Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Phoebe, all, Indeed. They carved out Hypatia's flesh with shells. No hanging on a cross needed. Her agony -- mine. Her agony -- ours. Take it up. It happened. Written in all our flesh. We send our love across time. Pain becomes bearable. Temple everywhere. This I gnow. Do this in memory with me. *** Lighten me. x's Deborah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 zozie@... wrote: Dear Phoebe, Don't summon me if you don't want me to appear. If you respond to my post, yet don't want a dialogue, then you must expect me simply to accept a chastisement without comment. Not bloody likely :-). Perhaps you will agree that real paganism, despite the undoubted differences among cults, is not admixed with Christianity? As for watching my language, I wasn't aware that " virgin " was a dirty word; perhaps in some places it is. It's always, imo, good tp resist the spirit of gravity (although I don't myself always succeed). It's only life, after all. No one gets out alive. Best, Dan Watkins >In a message dated 3/2/05 7:53:39 PM, JUNG-FIRE writes: > ><< Or, in other words, the new paganism you decry *is* the upgraded >Christianity. Very buggy. Now, if they start to make human sacrifices by >the light of the new moon, then I might be impressed. Difficult to find >a virgin, though. >> > >Hey, Dan, I don't want a dialogue with you. We've had many such and they >always turn sour. (Probably my fault, I don't have your levity.) But this one >really is a bit too uppity. I think maybe you're watching too many television >witches and not reading the real stuff that contemporary paganism is producing. >You'll find some virgins. Human sacrifices, probably not. But you are lumping >together a myriad cults and pre-Christian practices and reconstructed pagan >paths as if they were all alike. They surely are not. > >Your virgin joke tweaked me. So consider this just a hey Dan! watch your >language. > >all the best, >phoebe > > > > >*********************************************************************** >Read my latest story: http://www.fables.org/autumn04/visitor.html >Check out my novella: http://www.scrybepress.com/catalog.html >************************************************************************* > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Dan, all, Ummmm... >D:It's only life, after all. No one gets out alive. Except in an earlier response, D: On the contrary, he survived for eternity (which he probably understood as sempiternity) in heaven or in hell. He may have been encased in this mortal coil for only five or fifty years, but what's so great about such imprisonment anyhow. A lot, to me, rides with respect to my understanding your position on the satisfactions of medieval religion whether this olden religion is presumed to be profound about the mortal coil or is presumed to be for only those unable to not understand that one cannot get out alive. You seem to want it one way for some and another way for others. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 SC wrote: Dear , It must be one for some and another way for others - it's not a question of what I want. Not that I can really rule out life after death in any case - the point was, don;t take this vale of tears too seriously. Best, Dan >Dan, all, > >Ummmm... > > > >>D:It's only life, after all. No one gets out alive. >> >> > >Except in an earlier response, > >D: On the contrary, he survived for eternity (which he probably understood >as sempiternity) in heaven or in hell. He may have been encased in this >mortal coil for only five or fifty years, but what's so great about such >imprisonment anyhow. > >A lot, to me, rides with respect to my understanding your position on >the satisfactions of medieval religion whether this olden religion is >presumed to be profound about the mortal coil or is presumed to be >for only those unable to not understand that one cannot get out alive. > >You seem to want it one way for some and another way for others. > >regards, > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Dan, all, D:It must be one for some and another way for others Hey, you dodged my question. (Your sentiment about the mortal coil wasn't addressed.) It was " whether this olden religion is presumed to be profound about the mortal coil or is presumed to be for only those unable to not understand that one cannot get out alive. I'll clarify: (1) if the old medieval religion is profound about the mortal coil then what it offers the living is the truth about the afterlife. This truth would apply to all living persons. It would be so for one and all. However, if it doesn't offer such a universal truth, but, as you put it strongly, " must be one for some, " then, what I wonder about is what then is true for the other, i.e. what is this " another way " . Well, what I wonder about is how you make room for both positions in your own views. *** You see the problem, (really again,) because you've divided it up so: between the must for one and the must for the other. If a philosopher knows perfectly well that some class of persons lesser than the philosopher is preoccupied with religion, satisfied by this religion, BUT, also knows that what this class is preoccupied with, from the standpoint of what the philosopher knows is True, is, a bundle of falsities, false hopes, etc., then what seems to follow is that the medieval prescription serves the purpose of the philosopher, but not the purpose of the ignorant. I state this better this way: the purpose of the ignorant is to remain ignorant. for this is the way the order of things conveniences the philosopher. So, I ask again whether you're dividing up human aspiration into two senses, the philosopher who knows the Truth, and, the ignorant religionists who don't understand that what applies to them, does not apply to the philosopher, (or any whathaveyou in the person of a paragon of knowledge; whatever allows this division to be so). I think you've indicated this to some extent, and if you do so again, we could consider the third general class. *** Of more interest, you write: D: Man was a proto-political animal (tribal) before he was even man. The personal (psychological) arises from the political, not vice versa. Our terms, political and psychological, aren't well defined (by you and I) yet. To unravel the implications of posing politics to be primary we'd have to define those terms in a way that doesn't solve the riddle simply due to the definitions. Might as well start with politics, and proto-politics. We will of course be coming at this from opposite positions. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 SC wrote: Dear Mr. Darro... I mean, . >Dan, all, > >Ummmm... > > > >>D:It's only life, after all. No one gets out alive. >> >> > >Except in an earlier response, > >D: On the contrary, he survived for eternity (which he probably understood >as sempiternity) in heaven or in hell. He may have been encased in this >mortal coil for only five or fifty years, but what's so great about such >imprisonment anyhow. > > You know perfectly well that everybody dies, that medieval man died, and that he knew that he died. You also know that it is to that fact that I referred when I said that " no one gets out alive. " Now, per Jung anyway, medieval man fully expected to survive, individually, the death of his body and, furthermore, expected one day to live in a resurrected body, in heaven or in hell. That was the medieval " horizon, " at least for Christians (i.e., the great majority). >A lot, to me, rides with respect to my understanding your position on >the satisfactions of medieval religion whether this olden religion is >presumed to be profound about the mortal coil or is presumed to be >for only those unable to not understand that one cannot get out alive. > > I see. Since I do not know whether there is " life after death " or not, I must try to answer the question both ways. If there is life after death, then everyone must believe that, whether they are capable of knowing it or not (the exception is the philosopher, who must look after himself). Where would the down side be? In this case, the truth happens to be salutary - everybody wins. Now let us suppose that the truth is that, at death, it's lights out, show's over, oblivion (the usually unstated modern prejudice). Then religion really is (among other things) the opium of the people. What's wrong with that? Opiates are excellent pain relievers, or so I'm told. Would you rip the I.V. from your sick-unto-death grandmother, and cry " accept the pain like an ubermensch! " ? Neither would I. >You seem to want it one way for some and another way for others. > > Of course. How many times, and in how many ways, must I say so? Equality of condition is injustice. Aristotle remarks on the fact that the best food for the healthy man will not be the best food for the sick man. To each his own - which does *not* mean " whatever floats your boat, " but rather, to each what is best suited to him. That's justice. That's the human good. If you don't like Aristotle, you can find it in Jung. Best, Dan >regards, > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 SC wrote: Dear , >Dan, all, > >D:It must be one for some and another way for others > >Hey, you dodged my question. (Your sentiment about the mortal coil >wasn't addressed.) > >It was " whether this olden religion is presumed to be profound about >the mortal coil or is presumed to be for only those unable to not >understand that one cannot get out alive. > >I'll