Friday, September 10, 2010
10 - Why We Study the Past
One of the rewards of studying Philosophy is the ability to name-drop.
In the midst of intense political debate, or of making a crisp first impression, or just casual conversation, one can throw out the name of a Famous One, with some iota of knowledge about that thinker's contribution, and bring to oneself immediate respect and intellectual recognition. If for no reason than pride alone, it is beneficial to learn a micro-dot about the best renowned.
Like classics in literature, which are the regarded as the best fiction, poetry, and essays over time, so the classics in philosophy are those that have given the best expression to ideas, within the confines or limits of their own period, and that have won the respect as the highest or the deepest of written thinking over the generations.
Socrates communicated solely in oral conversation, dialogues, and chronologically before him, we have only fragments of writing, saved in the greatest amount by the efforts of Aristotle and his students. Aristotle, the student of Plato, who was the student of Socrates, is said to have written forty books.
Aristotle's teacher, Plato, was the prized student of Socrates. He founded the first school of the humanities, the liberal arts, and of Philosophy, indeed, the Western World's first university, which was called the Academy, from which we derive the name “academic." The Academy survived nearly a thousand years. How few universities of today can make that claim of longevity? Plato wrote down many of the dialogues of Socrates, and his own political philosophy, The Republic.
The story is that, long before the founding of the Plato's Academy, or of the much later school of Aristotle, called the Lyceum, Socrates commented on the need for spoken study of Philosophy. He bemoaned the shift to writing ideas because it would lead to a lack of the quality of memory: We would become forgetful. Who now, who needs a list of one word items merely to go the grocery store, can argue against the observation that the Greek bards who could recite thousands of lines of verse were superior in the mental skill of recall?
Nevertheless, technological progress prevailed.
Soon after the death of Socrates these schools, one after the other, were founded, devoted to the writing and preserving of ancient Greek Philosophy.
Because Philosophy is now a written art, we can converse through writing over time with the ideas that have come before, with the awareness that ideas challenging and elaborating on our own, will follow after us. These conversations can be translated, and have been, into many languages, including those that did not even exist at the time of Socrates.
The dust of our flesh shall disappear, but Philosophical writing can keep our mental exercises, if not in eternal being, then at least in long-lived existence.
Like a wave upon wave in the ocean of time, written ideas relate to each other, change each other, and reach the individual on the shore of the here and how. Contemporary thought is sculpted by the past.
There are always those who say they have “Their Own Philosophy,” and don't need to know Philosophy of the past, “The Old Stuff.” They live in their own worlds, possibly with fleeting fame, but without lasting impression or comprehension. Why? Because our use of the names, vocabulary, and definitions of the past help us to communicate in the present. Thought can be so difficult to express verbally that we need the aide of common understandings of the terms and concepts that have been carefully, artfully discussed, written, and studied by so many for so long.
I hate to be the one to convey this possible disillusionment to some people, but there really are very few new ideas. New technologies, yes; new systems of thought, rarely. Most of our insights have already been stated by some preceeding thinker, some more clearly than others, and some more famously than others. Do not dispair. There is always a need for re-statement, for clarification, for refinement.
We need to use the terms, definitions, and concepts of the past to discuss the ideas we hold today. The better we use the concepts, vocabulary, and our knowledge of the thinkers of the past, the better we can express ourselves in the present. We can then be clearer, more precise, and more assured that our audience will understand what we are trying to communicate.
These ideas from the past are like coins of gold that, ever and continually spent, are never lost. The more we use them, the richer we become.
One thing we do learn from the past: The one thing upon which all the Philosophers of all times and places have agreed, no matter how far apart they were on the other issues, is that the study of Philosophy is the highest and greatest joy.
The more we try out thinking, the more we discover this is true.
11 - The Meaning of Life
The "Good Life." And "The Meaning of Life."
You would not have wanted to travel so far without coming to that answer, would you?
(1) Some skeptics say there is no Good Life and no Meaning of Life to be found. Many of them live contented lives. Yet, others say that those who maintain meaningfulness as paramount seem happier, less bitter. (Also, skepticism is a self-contradiction, as explained in the Chapter, "Why I'm Skeptical about Skepticism.") Saying there is no answer is not an answer when there is no proof that there is no answer. Besides, it is more fun to make an effort to answer life's most lasting questions.
(2) Aristotle defines the "Good Life" as one with virtue, health, wealth, family, friends, and longevity. St. Thomas Aquinas defines the Good Life as one with faith, reason, and virtue. Many other philosophers agree that the moral life is, or is a major part of, the Good Life. Living virtuously is one of the most important elements of enjoying life. When we have respect for ourselves for living up to our own standards, we can feel we are enjoying the Good Life.
Finding and living the Good Life is an important aspect of finding Meaning in Life. Whatever else the Good Life might include, moral living is central. One cannot be truly happy without it.
Some argue that greed, not morality, is the secret of happy living. However, recently, there have been studies that show, after about $50,000 per year, wealth does nothing to increase happiness. We all need material survival and enjoy comfort, but after a certain point, added money does nothing to improve a sense of being satisfied with life. (See also, the Chapter on "Egoism" for a discussion of the contradiction contained in selfishness.)
If moral living is needed for the Good Life, and the Good Life is needed for the Meaning of Life, then moral living must be needed for finding Meaning in Life.
(3) One of the best insights into the question Man's Search for Meaning comes from the book by that name, written by Viktor Frankl. A psychiatrist in Germany at the beginning of World War II, he and his family were violently taken to a Nazi prison camp. He was immediately separated from his wife and children, and then was sent to the men's work camp. Years later, he learned that his family had been gassed immediately.
