical writings (as opposed to the scientific ones).

I'm interested to know what "immense pain" Monod envisaged.

I think being an atheist is more freeing as you would believe that the consequences you face for any wrongs would only be in this life.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm interested to know what "immense pain" Monod envisaged.

I think being an atheist is more freeing as you would believe that the consequences you face for any wrongs would only be in this life.

I think part of what he meant was rooting out any vestiges of anything resembling religious belief, which is harder than some may think, and in this society calling oneself an atheist is just a way of 'knocking spots off Christians." Real atheism involves a bit more than that. But deeper, Monod may have been alluding to what Nietzsche referred to as "The transvaluation of all values".
Dostoevsky understood this too.
Yes, being an atheist is freeing, in that religious guilt and fear of damnation may disappear, but the realization that the cosmos has no intrinsic meaning, and that you yourself are meaningless in an empty universe can be challenging. Then the atheist/ignostic (sic) is faced with carving out their own meaning.
Following on from this, there may indeed be an experience of freedom, but no possibility of absolute bliss, as some religious people believe will be their lot.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think part of what he meant was rooting out any vestiges of anything resembling religious belief, which is harder than some may think, and in this society calling oneself an atheist is just a way of 'knocking spots off Christians." Real atheism involves a bit more than that. But deeper, Monod may have been alluding to what Nietzsche referred to as "The transvaluation of all values".
Dostoevsky understood this too.
Yes, being an atheist is freeing, in that religious guilt and fear of damnation may disappear, but the realization that the cosmos has no intrinsic meaning, and that you yourself are meaningless in an empty universe can be challenging. Then the atheist/ignostic (sic) is faced with carving out their own meaning.
Following on from this, there may indeed be an experience of freedom, but no possibility of absolute bliss, as some religious people believe will be their lot.

I looked up the "The transvaluation of all values" but could not work out how society would be regulated and individuals held to account to follow rules or moral norms under this system.

I think I like the thought that I am meaningless in an empty universe, and that I get meaning only from my relationships with other people and where I can be of service to people.

But in terms of regulating relationships, my experience is that I behave better towards others when I factor a god into my thinking.   

[Sriram]

Lot depends on ones experiences.  Some people have an innate sense of purpose and can feel the hidden hand of a guiding intelligence in their lives....which can happen from a very early age.

Religious teachings have nothing to do with this.  Religious teachings and stories only affirm or give some kind of a form to ones intuitions and insights as the person grows up....but they cannot form the basis of it. One has to be tuned to such phenomena naturally....if not, it doesn't work in the long run. Refer to Implicit Pattern Learning.

Claiming that spiritual beliefs and faith are evolutionary strategies that somehow get created through  random variations and natural selection, is rather naive.  It completely ignores and glosses over probably the most important and profound insights that humans have gained.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Lot depends on ones experiences.  Some people have an innate sense of purpose and can feel the hidden hand of a guiding intelligence in their lives....which can happen from a very early age.

How would you propose to verify that this “feeling” maps to reality rather than is just, well, a feeling?

Religious teachings have nothing to do with this.  Religious teachings and stories only affirm or give some kind of a form to ones intuitions and insights as the person grows up....but they cannot form the basis of it. One has to be tuned to such phenomena naturally....if not, it doesn't work in the long run. Refer to Implicit Pattern Learning.

No – you’ve jumped straight from a feeling to “such phenomena” with no connecting argument or evidence to bridge the gap between them. Not that you care, but you’re committing a fallacy here called reification.

Claiming that spiritual beliefs and faith are evolutionary strategies that somehow get created through  random variations and natural selection, is rather naive.  It completely ignores and glosses over probably the most important and profound insights that humans have gained.

No it doesn’t. Why could the “the most important and profound insights that humans have gained” as you put it not have been some outcomes of evolutionary development?

[Dicky Underpants]

I looked up the "The transvaluation of all values" but could not work out how society would be regulated and individuals held to account to follow rules or moral norms under this system.

I think your misgivings are well grounded. I certainly agree with N that the absence of any religious belief systems from which to derive our moral norms requires a complete overhaul in the thinking of unbelievers. However, he seems to think that any 'drive', simply because humans experience it, has no validity above any other, and that 'stronger humans' (usually male in his thought) are the ones who should determine the values that others live by. In such a scenario things could get very messy indeed. No doubt we'd have a society in which the likes of that vile Met Police officer, recently convicted, ran riot, simply because they were 'expressing their drives'.

In fact Nietzsche was far from living out these ideas in his own life, except in his dedication to his work. He appears to have been the mildest of men, and a rare self-revelatory quote shows the contradictions in his make-up. Can't remember it exactly, but it goes something like this "A few moments of conversation in a railway carriage with simple, ordinary people, and my whole philosophy is in ruins".