clarify: (1) if the old medieval religion is profound about the >mortal coil then what it offers the living is the truth about the >afterlife. This truth would apply to all living persons. It would be >so for one and all. > > Just so. I don't know whether the teaching is correct or not. >However, if it doesn't offer such a universal truth, but, as you put >it strongly, " must be one for some, " then, what I wonder about is >what then is true for the other, i.e. what is this " another way " . >Well, what I wonder about is how you make room for both positions in >your own views. > > I don't know how to be more clear than I was in my (just) previous post. Philosophy is love of the truth. Most men, as men, do not, however love the truth, whether they think they do or not. They love their own. Philosophy is all about the truth, but human society depends, not upon unbiased search for truth, but upon shared prejudice (one's own). The political philosopher understands this (currently in American politics the Republicans understand it better than the Dems., although this was not always the case). In my observation, at least many natural scientists do not understand it. Whiskey and car keys. The modern political project reflects at least in part an effort to bridge the (imo) unbridgeable gap between the lover of truth, the philosopher, and the political man who loves his own first and foremost. As you know, I think that this effort has mostly failed - or perhaps it is better to say that it has cost more than it is worth, to both sides - for reasons I have eleaborated at length. I won't bore you again, esp. since it is all in Jung, as I know you know. >*** > >You see the problem, (really again,) because you've divided it up so: >between the must for one and the must for the other. > > Why is that a problem? To each his own. Something for the grownup, something for the kids. Something for the kid who aced his SAT, something for the kid who can't read. And so it goes. What's to make heavy weather about? >If a philosopher knows perfectly well that some class of persons >lesser than the philosopher is preoccupied with religion, satisfied >by this religion, BUT, also knows that what this class is preoccupied >with, from the standpoint of what the philosopher knows is True, is, >a bundle of falsities, false hopes, etc., then what seems to follow >is that the medieval prescription serves the purpose of the >philosopher, but not the purpose of the ignorant. > > Just the opposite, I should think. Under medieval conditions, the philosopher may not rip away the I.V. without great cost to himself; under modern conditions, he may - and further, all the newspapers say that it's a good thing! >I state this better this way: the purpose of the ignorant is to >remain ignorant. for this is the way the order of things >conveniences the philosopher. > > Modern liberal democracy is actually the regime most convenient to the philosopher - where all things are permitted, philosophy is permitted too. Since philosophy is man's highest activity, this constitutes an argument (I reject, for now, the temptation to say *the* argument) in favor of modern liberal democracy. But even within the limits of modern liberal democracy, surely the rulers can do something for the ordinary man besides give him the opportunity to acquire (sorry, " earn " ) three Volvos instead of one. The truly ignorant ( the many) will remain ignorant regardless. The " Enlightenment, " insofar as it seeks to enlighten all, will fail (see Fred Nietzsche's remarks on the intern... I mean, newspapers). The dictum " no child left behind " would be hilarious, were it not so tragic. I can practice for a thousand years, and *never* play golf like Tiger Woods. I haven't got it in me. That's just the way it is. >So, I ask again whether you're dividing up human aspiration into two >senses, the philosopher who knows the Truth, > The philosopher seeks the truth - often, it must be said, without respect. It is a zetetic way of life. It would be remarkable if intelligent men, devoted to seeking truth, did not in the end learn *something*, however :-). > and, the ignorant >religionists who don't understand that what applies to them, does not >apply to the philosopher, (or any whathaveyou in the person of a >paragon of knowledge; whatever allows this division to be so). I >think you've indicated this to some extent, and if you do so again, >we could consider the third general class. > > > Sorry to be dense, but what do you mean by the " third class " ? >*** > >Of more interest, you write: > >D: Man was a proto-political animal (tribal) before he was even man. >The personal (psychological) arises from the political, not vice >versa. > >Our terms, political and psychological, aren't well defined (by you >and I) yet. To unravel the implications of posing politics to be >primary we'd have to define those terms in a way that doesn't solve >the riddle simply due to the definitions. > >Might as well start with politics, and proto-politics. We will of >course be coming at this from opposite positions. > > > Why not suggest that politics is the art of living together, and that political philosophy is the study of how man might best live together? That, of course, entails a consideration of the question of what are the proper ends of man - hence Aristotle writes a whole long book about ethics as an intro to his politics book, and then at the end of the ethics book says, in essence, Now let us begin (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X, very last line). Best, Dan. >regards, > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 --- Dan Watkins wrote: > The modern political project reflects at least in > part an effort to bridge the (imo) unbridgeable gap >between the lover of truth, the philosopher, and the >political man who loves his own first and foremost. > As you know, I think that this effort has mostly > failed - or perhaps it is better to say that it has >cost more than it is worth, to both sides - for >reasons I have eleaborated at length. I won't > bore you again, esp. since it is all in Jung, as I >know you know. As I read the above, you make claims about Jung's policital philosophy that requires more than an assertion on your part. Rather strange mixture of philosophy, psychology and politics that sounds a bit far fetched. Perhaps you will clarify. If it is all in the archives, perhaps you would make a reference. I remember similar claims from you, but don't remember seeing the goods. Greg __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2005 Report Share Posted March 9, 2005 Greg Rieke wrote: Dear Greg, Have done before, but here's a few quickies: " Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe it to the 'gentleman' that you possess the world " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93). " A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government " (ibid). " Man in the Middle Ages lived in a meaningful world. He knew that God had made the world for a definite purpose, had made *him* for a definite purpose; to get to heaven, or to get to hell. It made sense. Today the world in which all of us live is a madhouse. This is what many people are feeling. Some of those people come to see me to tell me so. " (1934) CG Jung Speaking p. 69 " Not everybody has virtues, but everybody has the low animal instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious traits of the savage. " CG Jung Speaking p. 134 " Nobody has read Plato. You haven't either. Yet he is one of those who has come closest to the truth. " " No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus.Often the man has the feeling - and he is not altogether wrong - that only seduction or a beating or a rape would have the necessary power of persuasion. " (CW9,ii,par.29) " I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem before us is overpopulation, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb, teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the surplus.... " The birth rate can only be controlled by catastrophes, short of a miracle. " CGJS 374-375 Not exactly your typical NYT subscriber, was he? Best, Dan CGJS, 412. >--- Dan Watkins wrote: > > > >> The modern political project reflects at least in >>part an effort to bridge the (imo) unbridgeable gap >>between the lover of truth, the philosopher, and the >>political man who loves his own first and foremost. >>As you know, I think that this effort has mostly >>failed - or perhaps it is better to say that it has >>cost more than it is worth, to both sides - for >>reasons I have eleaborated at length. I won't >>bore you again, esp. since it is all in Jung, as I >>know you know. >> >> > >As I read the above, you make claims about Jung's >policital philosophy that requires more than an >assertion on your part. Rather strange mixture of >philosophy, psychology and politics that sounds a bit >far fetched. Perhaps you will clarify. If it is all in >the archives, perhaps you would make a reference. I >remember similar claims from you, but don't remember >seeing the goods. > >Greg > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear , at 03:25 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: >Just the opposite, I should think. Under medieval conditions, the >philosopher may not rip away the I.V. without great cost to himself; >under modern conditions, he may - and further, all the newspapers say >that it's a good thing! The above is just to note the post. In regard to this and your previous -very explanatory