He survived in the camp for two years. The first half of his book documents his struggles, both physical and psychological. He maintained his balance by looking forward to being reunited with his wife and children and to re-writing his book. The manuscript had been taken from him at the time of the arrest. In those days before digital copies and photocopies, the typed version was the only one. He would have to reconstruct it from the beginning.
Hope of being returned to the wife and children he loved and the work to which he was dedicated kept him level-minded. He imagined conversations with his wife. Some in the camp coped amazingly well, others in the camp lost all hope, and some died slowly because of a lack of will to live. The rigors of the camp, the hard work, the starvation diet, the filth, the long work days, all weakened both body and mind. Many died. Others, considered useless, were taken off to be gassed.
After two years, relatives were able to raise enough money to buy Frankl's freedom. Alone, he moved to New York City. There he began to re-build his life. He developed the method of psychology that he called Logotherapy, the study of meaning. As long as one has a meaning for which to live, one can have hope, and shape a life of happiness.
The second half of his book explains his theory of the meaningful life being the best. As long as we live with meaning, we can live well. The meaning may shift over time, just as he had to shift from finding meaning in the hope he would find his wife. The source or goal of meaning can change; the fact of living with meaningfulness should not. Through his therapeutic method, he was able to help many other survivors of camps who by then lived in New York City. He helped those who had lost everything, possessions and family and friends. He was a deeply religious man but did not impose his religion or having a religion on his patients.
I have found that everyone who reads this book is deeply moved. Frankl's strength gives all of us insight and respect. Each of us hopes we can find a similarly strong sense of meaning.
(4) What are some of the aspects of life in which humans find meaning? Freud offered (a) love and (b) work as the goals of living. Yet, statistics show that barely half have happy marriages, and fewer than that are happy in their work. Further, both of these goals are often outside our control. Finding a good job depends on time and place and economy. Finding love depends on time, place, and circumstance.
(5) To be a suitable meaning of life, I argue that it must be something that we can obtain through our own effort and which can only with great difficulty ever be taken from us. This is why Spinoza and others said education is the source of meaning: we can find it ourselves; and, once gained, it cannot be taken away.
I have already disputed love and work as sufficient answers, now I would like to dispute education, as much as I love it and worked hard for it for myself and for others. Education does not necessarily increase critical thinking, but it does seem to increase political awareness, enjoyment of culture, and to slow the instincts for violence. Yet, Germany at the time of the Nazi rise to power was among the most cultured and best educated nations in the world. Here, in the United States, even when the ratio of attained degrees is high, we have entered diplomatic and military endeavors that brought shame. Education, alone, does not protect us from silliness or misjudgment.
(6) Another commonly offered idea for ultimate meaning is religious faith. It is true that people of faith do find meaning and contentment in that faith, but there are so many different and different kinds of faith, that one is left asking which is the right one? Or, does having just any religion suffice? Interestingly, as religious as Viktor Frankl was, he never pressed religion upon others.
Huston Smith, the best known Twentieth Century expert on world religions, similarly to William James, defined religion as the trust in ultimate justice, which trust gives us strength and peace of mind. This is an appealing definition, but leaves us with the possibility of choosing a religion with a narrowly drawn sense of justice that looks to one's own betterment alone, or of a select few. Trust in ultimate justice for only a select few can lead to resentment and revenge. Self-defined justice can be a very selfish thing.
Finally, there are three things that are most often offered as suitable as a meaning of life: (7) wealth, (8) fame, and (9) falling in love. Each of these is especially popular in contemporary living.
(7) None of these met my standard of being in one's own control: wealth is often the result of luck more than work, and can be stolen or frittered away as quickly as it was gained.
Socrates and Spinoza were generally considered to have been impoverished or of only minimal income; yet, both excited their followers with their thought. They found, among other things, the secret we discuss below to the Meaning of Life.
(8) Fame depends on the attention of others, who can turn their attention away quickly and finally. Popularity is fleeting. Drama can entice briefly, but relying on the opinions of others robs one of self-esteem and of an inner life.
(9) Falling in love is particularly popular with poets and song-writers. Yet, falling in love is completely out of our control. We cannot just intend to fall in love with the next person we meet, because we cannot predict who that might be. We cannot choose to fall in love at one day and one hour. Time and place and circumstance for falling in love are outside our control.
Not only is gaining love outside our control, so is losing it. Poems and songs seem to spend as much time on love lost as they do on love gained. In truth, we know that one half of even the happiest couple is more likely to die before the other. The remaining partner is left with irreconcilable grief if their meaningfulness consisted solely in being in love with the other.
(10) What are we left with to answer our longing for meaning? Friendship. It is within our own grasp. We can attract good friends by being a good friend.
What are the qualities we want in a good friend? We can exhibit those in our own lives: loyalty, honesty, sincerity, dependability, kindness, empathy, and even a sense of humor. These are some of the qualities most of us admire. Surely, we can think of more. And surely, we can learn to conduct ourselves in these ways. So, gaining friendship can to a large extent be under our own control. We can choose good friends, we can be a good friend, and we can maintain long friendships. Yet, even if our friends may change or die, we still have the likelihood of gaining new friends. Many who report having long and happy marriages say that the basis of their marriage is friendship.
Friendship is a goal within our grasp and one that brings vast hours of contentment and meaningfulness. The quality of our lives, our work, our place of living, even our health, all are enhanced with the quality of our friendships.