I think the only way for an atheistic society to run would be to accept that altruism and general humane behaviour have their roots in evolutionary development. Social groups which cooperate tend to thrive, and develop an evolutionary advantage. The values such societies hold may well coincide exactly with those that many religious denominations hold dear, but without the belief that such values have any supernatural origin.

[Dicky Underpants]

Lot depends on ones experiences.  Some people have an innate sense of purpose and can feel the hidden hand of a guiding intelligence in their lives....which can happen from a very early age.

Religious teachings have nothing to do with this.  Religious teachings and stories only affirm or give some kind of a form to ones intuitions and insights as the person grows up....but they cannot form the basis of it. One has to be tuned to such phenomena naturally....if not, it doesn't work in the long run. Refer to Implicit Pattern Learning.

Claiming that spiritual beliefs and faith are evolutionary strategies that somehow get created through  random variations and natural selection, is rather naive.  It completely ignores and glosses over probably the most important and profound insights that humans have gained.

And yet you yourself have confessed in your autobiographical reminiscences that one of the major influences on your early years were the stories of the Hindu god Rama. This, I presume, did not come from intuitions and insights, but from what you were told by your parents and teachers, and the religious influences in the society around you.
In the mists of time, we must presume that religious beliefs and myths arose from a variety of feelings and intuitions, but since they are so different in many ways it is hard to assert that they have a common origin in some uniform 'spiritual' realm. The early beliefs were of course passed on orally at first, and then codified and passed on as written stories and moral homilies. I think that is the way most of us have come to absorb them. As for those 'intuitions' that you make much of, I think they result from the original verbal and social conditioning - you are taught that you will feel these things, you come to expect them, and very often you do experience them.
And of course, some people never experience them, no matter how firmly they hold their religious beliefs. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is an example.

[Sriram]

Sriram,

How would you propose to verify that this “feeling” maps to reality rather than is just, well, a feeling?

No – you’ve jumped straight from a feeling to “such phenomena” with no connecting argument or evidence to bridge the gap between them. Not that you care, but you’re committing a fallacy here called reification.

No it doesn’t. Why could the “the most important and profound insights that humans have gained” as you put it not have been some outcomes of evolutionary development?

Evolutionary processes are a product of Intelligent intervention. Variations, emergent properties and phenotypic plasticity arise due to intelligent intervention. Natural Selection is a metaphor.   

Intelligence and purpose are fundamental...evolution is a resultant process.

[Sriram]

And yet you yourself have confessed in your autobiographical reminiscences that one of the major influences on your early years were the stories of the Hindu god Rama. This, I presume, did not come from intuitions and insights, but from what you were told by your parents and teachers, and the religious influences in the society around you.
In the mists of time, we must presume that religious beliefs and myths arose from a variety of feelings and intuitions, but since they are so different in many ways it is hard to assert that they have a common origin in some uniform 'spiritual' realm. The early beliefs were of course passed on orally at first, and then codified and passed on as written stories and moral homilies. I think that is the way most of us have come to absorb them. As for those 'intuitions' that you make much of, I think they result from the original verbal and social conditioning - you are taught that you will feel these things, you come to expect them, and very often you do experience them.
And of course, some people never experience them, no matter how firmly they hold their religious beliefs. Mother Teresa of Calcutta is an example.

No...not really. My faith in a God was fundamental. I could feel his presence all around all the time. The stories of Lord Ram only gave it a certain form and imagery as I grew up. We seem to need anthropomorphic images to relate to the unseen entity.

As I have said in the blog, I later switched to Krishna and subsequently even stopped ritualistic prayer and going to temples.

Images and stories only add to our basic faith, as I have explained in the thread on Faith. Social conditioning does not create faith. Faith is a characteristic of the person. Religious concepts, images and philosophies get built around and on top of the basic faith. 

That is why secular spirituality is common and very similar around the world even though religious beliefs and mythology are different from community to community.

Buddhism did not influence me at all. I knew nothing about it in the early years. Only after I started taking an interest in philosophy in later years that I read buddhist texts along with other religious philosophies.

My views on Buddhism...

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2020/12/08/buddhism-a-synopsis/

My Journey....

https://sriramraot.wordpress.com/

[Maeght]

Evolutionary processes are a product of Intelligent intervention. Variations, emergent properties and phenotypic plasticity arise due to intelligent intervention. Natural Selection is a metaphor.   

Intelligence and purpose are fundamental...evolution is a resultant process.

Natural selection isn't a metaphor. No evidence of intelligent intervention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Evolutionary processes are a product of Intelligent intervention. Variations, emergent properties and phenotypic plasticity arise due to intelligent intervention. Natural Selection is a metaphor.   

Intelligence and purpose are fundamental...evolution is a resultant process.

Given both the complete absence of evidence for “intelligent intervention” and that the best supported explanatory model we have (the Theory of Evolution) doesn’t require it, why on earth would you think that any of that is true?