to myself - post to , I want to ask a question. How do you see the role the philosopher plays currently in " modern society " - recognising we are discussing philosophy in its all inclusive, more ancient definition - and could you contrast this with how you see the role of the philosopher in an ideal, or should I say, that society which you envisage as being more apt to psychic balance, both politically and individually? regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Dan, What truth? many philosophers do not agree with each other...so who is right? And if one has the truth, the others are wrong? Can you enlighten me on what the absolute truth is? Where do I find it, with my finite mind? You have to accept as infallible your faith that there is absolute truth and that man can know it, here and now. If you cannot believe this and prove it, the rest of your discussion, it seems to me, has no leg to stand on. If you posit absolute truth there will never be acceptance of differing ideas on what it actually is, and that usually sooner or later leads to strife. Did I miss read Jung? Did he indeed say that not only does absolute truth exist, but that man can know it? Maybe my Jung works are misprinted, or did he just say absolute truth exists, but human beings cannot access it? Philosophers like the rest of us, can only go so far...they cannot prove they are correct since as you say they are always searching for the Absolute. The next one along will disprove the first one's theories, and there we are. Why is it so threatening to many that being human means being fallible, and that we can never have absolute certainty if we are looking for it rationally. And as to your favorite subject, politics, why can we not consider it an attempt to find the best way, instead of the only way? Toni Re: new paganism SC wrote: Dear , >Dan, all, > >D:It must be one for some and another way for others > >Hey, you dodged my question. (Your sentiment about the mortal coil >wasn't addressed.) > >It was " whether this olden religion is presumed to be profound about >the mortal coil or is presumed to be for only those unable to not >understand that one cannot get out alive. > >I'll clarify: (1) if the old medieval religion is profound about the >mortal coil then what it offers the living is the truth about the >afterlife. This truth would apply to all living persons. It would be >so for one and all. > > Just so. I don't know whether the teaching is correct or not. >However, if it doesn't offer such a universal truth, but, as you put >it strongly, " must be one for some, " then, what I wonder about is >what then is true for the other, i.e. what is this " another way " . >Well, what I wonder about is how you make room for both positions in >your own views. > > I don't know how to be more clear than I was in my (just) previous post. Philosophy is love of the truth. Most men, as men, do not, however love the truth, whether they think they do or not. They love their own. Philosophy is all about the truth, but human society depends, not upon unbiased search for truth, but upon shared prejudice (one's own). The political philosopher understands this (currently in American politics the Republicans understand it better than the Dems., although this was not always the case). In my observation, at least many natural scientists do not understand it. Whiskey and car keys. The modern political project reflects at least in part an effort to bridge the (imo) unbridgeable gap between the lover of truth, the philosopher, and the political man who loves his own first and foremost. As you know, I think that this effort has mostly failed - or perhaps it is better to say that it has cost more than it is worth, to both sides - for reasons I have eleaborated at length. I won't bore you again, esp. since it is all in Jung, as I know you know. >*** > >You see the problem, (really again,) because you've divided it up so: >between the must for one and the must for the other. > > Why is that a problem? To each his own. Something for the grownup, something for the kids. Something for the kid who aced his SAT, something for the kid who can't read. And so it goes. What's to make heavy weather about? >If a philosopher knows perfectly well that some class of persons >lesser than the philosopher is preoccupied with religion, satisfied >by this religion, BUT, also knows that what this class is preoccupied >with, from the standpoint of what the philosopher knows is True, is, >a bundle of falsities, false hopes, etc., then what seems to follow >is that the medieval prescription serves the purpose of the >philosopher, but not the purpose of the ignorant. > > Just the opposite, I should think. Under medieval conditions, the philosopher may not rip away the I.V. without great cost to himself; under modern conditions, he may - and further, all the newspapers say that it's a good thing! >I state this better this way: the purpose of the ignorant is to >remain ignorant. for this is the way the order of things >conveniences the philosopher. > > Modern liberal democracy is actually the regime most convenient to the philosopher - where all things are permitted, philosophy is permitted too. Since philosophy is man's highest activity, this constitutes an argument (I reject, for now, the temptation to say *the* argument) in favor of modern liberal democracy. But even within the limits of modern liberal democracy, surely the rulers can do something for the ordinary man besides give him the opportunity to acquire (sorry, " earn " ) three Volvos instead of one. The truly ignorant ( the many) will remain ignorant regardless. The " Enlightenment, " insofar as it seeks to enlighten all, will fail (see Fred Nietzsche's remarks on the intern... I mean, newspapers). The dictum " no child left behind " would be hilarious, were it not so tragic. I can practice for a thousand years, and *never* play golf like Tiger Woods. I haven't got it in me. That's just the way it is. >So, I ask again whether you're dividing up human aspiration into two >senses, the philosopher who knows the Truth, > The philosopher seeks the truth - often, it must be said, without respect. It is a zetetic way of life. It would be remarkable if intelligent men, devoted to seeking truth, did not in the end learn *something*, however :-). > and, the ignorant >religionists who don't understand that what applies to them, does not >apply to the philosopher, (or any whathaveyou in the person of a >paragon of knowledge; whatever allows this division to be so). I >think you've indicated this to some extent, and if you do so again, >we could consider the third general class. > > > Sorry to be dense, but what do you mean by the " third class " ? >*** > >Of more interest, you write: > >D: Man was a proto-political animal (tribal) before he was even man. >The personal (psychological) arises from the political, not vice >versa. > >Our terms, political and psychological, aren't well defined (by you >and I) yet. To unravel the implications of posing politics to be >primary we'd have to define those terms in a way that doesn't solve >the riddle simply due to the definitions. > >Might as well start with politics, and proto-politics. We will of >course be coming at this from opposite positions. > > > Why not suggest that politics is the art of living together, and that political philosophy is the study of how man might best live together? That, of course, entails a consideration of the question of what are the proper ends of man - hence Aristotle writes a whole long book about ethics as an intro to his politics book, and then at the end of the ethics book says, in essence, Now let us begin (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X, very last line). Best, Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dear Dan, You do Jung an injustice. If one picked out a few of your proclaimed phrases, you would be in trouble too for having contrary thoughts. Most of what you reprint are not final conclusions, but discussions. " people tell me so " or " if this is so, than that is so. I doubt Jung would say thses are the final and absolute truths he stands for. In fact I seem to remember Jung being humble enough not to claim infallibility, which he could if he kne absolute truth.The few things he felt to actual truths were not rational thoughts, but a result of personal experiences. I would suggest a reading of his final words as those he would stand behind as a fallible man in a confused world. He would certainly prefer the NYT to the Washington Times and its ilk. Trust me. Toni Re: new paganism Greg Rieke wrote: Dear Greg, Have done before, but here's a few quickies: " Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe it to the 'gentleman' that you possess the world " (CG Jung Speaking, p. 93). " A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government " (ibid). " Man in the Middle Ages lived in a meaningful world. He knew that God had made the world for a definite purpose, had made *him* for a definite purpose; to get to heaven, or to get to hell. It made sense. Today the world in which all of us live is a madhouse. This is what many people are feeling. Some of those people come to see me to tell me so. " (1934) CG Jung Speaking p. 69 " Not everybody has virtues, but everybody has the low animal instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and vicious traits of the savage. " CG Jung Speaking p. 134 " Nobody has read Plato. You haven't either. Yet he is one of those who has come closest to the