A lifelong endeavor and pleasure, friendship is the meaning of life.
You would not have wanted to travel so far without coming to that answer, would you?
(1) Some skeptics say there is no Good Life and no Meaning of Life to be found. Many of them live contented lives. Yet, others say that those who maintain meaningfulness as paramount seem happier, less bitter. (Also, skepticism is a self-contradiction, as explained in the Chapter, "Why I'm Skeptical about Skepticism.") Saying there is no answer is not an answer when there is no proof that there is no answer. Besides, it is more fun to make an effort to answer life's most lasting questions.
(2) Aristotle defines the "Good Life" as one with virtue, health, wealth, family, friends, and longevity. St. Thomas Aquinas defines the Good Life as one with faith, reason, and virtue. Many other philosophers agree that the moral life is, or is a major part of, the Good Life. Living virtuously is one of the most important elements of enjoying life. When we have respect for ourselves for living up to our own standards, we can feel we are enjoying the Good Life.
Finding and living the Good Life is an important aspect of finding Meaning in Life. Whatever else the Good Life might include, moral living is central. One cannot be truly happy without it.
Some argue that greed, not morality, is the secret of happy living. However, recently, there have been studies that show, after about $50,000 per year, wealth does nothing to increase happiness. We all need material survival and enjoy comfort, but after a certain point, added money does nothing to improve a sense of being satisfied with life. (See also, the Chapter on "Egoism" for a discussion of the contradiction contained in selfishness.)
If moral living is needed for the Good Life, and the Good Life is needed for the Meaning of Life, then moral living must be needed for finding Meaning in Life.
(3) One of the best insights into the question Man's Search for Meaning comes from the book by that name, written by Viktor Frankl. A psychiatrist in Germany at the beginning of World War II, he and his family were violently taken to a Nazi prison camp. He was immediately separated from his wife and children, and then was sent to the men's work camp. Years later, he learned that his family had been gassed immediately.
He survived in the camp for two years. The first half of his book documents his struggles, both physical and psychological. He maintained his balance by looking forward to being reunited with his wife and children and to re-writing his book. The manuscript had been taken from him at the time of the arrest. In those days before digital copies and photocopies, the typed version was the only one. He would have to reconstruct it from the beginning.
Hope of being returned to the wife and children he loved and the work to which he was dedicated kept him level-minded. He imagined conversations with his wife. Some in the camp coped amazingly well, others in the camp lost all hope, and some died slowly because of a lack of will to live. The rigors of the camp, the hard work, the starvation diet, the filth, the long work days, all weakened both body and mind. Many died. Others, considered useless, were taken off to be gassed.
After two years, relatives were able to raise enough money to buy Frankl's freedom. Alone, he moved to New York City. There he began to re-build his life. He developed the method of psychology that he called Logotherapy, the study of meaning. As long as one has a meaning for which to live, one can have hope, and shape a life of happiness.
The second half of his book explains his theory of the meaningful life being the best. As long as we live with meaning, we can live well. The meaning may shift over time, just as he had to shift from finding meaning in the hope he would find his wife. The source or goal of meaning can change; the fact of living with meaningfulness should not. Through his therapeutic method, he was able to help many other survivors of camps who by then lived in New York City. He helped those who had lost everything, possessions and family and friends. He was a deeply religious man but did not impose his religion or having a religion on his patients.
I have found that everyone who reads this book is deeply moved. Frankl's strength gives all of us insight and respect. Each of us hopes we can find a similarly strong sense of meaning.
(4) What are some of the aspects of life in which humans find meaning? Freud offered (a) love and (b) work as the goals of living. Yet, statistics show that barely half have happy marriages, and fewer than that are happy in their work. Further, both of these goals are often outside our control. Finding a good job depends on time and place and economy. Finding love depends on time, place, and circumstance.
(5) To be a suitable meaning of life, I argue that it must be something that we can obtain through our own effort and which can only with great difficulty ever be taken from us. This is why Spinoza and others said education is the source of meaning: we can find it ourselves; and, once gained, it cannot be taken away.
I have already disputed love and work as sufficient answers, now I would like to dispute education, as much as I love it and worked hard for it for myself and for others. Education does not necessarily increase critical thinking, but it does seem to increase political awareness, enjoyment of culture, and to slow the instincts for violence. Yet, Germany at the time of the Nazi rise to power was among the most cultured and best educated nations in the world. Here, in the United States, even when the ratio of attained degrees is high, we have entered diplomatic and military endeavors that brought shame. Education, alone, does not protect us from silliness or misjudgment.
(6) Another commonly offered idea for ultimate meaning is religious faith. It is true that people of faith do find meaning and contentment in that faith, but there are so many different and different kinds of faith, that one is left asking which is the right one? Or, does having just any religion suffice? Interestingly, as religious as Viktor Frankl was, he never pressed religion upon others.
Huston Smith, the best known Twentieth Century expert on world religions, similarly to William James, defined religion as the trust in ultimate justice, which trust gives us strength and peace of mind. This is an appealing definition, but leaves us with the possibility of choosing a religion with a narrowly drawn sense of justice that looks to one's own betterment alone, or of a select few. Trust in ultimate justice for only a select few can lead to resentment and revenge. Self-defined justice can be a very selfish thing.
Finally, there are three things that are most often offered as suitable as a meaning of life: (7) wealth, (8) fame, and (9) falling in love. Each of these is especially popular in contemporary living.
(7) None of these met my standard of being in one's own control: wealth is often the result of luck more than work, and can be stolen or frittered away as quickly as it was gained.
Socrates and Spinoza were generally considered to have been impoverished or of only minimal income; yet, both excited their followers with their thought. They found, among other things, the secret we discuss below to the Meaning of Life.
(8) Fame depends on the attention of others, who can turn their attention away quickly and finally. Popularity is fleeting. Drama can entice briefly, but relying on the opinions of others robs one of self-esteem and of an inner life.
(9) Falling in love is particularly popular with poets and song-writers. Yet, falling in love is completely out of our control. We cannot just intend to fall in love with the next person we meet, because we cannot predict who that might be. We cannot choose to fall in love at one day and one hour. Time and place and circumstance for falling in love are outside our control.
Not only is gaining love outside our control, so is losing it. Poems and songs seem to spend as much time on love lost as they do on love gained. In truth, we know that one half of even the happiest couple is more likely to die before the other. The remaining partner is left with irreconcilable grief if their meaningfulness consisted solely in being in love with the other.
(10) What are we left with to answer our longing for meaning? Friendship. It is within our own grasp. We can attract good friends by being a good friend.
What are the qualities we want in a good friend? We can exhibit those in our own lives: loyalty, honesty, sincerity, dependability, kindness, empathy, and even a sense of humor. These are some of the qualities most of us admire. Surely, we can think of more. And surely, we can learn to conduct ourselves in these ways. So, gaining friendship can to a large extent be under our own control. We can choose good friends, we can be a good friend, and we can maintain long friendships. Yet, even if our friends may change or die, we still have the likelihood of gaining new friends. Many who report having long and happy marriages say that the basis of their marriage is friendship.
Friendship is a goal within our grasp and one that brings vast hours of contentment and meaningfulness. The quality of our lives, our work, our place of living, even our health, all are enhanced with the quality of our friendships.
A lifelong endeavor and pleasure, friendship is the meaning of life.
12 - What to Read - The List
The Suggested Reading List.
Some are more important than others;
and some are easier to read than others:
Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes
"The Value of Philosophy," Bertrand Russell
Mind
Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume
New Essays on Human Understanding, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Vindication of the Right of Women, Mary Wollstonecraft
Free Will
Ethics, Benedict Spinoza
Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friederich Nietzsche
The Self
The Dialogues and The Republic, Plato
The Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DeBois
The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Homosexuality: The Psychology of the Creative Process, Paul Rosenfels
God
Pensees, Blaise Pascal
The Will to Believe, William James
"Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell
Reasoning
Logic, Aristotle
Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant
The World
Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King, Jr.
A Theory of Justice, John Rawls
Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick
What to Do
The Analects, Confucius
Ethics, Aristotle
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir
Meaning Of Life
"Humanism and Existentialism," John-Paul Sartre
Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl
13 - Beginning to Read the Originals
The Almost Forgotten: Whatever was left out until now.
[In Process: (1) Start Reading; (2) More Proofs of God; and (3) Spinoza]
Beginning to Read the Originals:
(1) Ancient:
"The Apologia" by Socrates
This begins Western Philosophy
He is charged with (a) being an atheist,
and (b) corrupting the youth.
He refutes both but still receives
the death penalty from the jury
of 500.
For the past 2500 years, Socrates
has been considered the real
winner of the arguments.
Can you find what he argued?
(2) Modern:
Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes
He begins the Modern era.
He writes beautifully.
He proves that he exists,
God exists, and that the
world exists.
He accepts St. Anselm's
argument that God is good.
(3) Twentieth Century:
Man's Search for Meaning, Frankl
Where do we find meaning when we
have lost everything?
He was in a Nazi work camp.
Powerfully written.
[In Process: (1) Start Reading; (2) More Proofs of God; and (3) Spinoza]
Beginning to Read the Originals:
(1) Ancient:
"The Apologia" by Socrates
This begins Western Philosophy
He is charged with (a) being an atheist,
and (b) corrupting the youth.
He refutes both but still receives
the death penalty from the jury
of 500.
For the past 2500 years, Socrates
has been considered the real
winner of the arguments.
Can you find what he argued?
(2) Modern:
Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes
He begins the Modern era.
He writes beautifully.
He proves that he exists,
God exists, and that the
world exists.
He accepts St. Anselm's
argument that God is good.
(3) Twentieth Century:
Man's Search for Meaning, Frankl
Where do we find meaning when we
have lost everything?
He was in a Nazi work camp.
Powerfully written.
14 - Extra Points: What is Time? What is Zero? What is Empathy?
Extra Points: What is Time? What is Zero? What is Empathy?
Three Topics:
What is Time? (A Beginning); & Nothing About Zero; & What is Empathy?
(1) What is Time?
The Beginning:
Only today exists.
Within today, we remember yesterday,
and we look forward to tomorrow
to remembering today and yesterday.
Yesterday, we looked forward to today
and to tomorrow.
Tomorrow, we will remember yesterday
and today, and remembering yesterday
while it was today.
All of this happens within today.
__________
[Editor's note: Philosophy Today: Some of the above is a condensation of Phenomology, one of the Post-Modern Philosophies of Twentieth Century Eurporean Philosophy. Existentialism assumes existence and asks what we are going to do with it; next, Phenomenology looks at the essence of existence; then, Structualism looks at the shape of existence; finally, Post-Structualism says all is fragments; and altogether, these form Post-Modernism, which is still with us today.