truth. " " No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus.Often the man has the feeling - and he is not altogether wrong - that only seduction or a beating or a rape would have the necessary power of persuasion. " (CW9,ii,par.29) " I don't want to play the prophet, but you see, *the* great problem before us is overpopulation, not the atom bomb. The atom bomb, teleologically considered, makes provision for the disposal of the surplus.... " The birth rate can only be controlled by catastrophes, short of a miracle. " CGJS 374-375 Not exactly your typical NYT subscriber, was he? Best, Dan CGJS, 412. >--- Dan Watkins wrote: > > > >> The modern political project reflects at least in >>part an effort to bridge the (imo) unbridgeable gap >>between the lover of truth, the philosopher, and the >>political man who loves his own first and foremost. >>As you know, I think that this effort has mostly >>failed - or perhaps it is better to say that it has >>cost more than it is worth, to both sides - for >>reasons I have eleaborated at length. I won't >>bore you again, esp. since it is all in Jung, as I >>know you know. >> >> > >As I read the above, you make claims about Jung's >policital philosophy that requires more than an >assertion on your part. Rather strange mixture of >philosophy, psychology and politics that sounds a bit >far fetched. Perhaps you will clarify. If it is all in >the archives, perhaps you would make a reference. I >remember similar claims from you, but don't remember >seeing the goods. > >Greg > > > > > >__________________________________ >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 G Heyward wrote: >Dear , at 03:25 AM 3/10/2005, you wrote: > > > > >>Just the opposite, I should think. Under medieval conditions, the >>philosopher may not rip away the I.V. without great cost to himself; >>under modern conditions, he may - and further, all the newspapers say >>that it's a good thing! >> >> > >The above is just to note the post. > >In regard to this and your previous -very explanatory to myself - post to >, I want to ask a question. > >How do you see the role the philosopher plays currently in " modern society " >- recognising we are discussing philosophy in its all inclusive, more >ancient definition - and could you contrast this with how you see the role >of the philosopher in an ideal, or should I say, that society which you >envisage as being more apt to psychic balance, both politically and >individually? > > Most of the philosophers who rule modern society are dead. Some of their names are Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. They rule posthumously. Most of what most of us think about political things comes from them and their like. Under the conditions of modern liberal democracy (I will assume that that is what you mean by " modern society, " although of course tyranny flourishes like the green bay tree under modern conditions too) the philosopher is left alone if he wants to be. MLD represents the near-ideal condition for the philosopher. Not only is everything permitted, not only is free inquiry not punished (or at least not punished very hard - you might not get tenure, but you won't get tortured) but there is so much money about that there is no need to live in " ten thousand fold poverty. " You really could just work at the post office and read Plato. MLD is not, imo (and as you know not just imo) as apt to result in psychic balance for the many as is a society that is highly and forthrightly religious. Religion is the best via for ordinary people to something like the wholeness that the philosopher as philosopher experiences. This is why religious societies remain vital, and secular ones become weak and decayed. Toward the beginning of MLD, regimes such as the American which did not have, or allow, an established church were still defacto religious, so the question did not arise (see de Tocqueville on this point). Avowed atheists were cranks who were tolerated, as long as they knew when to shut up (the " village atheist " is a stock character). Now, however, we are faced with the practical problem of widespread secularism and atheism. People get lost and depressed and the pharmaceutical companies make out well. Perhaps the Christian fundamentalists will gain enough ascendency to revitalize and " de-corrupt " us, or perhaps we will eventually be destroyed by Islam. I don't know. " Old Europe " sets a worrisome precedent, but Europe is not the whole of the West. Your question raises a very important question - is the philosopher as philosopher of necessity (i.e., by virtue of being a philosopher) a moral man? Is he a philanthropist? Must he be a " good guy " who cares for the many? There are reasons to think that perhaps he needn't be. Aristotle separates intellectual and moral virtue. He makes clear that one can be morally virtuous, as a matter of habit (how does one become courageous? By performing courageous acts), without being intellectually virtuous. Can one also be intellectually virtuous without moral virtue? It's left unclear. Maybe. Opinions seem to vary. Leo Strauss referred, repeatedly, to Heidegger as a philosopher even though he (Strauss) also maintained that Heidegger maintained his Nazi sympathies unchanged as late as 1953; I believe that S refused to associate with H until the latter clearly and publicly disavowed his Nazi sympathies, which to my knowledge never happened. If the philosopher as philosopher is not a " nice guy, " perhaps he needs cleaning up in order to be presentable, or tolerable, to the city. Plato refers to his Socrates (who was notoriously physically ugly) as " Socrates made beautiful. " There is clearly more than one way to read that. The Socrates of Aristophanes taught young men to beat their fathers, made the weaker argument the stronger, and stole to eat. If the philosopher is by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, then when he takes up the matter of political philosophy and of rule, he will naturally wish to establish or maintain a regime that is good for the many. If he is not by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, if his loyalty and his love are really only to his own (philosophers and potential philosophers), then he may be indifferent to the needs of the many, and naturally just prefer a regime that is good for his own - MLD, for example - regardless of its suitability for the many. Even MDL requires maintenance, however. If the philosopher is a fundamentally selfish fellow who prefers MLD because it is good for him, it is not in his interest to see MDL collapse. Chaos followed by tyranny isn't good for anyone. He will, therefore, look to the maintenance of MLD - including its religious needs - out of self-interest, if for no other reason. I don't know if this makes anything clearer. Sorry to be so long-winded. Best, Dan >regards, > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 vienna19311 wrote: Dear Toni, >Dear Dan, > >What truth? many philosophers do not agree with each other...so who is right? > > Don't know. But my ignorance does not prove the impossibility of knowledge. You flatter me (I always get som many compliments here!) >And if one has the truth, the others are wrong? > > If by " the others, " you mean those who hold a mistaken doctrine, then of course they are wrong. >Can you enlighten me on what the absolute truth is? Where do I find it, with my finite mind? > > Even our finite minds know that, for example, there is something rather than nothing. >You have to accept as infallible your faith that there is absolute truth and that man can know it, here and now. > >If you cannot believe this and prove it, the rest of your discussion, it seems to me, has no leg to stand on. > >If you posit absolute truth there will never be acceptance of differing ideas on what it actually is, and that usually sooner or later leads to strife. > > Depends what you mean by " accept. " Tolerate? Sure. " I'm OK, you're OK? " When leprechauns on unicorns ride the frozen landscape of Hell, as pigs fly overhead. >Did I miss read Jung? Did he indeed say that not only does absolute truth exist, but that man can know it? > He thought that man could know something. What's the point of study otherwise? Sheer wanking? > Maybe my Jung works are misprinted, or did he just say absolute truth exists, but human beings cannot access it? > >Philosophers like the rest of us, can only go so far...they cannot prove they are correct > They can prove partial knowledge. > since as you say they are always searching for the Absolute. The next one along will disprove the first one's theories, and there we are. > >Why is it so threatening to many that being human means being fallible, and that we can never have absolute certainty if we are looking for it rationally. > > Psychologically, it's because then you have nowhere to stand. >And as to your favorite subject, politics, why can we not consider it an attempt to find the best way, instead of the only way? > > We can. But if you could have the best, why would you bother with anything else? Best, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 vienna19311 wrote: Dear Toni, >Dear Dan, >You do Jung an injustice. If one picked out a few of your proclaimed phrases, you would be in trouble too for having contrary thoughts. > > More flattery! When I implied that I must be just like Jung because I drive a red Chrysler and he drove a red Chrysler, I was only kidding. I didn't think anyone would take me seriously. My limitations are not Jung's limitations. >Most of what you reprint are