The British and the Americans get a little sea-sick with it all, and prefer Analytic Philosophy, sort of a cross between Scepticism and Logic, with a little Linguistics. The truly disallusioned have moved onto Computer Science. For a little more on this, I refer you to http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947 http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947
Or: http://philosophyfaqs.blogspot.com/2010/09/tell-me-about-modern-post-modern-and.html ]
_________
(2) What is Zero?
Following is a Light-hearted Trip Through the Questions of Zero, Followed by a Few Tentative Answers: A Barrel of Laughs. An Empty Barrel?
Definitions:
Number: abstract idea that communicates how many in a set. Numeral: names of numbers. Digit: a set of symbols we use to write numerals. Then comes Zero.
Number, numeral, digit. But what is Zero?
What is an empty set of nothing?
If it's a placeholder, isn't that a property,
and if it has a property, doesn't that
imply existence? Yet, existence, by
definition, is the one thing nothingness
does not have.
If you take a number like 100,000, you find
that it contains 5 zeros. Are these five
nothings all sub-sets of nothingness?
How can one nothing be larger than
another nothing?
Yet, without Zero, our current number
system collapses, and we are reduced
to number systems like Roman Numerals.
Are Roman Numerals actually numbers?
Have you ever tried to multiply with Roman Numerals?
If a Zero is an empty set of nothing,
what is its referent? Where is nothing?
Is nothingness a quality without a
quantity? Then why do we need
it for counting? Isn't counting
or measuring the basis of quantity?
In short, Zero may be nothing, but,
in my opinion, it is full of paradox.
I hope this has brought you a laugh.
Proposed answers:
Zero is infinite negativity.
As a four (4) is
a representative of all the
fours in the universe, so
Zero is a representative
of complete negation to
an infinite extent. (0)
Or, like numbers themselves, zero represents
one instance of an infinite number
of similar numbers. A number,
then, could be said to be a
representative of one member
of the set of infinite like
numbers.
Is Zero the emptiness that gives shape to the digits around it, that way the empty space around letters give them their meaning. Is nothingness the context of meaning?
Is the infinite nowhere the place where we define our symbol systems? Is the myth of numbers exploded by the unending vacuum of Zero?
Numbers are a fantasy we use to represent the unrepresentable universe. The universe can never be totally, truly known. Numbers are always insufficient. The map is not the territory. Zero is the necessary empty space upon the map. The map is nothing by itself. It points to, but is not real Earth. The Zero points only to universal negativity. Zero points to Empty Earth?
There we live. In a fantasy of a numeric myth defined by ultimate nothingness.
Numbers are there; we are here; Zero is nowhere.
We like our numbers.
[Editor's note: I don't have anyone to blame this on. All Rights Reserved.]
(3) What is Empathy?
Empathy was best discussed in The Problem of Empathy, by St. Edith Stein.
In one of the horrible ironies of all time, she was executed in a death camp by the Nazis.
I recommend reading her book.
Empathy is an especially difficult subject for traditional Western (male) Philosophy. The Ancients didn't discuss it, and the Medieval Philosophers were more interested in Revelation and the Divine Passion. Compassion between consenting adults was less discussed.
Empathy implies that at least two people exist, and at least one of them is able to do something more than just understand the other, but to enter into the mind of the other in such a way that they can experience the world through the perspective of that other. If you're really lucky, it can work both ways, but that takes communication and practice.
First, one has to believe in the existence of the self.
Descartes, the Rationalist of the 1600s, for example, proved that he did exist because he thought. I think, therefore I am, he wrote: one of the most famous sentences of all of Philosophy. He wasn't so sure initially about the existence of the outside world, but finally decided that because God is good, there must be a creation. It took him two marvelous, beautifully written books to come to these conclusions I have so bligthly summarized. He is, after all, one of the greatest Philosophical writers of all time. I'm not the only one who thinks that, and I never feel sufficient in describing his ideas and proofs.
The point, here, is that Descartes thought he proved the existence both of the self and of the outer world, that is, both the self and the other. He proved the existence of God, too, but that is another discussion. He does not seem to have addressed the issue of empathy.
Two hundred years later, David Hume, the great Scottish Sceptic, doubted that he existed, that God existed, and that causality existed. He was an Empiricist and a Materialist. Even though he had trouble describing the sensations of the outside world, he seems to have always believed that the material world existed. So, we might say he doubted the self, God, and causality, but not the existence of other people. He was fond of saying we should live by common sense, whatever that is, which implies, by the use of the word, “common” that there must exist more than one other person. We would conclude that he would have trouble with empathy, because there would be no self to empathize with the other, or others.
Presumably, Hume must have been a sceptic about empathy, as well as all those other things about which he was a sceptic.
Jean-Paul Sartre, in the second half of the Twentieth Century, was the great spokesman for Existentialism. He could be persuaded that the Self existed, and that the Other existed, but he thought they were forever separated into the subjective and the objective. One could be one or the other, and although at times, they changed sides, one could never be both the Self and the Other.
There is a lingering discussion of whether Simon de Beauvoir, his closest friend, the first female Doctor of Philosophy of France, and the author of many books, disagreed with him about the forever estrangement of the Self and the Other. In her best known work, The Second Sex, she explains that one of the great problems of the world is that men are forever viewing women as the Other.
Husserl, the Phenomenologist, which is one step beyond Existentialism in Continental European Twentieth Century Philosophy, leaned toward the possiblity of the self and of the other being able to understand each other.
It was his famous student, the first female Doctor of Philosophy of Germany, later canonized as Saint Edith Stein, who put forward the possiblity and the importance of empathy. It's been a very long time since I read The Problem of Empathy, but I was very impressed by it, by its understanding of Phenomenology, and by its careful proof of the existence of empathy.