not final conclusions, but discussions. " people tell me so " or " if this is so, than that is so. I doubt Jung would say thses are the final and absolute truths he stands for. > >In fact I seem to remember Jung being humble enough not to claim infallibility, which he could if he kne absolute truth.The few things he felt to actual truths were not rational thoughts, but a result of personal experiences. > > I speak of his published opinions, the only thing available. >I would suggest a reading of his final words as those he would stand behind as a fallible man in a confused world. > >He would certainly prefer the NYT to the Washington Times and its ilk. Trust me. > > Thank you, no. Best, Dan > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2005 Report Share Posted March 10, 2005 Dan, all, Hi. I'm glad asked the begged questions. I'm sure I could extrude a, (and yet another,) potato load of response, but, I've read your tropes so many times over 6+ years, I am, this time around, wearied by them. (I'm sure my own tropes are narcotic too.) *** It all seems very imprecise, riddled with domain errors, loosely dependent on terms ill-defined, and, incredibly enough, it all comes back to confirm your own views. In stating as much I don't find this exceptional because the same thing could be said about my own worldview. *** The third class is the one between the ignorant and the 'philosopher'. (I'm not sure that there is a class of 'philosopher' other than the class of persons who make an inquiry about the nature of humanhood, but it hardly matters except were this highest class to be much more precisely described.) My own opinion is this class is set to this exalted level simply as a movement of the constellation of some dynamic of archetypal content. *** Me? Hume, Mill, , Husserl, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre...it's all downhill from those philosophers. The main thing for me is I don't take anybody's word for it. I work it out for better or for worse based in my modest ability. If something is presented, it matters not a whit that it presented by someone 'greater'. They either make their case in my estimation, or they do not. It's that simple and thus I am a philosopher. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear , at 08:14 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote: >Me? Hume, Mill, , Husserl, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, >Sartre...it's all downhill from those philosophers. > >The main thing for me is I don't take anybody's word for it. I work >it out for better or for worse based in my modest ability. If >something is presented, it matters not a whit that it presented by >someone 'greater'. They either make their case in my estimation, or >they do not. > >It's that simple and thus I am a philosopher. Perfectly acceptable, but my point - and I admit you may have your own point to make here - was that regardless of whom or what we consider a philosopher in this sense - I was trying to understand what - given that we accept a particular " type " as philosopher and defer to them in this regard - their role in current society appeared to be in s view, and what their role in his appreciation of a more balanced society would be. But I am not certain if he has not strayed considerably from the questions I asked and I may have to bash him for answers more in line with the questions I asked. I wonder if he might be practising for office :-) robert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear , at 01:55 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote: > >How do you see the role the philosopher plays currently in " modern society " > >- recognising we are discussing philosophy in its all inclusive, more > >ancient definition - and could you contrast this with how you see the role > >of the philosopher in an ideal, or should I say, that society which you > >envisage as being more apt to psychic balance, both politically and > >individually? > > > > >Most of the philosophers who rule modern society are dead. Some of their >names are Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. They rule posthumously. >Most of what most of us think about political things comes from them >and their like. So are you saying that in our current society there is no way of determining the role of the philosopher except as an artifact of what has been? What does this say about our society? >Under the conditions of modern liberal democracy (I will assume that >that is what you mean by " modern society, " although of course tyranny >flourishes like the green bay tree under modern conditions too) the >philosopher is left alone if he wants to be. MLD represents the >near-ideal condition for the philosopher. Not only is everything >permitted, not only is free inquiry not punished (or at least not >punished very hard - you might not get tenure, but you won't get >tortured) but there is so much money about that there is no need to live >in " ten thousand fold poverty. " You really could just work at the post >office and read Plato. Does this mean that even if a true philosopher existed, his ability to impact or change or be considered " dangerous " is so small as to render him ineffective - perhaps even in his own field? >Your question raises a very important question - is the philosopher as >philosopher of necessity (i.e., by virtue of being a philosopher) a >moral man? Is he a philanthropist? Must he be a " good guy " who cares for >the many? There are reasons to think that perhaps he needn't be. >Aristotle separates intellectual and moral virtue. He makes clear that >one can be morally virtuous, as a matter of habit (how does one become >courageous? By performing courageous acts), without being intellectually >virtuous. Can one also be intellectually virtuous without moral virtue? >It's left unclear. Maybe. Opinions seem to vary. Leo Strauss referred, >repeatedly, to Heidegger as a philosopher even though he (Strauss) also >maintained that Heidegger maintained his Nazi sympathies unchanged as >late as 1953; I believe that S refused to associate with H until the >latter clearly and publicly disavowed his Nazi sympathies, which to my >knowledge never happened. If the philosopher as philosopher is not a > " nice guy, " perhaps he needs cleaning up in order to be presentable, or >tolerable, to the city. Plato refers to his Socrates (who was >notoriously physically ugly) as " Socrates made beautiful. " There is >clearly more than one way to read that. The Socrates of Aristophanes >taught young men to beat their fathers, made the weaker argument the >stronger, and stole to eat. > >If the philosopher is by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, then >when he takes up the matter of political philosophy and of rule, he will >naturally wish to establish or maintain a regime that is good for the >many. If he is not by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, if his >loyalty and his love are really only to his own (philosophers and >potential philosophers), then he may be indifferent to the needs of the >many, and naturally just prefer a regime that is good for his own - MLD, >for example - regardless of its suitability for the many. Even MDL >requires maintenance, however. If the philosopher is a fundamentally >selfish fellow who prefers MLD because it is good for him, it is not in >his interest to see MDL collapse. Chaos followed by tyranny isn't good >for anyone. He will, therefore, look to the maintenance of MLD - >including its religious needs - out of self-interest, if for no other >reason. Is there a reason to suppose that the philosopher has any chance, right, or power to gain such ascendency to " rule " . I would think that - considering the ability for any person to become -say - the prime minister of Australia that in any more structured or religiously organised (and I mean that psychologically) society surely the philosopher would be considered anathema? It was thus that I asked for your considerations here - vis the role of the philosopher. What part does he play, and in truth, can the city, even if it be antagonistic, truly exist without him and not become the worse - indeed the most decadent and unworthy government? >I don't know if this makes anything clearer. Sorry to be so long-winded. In regard to this question, I believe long winded is the expectation. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear Dan, we are going around in circles again. If you do not accept Jung's understanding of knowledge, what is yours? And why do you not have it about absolute truth since it always comes up in your posts? I don't " know " that there is something rather than nothing. I imagine it is so, but if the world is a dream....well, then we don't have something. You are taking someone else's word for " something " and " nothing " I imagine you could find many opposing views. Now we are back to Jung?: You asked: " He thought that man could know something. What's the point of study otherwise? Sheer wanking? " But how does he actually know it? Only by experience, personal experience and that will not be the exact same as the experience of anyone else. Studying, to me, has never been about certainty.I really do not think we can have that in our present state, except after much living and grace we may feel certain that G-d exists. The knowledge that G-d exists...because we have felt it, see/heard it or we find it in the psyche, where we did not ourselves put it. Studying is fun, but if we are looking for certainty we will always be disappointed, which to me is obvious.What we learn is what other people think. Jung said he " knew " empirically what he learned from his patients. That is certainly experience. You said: " They can prove partial knowledge. " Well there you have it. A partial truth? that isn't a truth. No use discussing this, in my mind, because we always end up in the same place. I wouldn't argue Jung with you either, since my understanding of the words written and life lived are totally different than yours. We take ourselves with us when we approach another, and that " slant " we are used to will remain, until something big forces it out of us, and our " eyes are truly " open. All of us. If you want absolute truth to hang on to, you will have to accept an organization or personal position which is always willing to offer that safety net...their doctrine of truth..Or you will have to get so close to the actual source of absolute truth, that you will personally know.Then you might awake to see we know nothing at all except the All. WE all try to put Jung in our individual boxes and take him out if he helps our one-sided view of whatever. We seem unable to read him with completely open attitude. love, Toni From: Dan Watkins To: JUNG-FIRE Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: new paganism vienna19311 wrote: Dear Toni, >Dear Dan, > >What truth? many philosophers do not agree with each other...so who is right? > > Don't know. But my ignorance does not prove the impossibility of knowledge. You flatter me (I always get som many compliments here!) >And if one has the truth, the others are wrong? > > If by " the others, " you mean those who hold a mistaken doctrine, then of course they are wrong. >Can you enlighten me on what the absolute truth is? Where do I find it, with my finite mind? > > Even our finite minds know that, for example, there is something rather than nothing. >You have to accept as infallible your faith that there is absolute truth and that man can know it, here and now. > >If you cannot believe this and prove it, the rest of your discussion, it seems to me, has no leg to stand on. > >If you posit absolute truth there will never be acceptance of differing ideas on what it actually is, and that usually sooner or later leads to strife. > > Depends what you mean by " accept. " Tolerate? Sure. " I'm OK, you're OK? " When leprechauns on unicorns ride the frozen landscape of Hell, as pigs fly overhead. >Did I miss read Jung? Did he indeed say that not only does absolute truth exist, but that man can know it? > He thought that man could know something. What's the point of study otherwise? Sheer wanking? > Maybe my Jung works are misprinted, or did he just say absolute truth exists, but human beings cannot access it? > >Philosophers like the rest of us, can only go so far...they cannot prove they are correct > They can prove partial knowledge. > since as you say they are always searching for the Absolute. The next one along will disprove the first one's theories, and there we are. > >Why is it so threatening to many that being human means being fallible, and that we can never have absolute certainty if we are looking for it rationally. > > Psychologically, it's because then you have nowhere to stand. >And as to your favorite subject, politics, why can we not consider it an attempt to find the best way, instead of the only way? > > We can. But if you could have the best, why would you bother with anything else? Best, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 G Heyward wrote: Dear , >Dear , at 08:14 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > >>Me? Hume, Mill, , Husserl, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, >>Sartre...it's all downhill from those philosophers. >> >>The main thing for me is I don't take anybody's word for it. I work >>it out for better or for worse based in my modest ability. If >>something is presented, it matters not a whit that it presented by >>someone 'greater'. They either make their case in my estimation, or >>they do not. >> >>It's that simple and thus I am a philosopher. >> >> > >Perfectly acceptable, but my point - and I admit you may have your own >point to make here - was that regardless of whom or what we consider a >philosopher in this sense - I was trying to understand what - given that we >accept a particular " type " as philosopher and defer to them in this regard >- their role in current society appeared to be in s view, and what >their role in his appreciation of a more balanced society would be. >But I am not certain if he has not strayed considerably from the questions >I asked and I may have to bash him for answers more in line with the >questions I asked. >I wonder if he might be practising for office :-) > > Ummm..... Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that require hard work? Bash away :-). Best, Dan PS: I seem to be missing some posts. >robert > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear Everyone, Isn't it strange that no sooner did we discuss and seemingly end our discussion of Sophia, and the Holy Spirit's gift of wisdom, we find ourselves in a discussion of " philosopher " ? What exactly is a philosopher? Does he have great breath of knowledge or has he cultivated wisdom? Would we recognize him if we saw him? And morality? " >Your question raises a very important question - is the philosopher as >philosopher of necessity (I.e., by virtue of being a philosopher) a >moral man? Is he a philanthropist? Must he be a " good guy " who cares for >the many? There are reasons to think that perhaps he needn't be. " I thought morality was based on the mores of the society in which one lived? being a good man, you mean? many many people really try. But then there is human nature, and power, and the ego..... Who is going to judge the moral rectitude of a philosopher? And here is a caveat. Is morality as easy as Aristotle projects. All we have to do, it decide for the good and do it? Perhaps modern society has news for him. Nice try for him, but a long way from thinking to the done deed. Is it possible that by virtue of being a limited human being, a philosopher also has a bias toward reality? And rule society? where, when , how? What happens is that a few powerful people decide they like how the guy thinks. The " dumb " it down to where they think the " public " can understand it, and then make up slogans. That is how philosophy gets to the people. And it takes years. By then the philosopher is gone and only some of his ideas are still around and mangled. I think we ought to allow philosophers their ivory tower. Were they actually to address us, we would either notunderstand and kill him, one way or the other, or laugh him out of our sight. There are no authorities that have all the wisdom to whom we can go and lay aside our own struggles. The philosopher was a good sign when society was very small. One of us may even know one, today....is he famous? do people crowd around his every word? how many even heard of him? Isn't it irrational to expect a learned man to be more filled with love for humanity than anyone else? This is the secular part of the search for a guru. The only answer I would have isn't secular so will not do for those who find man the measure of all things. maybe the only sane answer is the ballot box, that way everyone shares the burden and no one is to blame alone.Or how about dice? Perhaps there are no real answers to the most difficult questions we want to ask. Toni Re: new paganism Dear , at 01:55 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote: > >How do you see the role the philosopher plays currently in " modern society " > >- recognising we are discussing philosophy in its all inclusive, more > >ancient definition - and could you contrast this with how you see the role > >of the philosopher in an ideal, or should I say, that society which you > >envisage as being more apt to psychic balance, both politically and > >individually? > > > > >Most of the philosophers who rule modern society are dead. Some of their >names are Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. They rule posthumously. >Most of what most of us think about political things comes from them >and their like. So are you saying that in our current society there is no way of determining the role of the philosopher except as an artifact of what has been? What does this say about our society? >Under the conditions of modern liberal democracy (I will assume that >that is what you mean by " modern society, " although of course tyranny >flourishes like the green bay tree under modern conditions too) the >philosopher is left alone if he wants to be. MLD represents the >near-ideal condition for the philosopher. Not only is everything >permitted, not only is free inquiry not punished (or at least not >punished very hard - you might not get tenure, but you won't get >tortured) but there is so much money about that there is no need to live >in " ten thousand fold poverty. " You really could just work at the post >office and read Plato. Does this mean that even if a true philosopher existed, his ability to impact or change or be considered " dangerous " is so small as to render him ineffective - perhaps even in his own field? >Your question raises a very important question - is the philosopher as >philosopher of necessity (i.e., by virtue of being a philosopher) a >moral man? Is he a philanthropist? Must he be a " good guy " who cares for >the many? There are reasons to think that perhaps he needn't be. >Aristotle separates