During her study, she converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and to fulfill her commitment to empathy, became a Carmelite nun. However, Hitler was in search of even more Jews to kill. He dictated that "baptized Jews," who had previously been free of the treatment of Jews, because they were Christian, that even these should die.
Therefore, the author of first European text on existence of empathy was sent to the gas chamber.
Thinking can be a dangerous thing.
It is only fair to note that it was the effort of contemporary Germans who worked so hard to have her canonized as quickly as possible.
Empathy can sometimes be difficult to prove, but it is one of those things, like kindness and friendship, that make life worthwhile. Our lives are short and mean without empathy.
Three Topics:
What is Time? (A Beginning); & Nothing About Zero; & What is Empathy?
(1) What is Time?
The Beginning:
Only today exists.
Within today, we remember yesterday,
and we look forward to tomorrow
to remembering today and yesterday.
Yesterday, we looked forward to today
and to tomorrow.
Tomorrow, we will remember yesterday
and today, and remembering yesterday
while it was today.
All of this happens within today.
__________
[Editor's note: Philosophy Today: Some of the above is a condensation of Phenomology, one of the Post-Modern Philosophies of Twentieth Century Eurporean Philosophy. Existentialism assumes existence and asks what we are going to do with it; next, Phenomenology looks at the essence of existence; then, Structualism looks at the shape of existence; finally, Post-Structualism says all is fragments; and altogether, these form Post-Modernism, which is still with us today.
The British and the Americans get a little sea-sick with it all, and prefer Analytic Philosophy, sort of a cross between Scepticism and Logic, with a little Linguistics. The truly disallusioned have moved onto Computer Science. For a little more on this, I refer you to http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947 http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7162361085837752771&postID=639018739932532947
Or: http://philosophyfaqs.blogspot.com/2010/09/tell-me-about-modern-post-modern-and.html ]
_________
(2) What is Zero?
Following is a Light-hearted Trip Through the Questions of Zero, Followed by a Few Tentative Answers: A Barrel of Laughs. An Empty Barrel?
Definitions:
Number: abstract idea that communicates how many in a set. Numeral: names of numbers. Digit: a set of symbols we use to write numerals. Then comes Zero.
Number, numeral, digit. But what is Zero?
What is an empty set of nothing?
If it's a placeholder, isn't that a property,
and if it has a property, doesn't that
imply existence? Yet, existence, by
definition, is the one thing nothingness
does not have.
If you take a number like 100,000, you find
that it contains 5 zeros. Are these five
nothings all sub-sets of nothingness?
How can one nothing be larger than
another nothing?
Yet, without Zero, our current number
system collapses, and we are reduced
to number systems like Roman Numerals.
Are Roman Numerals actually numbers?
Have you ever tried to multiply with Roman Numerals?
If a Zero is an empty set of nothing,
what is its referent? Where is nothing?
Is nothingness a quality without a
quantity? Then why do we need
it for counting? Isn't counting
or measuring the basis of quantity?
In short, Zero may be nothing, but,
in my opinion, it is full of paradox.
I hope this has brought you a laugh.
Proposed answers:
Zero is infinite negativity.
As a four (4) is
a representative of all the
fours in the universe, so
Zero is a representative
of complete negation to
an infinite extent. (0)
Or, like numbers themselves, zero represents
one instance of an infinite number
of similar numbers. A number,
then, could be said to be a
representative of one member
of the set of infinite like
numbers.
Is Zero the emptiness that gives shape to the digits around it, that way the empty space around letters give them their meaning. Is nothingness the context of meaning?
Is the infinite nowhere the place where we define our symbol systems? Is the myth of numbers exploded by the unending vacuum of Zero?
Numbers are a fantasy we use to represent the unrepresentable universe. The universe can never be totally, truly known. Numbers are always insufficient. The map is not the territory. Zero is the necessary empty space upon the map. The map is nothing by itself. It points to, but is not real Earth. The Zero points only to universal negativity. Zero points to Empty Earth?
There we live. In a fantasy of a numeric myth defined by ultimate nothingness.
Numbers are there; we are here; Zero is nowhere.
We like our numbers.
[Editor's note: I don't have anyone to blame this on. All Rights Reserved.]
(3) What is Empathy?
Empathy was best discussed in The Problem of Empathy, by St. Edith Stein.
In one of the horrible ironies of all time, she was executed in a death camp by the Nazis.
I recommend reading her book.
Empathy is an especially difficult subject for traditional Western (male) Philosophy. The Ancients didn't discuss it, and the Medieval Philosophers were more interested in Revelation and the Divine Passion. Compassion between consenting adults was less discussed.
Empathy implies that at least two people exist, and at least one of them is able to do something more than just understand the other, but to enter into the mind of the other in such a way that they can experience the world through the perspective of that other. If you're really lucky, it can work both ways, but that takes communication and practice.
First, one has to believe in the existence of the self.
Descartes, the Rationalist of the 1600s, for example, proved that he did exist because he thought. I think, therefore I am, he wrote: one of the most famous sentences of all of Philosophy. He wasn't so sure initially about the existence of the outside world, but finally decided that because God is good, there must be a creation. It took him two marvelous, beautifully written books to come to these conclusions I have so bligthly summarized. He is, after all, one of the greatest Philosophical writers of all time. I'm not the only one who thinks that, and I never feel sufficient in describing his ideas and proofs.
The point, here, is that Descartes thought he proved the existence both of the self and of the outer world, that is, both the self and the other. He proved the existence of God, too, but that is another discussion. He does not seem to have addressed the issue of empathy.
Two hundred years later, David Hume, the great Scottish Sceptic, doubted that he existed, that God existed, and that causality existed. He was an Empiricist and a Materialist. Even though he had trouble describing the sensations of the outside world, he seems to have always believed that the material world existed. So, we might say he doubted the self, God, and causality, but not the existence of other people. He was fond of saying we should live by common sense, whatever that is, which implies, by the use of the word, “common” that there must exist more than one other person. We would conclude that he would have trouble with empathy, because there would be no self to empathize with the other, or others.
Presumably, Hume must have been a sceptic about empathy, as well as all those other things about which he was a sceptic.
Jean-Paul Sartre, in the second half of the Twentieth Century, was the great spokesman for Existentialism. He could be persuaded that the Self existed, and that the Other existed, but he thought they were forever separated into the subjective and the objective. One could be one or the other, and although at times, they changed sides, one could never be both the Self and the Other.
There is a lingering discussion of whether Simon de Beauvoir, his closest friend, the first female Doctor of Philosophy of France, and the author of many books, disagreed with him about the forever estrangement of the Self and the Other. In her best known work, The Second Sex, she explains that one of the great problems of the world is that men are forever viewing women as the Other.
Husserl, the Phenomenologist, which is one step beyond Existentialism in Continental European Twentieth Century Philosophy, leaned toward the possiblity of the self and of the other being able to understand each other.
It was his famous student, the first female Doctor of Philosophy of Germany, later canonized as Saint Edith Stein, who put forward the possiblity and the importance of empathy. It's been a very long time since I read The Problem of Empathy, but I was very impressed by it, by its understanding of Phenomenology, and by its careful proof of the existence of empathy.
During her study, she converted from Judaism to Catholicism, and to fulfill her commitment to empathy, became a Carmelite nun. However, Hitler was in search of even more Jews to kill. He dictated that "baptized Jews," who had previously been free of the treatment of Jews, because they were Christian, that even these should die.
Therefore, the author of first European text on existence of empathy was sent to the gas chamber.
Thinking can be a dangerous thing.
It is only fair to note that it was the effort of contemporary Germans who worked so hard to have her canonized as quickly as possible.
Empathy can sometimes be difficult to prove, but it is one of those things, like kindness and friendship, that make life worthwhile. Our lives are short and mean without empathy.
15 - A Never-Ending Delight
Finished? Never! Life-long learning is good for everyone.
1- My favorite histories of Philosophy:
History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant
2 - My favorite short references:
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn
The Columbia Encyclopedia
3 - My favorite textbooks:
Classic Philosophical Questions, James Gould
The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels
Critical Thinking, Moore and Parker
1- My favorite histories of Philosophy:
History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell
The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant
2 - My favorite short references:
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn
The Columbia Encyclopedia
3 - My favorite textbooks:
Classic Philosophical Questions, James Gould
The Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels
Critical Thinking, Moore and Parker
16 - Philosophy and the New Age
Summary:
1- Often books on Philosophy are lumped in together with those on the New Age or on Eastern Meditation.
2- Philosophy involves Critical Thinking.
3- Many teachers of Meditation say to give up Critical Thinking in order to live in the moment.
4- I argue that what they really mean is to stop anything (the inner mumble, monologue, or emoting) that separate us from immediate, non-verbal, visual perception. That level of awareness is good exercise for experiencing life afresh, and for sports, driving, martial arts, and other hand-mind-coordination activities.
5- Being able to meditate does not prevent, and should not prevent, using thought and words and Critical Thinking to question people who want to convince us of ideas, or to sell us products.
6- Critical Thinking is a tool of self-protection.
7- Critical Thinking is part of self-understanding and self-expression.
8- Critical Thinking can be entertaining.
***************
I was asked the other day about the role of Chritical Thinking in comparison to obtaining Zen mind, where every effort is made to lay aside the critical side of human nature in order to smell and sense the world as it really is, free of the on-going commentary of the verbal mind: living without the narrative of presumptions.
I want to explain the difference between the inner silence of meditation and the constant questioning of Philosophy. I hope to show when questioning is necessary in the world of human communication in order to understand living, and in order to protect ourselves from those persons who would deceive us.
"Quiet mind" in everyday living can be the joy of sunrise. On the other hand, it can be an excuse to "zone out."
By contrast, the delight of seeking understanding through thinking can be an on-going pleasure that can carry us into and through all phases of our life, be they difficult or calm. On the other hand, it can be distracting.
We can learn how to think, and we can learn how to meditate. Knowing when to use one or the other is necessary for the discerning meditator.
Further, rolling over and over the Eternal Questions delights the thinking mind: for example, pondering the distinctions between human and animal can take days or a lifetime. What elements make us human? Porpoises can sing; hummingbirds can dance; bees have society; ants fight wars; and my dog has a great sense of humor. Humans were humans before they had fire, before they had yeast for brewing and for baking, before they planted vegetables. Neanderthals buried their dead; elephants grieve.
Yet, we want a clean slate of mind when, for example, we approach the world "with an awareness of movement with others who are also aware of movement with others," such as dancing, playing sports, or driving an automobile. For example, we want to set aside the daily overlay of subtitles, of narrative, in order to move in a visual, visceral oneness of body, car, and the universe.