intellectual and moral virtue. He makes clear that >one can be morally virtuous, as a matter of habit (how does one become >courageous? By performing courageous acts), without being intellectually >virtuous. Can one also be intellectually virtuous without moral virtue? >It's left unclear. Maybe. Opinions seem to vary. Leo Strauss referred, >repeatedly, to Heidegger as a philosopher even though he (Strauss) also >maintained that Heidegger maintained his Nazi sympathies unchanged as >late as 1953; I believe that S refused to associate with H until the >latter clearly and publicly disavowed his Nazi sympathies, which to my >knowledge never happened. If the philosopher as philosopher is not a > " nice guy, " perhaps he needs cleaning up in order to be presentable, or >tolerable, to the city. Plato refers to his Socrates (who was >notoriously physically ugly) as " Socrates made beautiful. " There is >clearly more than one way to read that. The Socrates of Aristophanes >taught young men to beat their fathers, made the weaker argument the >stronger, and stole to eat. > >If the philosopher is by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, then >when he takes up the matter of political philosophy and of rule, he will >naturally wish to establish or maintain a regime that is good for the >many. If he is not by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, if his >loyalty and his love are really only to his own (philosophers and >potential philosophers), then he may be indifferent to the needs of the >many, and naturally just prefer a regime that is good for his own - MLD, >for example - regardless of its suitability for the many. Even MDL >requires maintenance, however. If the philosopher is a fundamentally >selfish fellow who prefers MLD because it is good for him, it is not in >his interest to see MDL collapse. Chaos followed by tyranny isn't good >for anyone. He will, therefore, look to the maintenance of MLD - >including its religious needs - out of self-interest, if for no other >reason. Is there a reason to suppose that the philosopher has any chance, right, or power to gain such ascendency to " rule " . I would think that - considering the ability for any person to become -say - the prime minister of Australia that in any more structured or religiously organised (and I mean that psychologically) society surely the philosopher would be considered anathema? It was thus that I asked for your considerations here - vis the role of the philosopher. What part does he play, and in truth, can the city, even if it be antagonistic, truly exist without him and not become the worse - indeed the most decadent and unworthy government? >I don't know if this makes anything clearer. Sorry to be so long-winded. In regard to this question, I believe long winded is the expectation. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 G Heyward wrote: Dear , >Dear , at 01:55 AM 3/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > >>>How do you see the role the philosopher plays currently in " modern society " >>>- recognising we are discussing philosophy in its all inclusive, more >>>ancient definition - and could you contrast this with how you see the role >>>of the philosopher in an ideal, or should I say, that society which you >>>envisage as being more apt to psychic balance, both politically and >>>individually? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Most of the philosophers who rule modern society are dead. Some of their >>names are Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau. They rule posthumously. >>Most of what most of us think about political things comes from them >>and their like. >> >> > >So are you saying that in our current society there is no way of >determining the role of the philosopher except as an artifact of what has been? >What does this say about our society? > > Maybe I don't understand what you mean by " role. " Philosophy as I understand it is a way of life, not what we now call a " social role. " The philosopher does not have a role in the way that a dentist or a driver or a king has a role. It's questionable to what degree the philosopher is even part of the regime, except where compelled. The philosopher must be compelled to rule. Sometimes circumstances do conspire to compel the philosopher to rule; if so, he typically does so indirectly. Machiavelli is a prince of a certain kind, but not the usual kind. > > >>Under the conditions of modern liberal democracy (I will assume that >>that is what you mean by " modern society, " although of course tyranny >>flourishes like the green bay tree under modern conditions too) the >>philosopher is left alone if he wants to be. MLD represents the >>near-ideal condition for the philosopher. Not only is everything >>permitted, not only is free inquiry not punished (or at least not >>punished very hard - you might not get tenure, but you won't get >>tortured) but there is so much money about that there is no need to live >>in " ten thousand fold poverty. " You really could just work at the post >>office and read Plato. >> >> > >Does this mean that even if a true philosopher existed, his ability to >impact or change or be considered " dangerous " is so small as to render him >ineffective - perhaps even in his own field? > > He doesn't have a " field. " Philosophy is not an academic specialty or a profession, despite the fact that there are universities with philosophy " departments " and staff who might call themselves " professional philosophers. " Such things reflect gross distortion. Philosophy is not a " job. " Post office clerk is a job. Working at the stamping plant is a job. Either might be conducivie to the philosopher's way of life, although I should think there would be less noise at the P.O. That said, if you think that philosophers or the students of philosophers can no longer be considered dangerous, you should follow the American political news (much to ask, I know). You would think the sky was falling. > > > >>Your question raises a very important question - is the philosopher as >>philosopher of necessity (i.e., by virtue of being a philosopher) a >>moral man? Is he a philanthropist? Must he be a " good guy " who cares for >>the many? There are reasons to think that perhaps he needn't be. >>Aristotle separates intellectual and moral virtue. He makes clear that >>one can be morally virtuous, as a matter of habit (how does one become >>courageous? By performing courageous acts), without being intellectually >>virtuous. Can one also be intellectually virtuous without moral virtue? >>It's left unclear. Maybe. Opinions seem to vary. Leo Strauss referred, >>repeatedly, to Heidegger as a philosopher even though he (Strauss) also >>maintained that Heidegger maintained his Nazi sympathies unchanged as >>late as 1953; I believe that S refused to associate with H until the >>latter clearly and publicly disavowed his Nazi sympathies, which to my >>knowledge never happened. If the philosopher as philosopher is not a >> " nice guy, " perhaps he needs cleaning up in order to be presentable, or >>tolerable, to the city. Plato refers to his Socrates (who was >>notoriously physically ugly) as " Socrates made beautiful. " There is >>clearly more than one way to read that. The Socrates of Aristophanes >>taught young men to beat their fathers, made the weaker argument the >>stronger, and stole to eat. >> >>If the philosopher is by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, then >>when he takes up the matter of political philosophy and of rule, he will >>naturally wish to establish or maintain a regime that is good for the >>many. If he is not by nature and by necessity a philanthropist, if his >>loyalty and his love are really only to his own (philosophers and >>potential philosophers), then he may be indifferent to the needs of the >>many, and naturally just prefer a regime that is good for his own - MLD, >>for example - regardless of its suitability for the many. Even MDL >>requires maintenance, however. If the philosopher is a fundamentally >>selfish fellow who prefers MLD because it is good for him, it is not in >>his interest to see MDL collapse. Chaos followed by tyranny isn't good >>for anyone. He will, therefore, look to the maintenance of MLD - >>including its religious needs - out of self-interest, if for no other >>reason. >> >> > >Is there a reason to suppose that the philosopher has any chance, right, or >power to gain such ascendency to " rule " . > Is the philosopher fit to rule? I suppose it depends on his actual practical wisdom. I would not care to be ruled by Nietzsche or Heidegger. On the other hand, I would be happy to be ruled by Plato or Aristotle. It is questionable whether he would want to stand for office. What a nuisance. The Post Office is forty hours a week, with decent pay and benefits. That said, he has under the conditions of MLD, a chance and a right to seek public office (, a self-proclaimed philsopher, has that right, for example). > I would think that - considering >the ability for any person to become -say - the prime minister of Australia >that in any more structured or religiously organised (and I mean that >psychologically) society surely the philosopher would be considered anathema? > > I see. Socrates would not be elected to anything, no (although if he were, he would perform well). A more prudent philosopher who took care to spare the feelings of the many might, for example, become the pope. There were some good medieval popes. >It was thus that I asked for your considerations here - vis the role of the >philosopher. What part does he play, > In the best of cases, he forms the character of the people (taking over the former job of the poets, one reason they don't like him), forms the government, advises the government, and molds if not establishes the religion (cf poets), and controls the arts. All of this might be done posthumously, through intermediaries, or both. Almost everyone in America is channeling the philosophers I mentioned earlier, whether they know it or not. > and in truth, can the city, even if it >be antagonistic, truly exist without him > This is a most interesting question. I don't think I know the anwer, but my guess is that the philosopher is not necessary to the " survival of the species, " as they say, or even to the rise of the cities. " But Dan, " you ask, " how can you say that given what you *just said* above? You are making sloppy self-contradictions as would embarass an intelligent schoolboy of ten, and as are attributed periodically to CGJ on these pages. " My response would be that the ruling/guiding functions can also be provided by the prudent man, or even the poet (but with the poet you are close to a tribal level of society) rather than the political philosopher, although perhaps not always as well. > and not become the worse - indeed >the most decadent and unworthy government? > > > >>I don't know if this makes anything clearer. Sorry to be so long-winded. >> >> > >In regard to this question, I believe long winded is the expectation. :-) > > Indeed, it must be very long or very short. Since, to say the least, I haven't time for very long, I hope that this very short answer helps. Best, Dan > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 vienna19311 wrote: Dear Toni, I don't speak of " absolute truth " except in response to your posts, in part because it is a redundant expression. Truth is by nature absolute - that's what makes it the truth. If it's uncertain, then it's opinion, not truth. (This is like the expression " social justice " ; all justice is " social, " there isn't any other kind.) >Dear Dan, >we are going around in circles again. > >If you do not accept Jung's understanding of knowledge, what is yours? And why do you not have it about absolute truth since it always comes up in your posts? > >I don't " know " that there is something rather than nothing. I imagine it is so, but if the world is a dream > A dream is not nothing. A concatenation of empty appearances is not nothing. If you dream, ipso facto there is not nothing. >....well, then we don't have something. > >You are taking someone else's word for " something " and " nothing " I imagine you could find many opposing views. > >Now we are back to Jung?: You asked: > " He thought that man could know something. What's the point of study >otherwise? Sheer wanking? " > >But how does he actually know it? Only by experience, personal experience and that will not be the exact same as the experience of anyone else. > > I didn't claim that we could know that the solipsistic thesis was wrong - I only claimed that we know (OK, I know) that there is not nothing, that there is something rather than nothing. >Studying, to me, has never been about certainty.I really do not think we can have that in our present state, except after much living and grace we may feel certain that G-d exists. The knowledge that G-d exists...because we have felt it, see/heard it or we find it in the psyche, where we did not ourselves put it. > >Studying is fun, > No it's not, not to me. Drag racing is fun. Collecting records is fun. Study is hard work, and I hate hard work - but the results can be worth it. > but if we are looking for certainty we will always be disappointed, which to me is obvious.What we learn is what other people think. > >Jung said he " knew " empirically what he learned from his patients. That is certainly experience. > >You said: > " They can prove partial knowledge. " > >Well there you have it. A partial truth? that isn't a truth. > > Of course it is. Why would you insist on knowing the whole as the whole before saying you knew anything? Your argument is that there is G-D, and there is unconsciousness (pure ignorance), and nothing in between. Best, Dan >No use discussing this, in my mind, because we always end up in the same place. I wouldn't argue Jung with you either, since my understanding of the words written and life lived are totally different than yours. We take ourselves with us when we approach another, and that " slant " we are used to will remain, until something big forces it out of us, and our " eyes are truly " open. All of us. > >If you want absolute truth to hang on to, you will have to accept an organization or personal position which is always willing to offer that safety net...their doctrine of truth..Or you will have to get so close to the actual source of absolute truth, that you will personally know.Then you might awake to see we know nothing at all except the All. > >WE all try to put Jung in our individual boxes and take him out if he helps our one-sided view of whatever. We seem unable to read him with completely open attitude. > >love, >Toni > > >From: Dan Watkins > To: JUNG > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 Dear , It surprises you that my views confirm my views, lol? I suppose the third class would be that of the gentlemen. Perhaps we should write a dialogue where I speak for and you speak for Dan. That might get us somewhere. Best, Dan > Dan, all, > > Hi. I'm glad asked the begged questions. > > I'm sure I could extrude a, (and yet another,) potato load of > response, but, I've read your tropes so many times over 6+ years, I > am, this time around, wearied by them. (I'm sure my own tropes are > narcotic too.) > > *** > > It all seems very imprecise, riddled with domain errors, loosely > dependent on terms ill-defined, and, incredibly enough, it all comes > back to confirm your own views. > > In stating as much I don't find this exceptional because the same > thing could be said about my own worldview. > > *** > > The third class is the one between the ignorant and the 'philosopher'. > > (I'm not sure that there is a class of 'philosopher' other than the > class of persons who make an inquiry about the nature of humanhood, > but it hardly matters except were this highest class to be much more > precisely described.) > > My own opinion is this class is set to this exalted level simply as a > movement of the constellation of some dynamic of archetypal content. > > *** > > Me? Hume, Mill, , Husserl, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, > Sartre...it's all downhill from those philosophers. > > The main thing for me is I don't take anybody's word for it. I work > it out for better or for worse based in my modest ability. If > something is presented, it matters not a whit that it presented by > someone 'greater'. They either make their case in my estimation, or > they do not. > > It's that simple and thus I am a philosopher. > > regards, > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2005 Report Share Posted March 11, 2005 dwatkins5qwestnet wrote: PS: Dear , I just want to add that precision, if by that you mean mathematical precision, has little or no place in political philosophy or psychology - that's why Jung is the man and BF Skinner is not the man. " Our speech (about politics) will suffice if it achieves clearness subject to (i.e., within the limits of) the material (i.e., the subject matter) " (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, iii, 1). Best, Dan > >Dear , > >It surprises you that my views confirm my views, lol? > >I suppose the third class would be that of the gentlemen. > >Perhaps we should write a dialogue where I speak for and you >speak for Dan. That might get us somewhere. > >Best, > >Dan > > > > >>Dan, all, >> >>Hi. I'm glad asked the begged questions. >> >>I'm sure I could extrude a, (and yet another,) potato load of >>response, but, I've read your tropes so many times over 6+ years, I >>am, this time around, wearied by them. (I'm sure my own tropes are >>narcotic too.) >> >>*** >> >>It all seems very imprecise, riddled with domain errors, loosely >>dependent on terms ill-defined, and, incredibly enough, it all comes >>back to confirm your own views. >> >>In stating as much I don't find this exceptional because the same >>thing could be said about my own worldview. >> >>*** >> >>The third class is the one between the ignorant and the 'philosopher'. >> >>(I'm not sure that there is a class of 'philosopher' other than the >>class of persons who make an inquiry about the nature of humanhood, >>but it hardly matters except were this highest class to be much more >>precisely described.) >> >>My own opinion is this class is set to this exalted level simply as a >>movement of the constellation of some dynamic of archetypal content. >> >>*** >> >>Me? Hume, Mill, , Husserl, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, >>Sartre...it's all downhill from those philosophers. >> >>The main thing for me is I don't take anybody's word for it. I work >>it out for better or for worse based in my modest ability. If >>something is presented, it matters not a whit that it presented by >>someone 'greater'. They either make their case in my estimation, or >>they do not. >> >>It's that simple and thus I am a philosopher. >> >>regards, >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > " Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. " > >H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.