In meditation, we lay down the critical thinking and emoting of everyday life and enter into "at-one-ment" with the All. In Zen we approach Satori by being at one with the Nothingness, entering the paradox of being the no-self who is part of Nothing, in the unity of nothing with Nothing. It is described as being indescribable.
In bookstores, we confront the piercing reality that the section marked Philosophy more often than not is full of self-help, the Age of Aquarius, and variations on attaining the mind of the Buddha. Kant, Hume, Russell, Sartre, even Plato and Descartes are not to be found. Finding and reading Philosophy requires initiative and perseverance. Studying reason involves persistence.
The reward of reason is the energy that flows from the unfettered mind. Questioning opens up the mind to expression in the outer world, in thinking, in conversation, and in writing.
It is a buzz.
The study of Philosophy and Critical Thinking hones the skills of reading comprehension, recognizing the context of history and the organizing concepts of culture. It prepares us to live more deeply and with more awareness. It can release empathy. It can restore kindness and build friendship. We can seek meaning and find self-directed projects that take us there.
Philosophy does not give answers: it is a skill that develops questioning. It brings us into the here and now by exploring the timeless inner world, the "eternal now" in which our lives sparkle. The numbness of unexamined "habit" is tuned, like an orchestra to the true "A" of the oboe. Aristotle argued that developing the "habit" of living morally or of seeking the "good" life necessitates years of study.
Critical thinking that protects us from false arguments is very different from the "criticalness," rejected by teachers of Meditation, that imposes presumptions of social status, or of egoism.
Empty-mindedness of meditation is a listening to the ocean of silence. Philosophy is the conversation that seeks our best response.
1- Often books on Philosophy are lumped in together with those on the New Age or on Eastern Meditation.
2- Philosophy involves Critical Thinking.
3- Many teachers of Meditation say to give up Critical Thinking in order to live in the moment.
4- I argue that what they really mean is to stop anything (the inner mumble, monologue, or emoting) that separate us from immediate, non-verbal, visual perception. That level of awareness is good exercise for experiencing life afresh, and for sports, driving, martial arts, and other hand-mind-coordination activities.
5- Being able to meditate does not prevent, and should not prevent, using thought and words and Critical Thinking to question people who want to convince us of ideas, or to sell us products.
6- Critical Thinking is a tool of self-protection.
7- Critical Thinking is part of self-understanding and self-expression.
8- Critical Thinking can be entertaining.
***************
I was asked the other day about the role of Chritical Thinking in comparison to obtaining Zen mind, where every effort is made to lay aside the critical side of human nature in order to smell and sense the world as it really is, free of the on-going commentary of the verbal mind: living without the narrative of presumptions.
I want to explain the difference between the inner silence of meditation and the constant questioning of Philosophy. I hope to show when questioning is necessary in the world of human communication in order to understand living, and in order to protect ourselves from those persons who would deceive us.
"Quiet mind" in everyday living can be the joy of sunrise. On the other hand, it can be an excuse to "zone out."
By contrast, the delight of seeking understanding through thinking can be an on-going pleasure that can carry us into and through all phases of our life, be they difficult or calm. On the other hand, it can be distracting.
We can learn how to think, and we can learn how to meditate. Knowing when to use one or the other is necessary for the discerning meditator.
Further, rolling over and over the Eternal Questions delights the thinking mind: for example, pondering the distinctions between human and animal can take days or a lifetime. What elements make us human? Porpoises can sing; hummingbirds can dance; bees have society; ants fight wars; and my dog has a great sense of humor. Humans were humans before they had fire, before they had yeast for brewing and for baking, before they planted vegetables. Neanderthals buried their dead; elephants grieve.
Yet, we want a clean slate of mind when, for example, we approach the world "with an awareness of movement with others who are also aware of movement with others," such as dancing, playing sports, or driving an automobile. For example, we want to set aside the daily overlay of subtitles, of narrative, in order to move in a visual, visceral oneness of body, car, and the universe.
In meditation, we lay down the critical thinking and emoting of everyday life and enter into "at-one-ment" with the All. In Zen we approach Satori by being at one with the Nothingness, entering the paradox of being the no-self who is part of Nothing, in the unity of nothing with Nothing. It is described as being indescribable.
In bookstores, we confront the piercing reality that the section marked Philosophy more often than not is full of self-help, the Age of Aquarius, and variations on attaining the mind of the Buddha. Kant, Hume, Russell, Sartre, even Plato and Descartes are not to be found. Finding and reading Philosophy requires initiative and perseverance. Studying reason involves persistence.
The reward of reason is the energy that flows from the unfettered mind. Questioning opens up the mind to expression in the outer world, in thinking, in conversation, and in writing.
It is a buzz.
The study of Philosophy and Critical Thinking hones the skills of reading comprehension, recognizing the context of history and the organizing concepts of culture. It prepares us to live more deeply and with more awareness. It can release empathy. It can restore kindness and build friendship. We can seek meaning and find self-directed projects that take us there.
Philosophy does not give answers: it is a skill that develops questioning. It brings us into the here and now by exploring the timeless inner world, the "eternal now" in which our lives sparkle. The numbness of unexamined "habit" is tuned, like an orchestra to the true "A" of the oboe. Aristotle argued that developing the "habit" of living morally or of seeking the "good" life necessitates years of study.
Critical thinking that protects us from false arguments is very different from the "criticalness," rejected by teachers of Meditation, that imposes presumptions of social status, or of egoism.
Empty-mindedness of meditation is a listening to the ocean of silence. Philosophy is the conversation that seeks our best response.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)