Planning for our third 2016 read

[David]

You can read both sides of the classic argument between the Ethics of Belief and the Will to Believe online here:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/b...

The link contains both essays as well as some commentary.
The Ethics of Belief
William Kingdon Clifford
and
The Will to Believe
William James

[Rosemarie]

Thank you, Davidd

[Kenneth]

Nemo wrote: "If there is a need to believe, is it the same as the need to eat or the need to know?"

I would say it is deeper, and I think Victor Frankl would agree. The people in the concentration camps often had just enough food to survive. But it was those who had a deeper meaning to their life who had the will to live in such horrendous circumstances.

[Nemo]

Kenneth wrote: "Nemo wrote: "If there is a need to believe, is it the same as the need to eat or the need to know?"

I would say it is deeper, and I think Victor Frankl would agree. The people in the concentration..."

Yes, Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning" is inspiring. He was sustained by the love for his wife. I wonder though, if he had been told of his wife's death in the camp, would he have survived?

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "I don't think a belief in God is equivalent to meaning. Belief is one type of meaning. But if I remember the book correctly meaning is individual and personal. A beloved pet can give a persons life..."

I haven't read the book, but I agree that while God is one basis for meaning, and perhaps the most prevalent one throughout history, there are other bases for meaning. Were there not, atheists could have no central meaning in their lives, which from atheists I know isn't the case.

OTOH, belief in the divine may be the most lasting form of meaning. Finding meaning in a pet, in love of a spouse or child, in a beloved home or location, may be for a person the central meaning of their lives at a given moment, all of those are based on beings or objects which can die or be destroyed, whereas as long as one holds to the same spiritual beliefs, God is eternal and always available to the believer. So perhaps it is not the only source of belief, but it may be the most eternal.

The speculation about how Frankl would have reacted if he knew that his wife had been killed is an interesting and perhaps useful question. But perhaps this is all a better subject for the full discussion of James once we start the reading (says one who has just finished making a complete post in this thread!)

[Kenneth]

Patrice wrote: "I don't think a belief in God is equivalent to meaning. Belief is one type of meaning. But if I remember the book correctly meaning is individual and personal. A beloved pet can give a persons life..."

Right, I wasn't saying that belief in God is the only source, but that it is definitely a source and can be a source that will give someone strength to overcome pretty amazing obstacles. Maslow's hierarchy of needs gets turned on its head when it comes to the Saints.

[Kenneth]

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I don't think a belief in God is equivalent to meaning. Belief is one type of meaning. But if I remember the book correctly meaning is individual and personal. A beloved pet can giv..."

I'm really looking forward to this. I have to admit, I've petered out on Herodotus. I'm still reading it, but once we got to the war stuff, I'm just really not that interested. But religion... now there is a fun topic! Of course, I'm saying that as a high school religion teacher. :)

[Kenneth]

Patrice wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Patrice wrote: "I don't think a belief in God is equivalent to meaning. Belief is one type of meaning. But if I remember the book correctly meaning is individual and personal. A bel..."

You're right that more than the Saints do it; the Saints do it in an extraordinary way, and it was one of the first connections I made where because of my faith, the things I learned in school might not necessarily be true.

I remember when I first heard the story of St. Maximilian Kolbe. He was a Catholic priest in the concentration camp at Auschwitz. After months in there, you would think he would be in self-preservation mode, according to Maslow. However, when a person escaped and the prisoners were lined up to put 10 of them in cell where they would be given no water (or food) until they died, St. Max stepped up and offered his life when one of the 10 selected cried out for mercy because of his poor wife and children. The first thing I thought of when I heard that story was Maslow's hierarchy and how it was totally irrelevant for something like this. That God's grace and strength goes beyond the abilities of human nature.

[Roger]

The way I understand Maslow is that you have to start from a position, sometime earlier in your life, when your fundamental needs for food, clothing, shelter, and so forth were met. Then you start thinking about self-realization and other higher-order needs. Once you start thinking about them, there's no going back, and you'll risk a low-order need for the sake of a high-order.

[Nemo]

Patrice wrote: "What comes to my mind is Darwin who said that like bees the individual will sacrifice itself for the preservation of the group. "

I used to take Darwinian evolution for granted, now I'm not sure I know what it really means. For example, what does a "group" mean? How does a bee know what "group" it belongs to?

[Nemo]

Kenneth wrote: "St. Max stepped up and offered his life when one of the 10 selected cried out for mercy because of his poor wife and children."

Frankl wrote candidly that the best among the prisoners died in the camp. Perhaps some of them sacrificed themselves for others like St. Max.

Objectively speaking though, it doesn't really matter whether or not they sacrifice themselves. Everyone dies in the end anyway. Why then do we admire such altruistic acts?

[Kenneth]

Nemo wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "St. Max stepped up and offered his life when one of the 10 selected cried out for mercy because of his poor wife and children."

Frankl wrote candidly that the best among the prison..."

For us, it means that there are some things that are stronger than death, some things that are more important than our human lives. In this case, love... even love of a stranger. That's what Christianity is all about, of course, for that love than which there is no greater... that a man lay down his life for someone else.

[Lily]

Kenneth wrote: "...that love than which there is no greater... that a man lay down his life for someone else. ..."

Not arguing, Ken, but don't forget those lives that are lived that others may live.

[Nemo]

Lily wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "...that love than which there is no greater... that a man lay down his life for someone else. ..."

Not arguing, Ken, but don't forget those lives that are lived that others may live."

Spoken like a true mother. :)

P.S.
If I understand it correctly, that is also what Christianity is about: the Life that is lived that others may live.

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "once we got to the war stuff, I'm just really not that interested.."

The Iliad's "war stuff" is more interesting, but I did love the way that the Scythians ran the Persians all around the place, and right into the lands of those who had refused to join the war effort against them.

[Everyman]

Ajk77 wrote: "I fancy the Hobbes, but other ideas might include Erewhon by Samuel Butler, Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year and the Oresteia by Aeschylus"

You're a bit late! William James won the run-off (fewer raw votes, but on the weighted vote, the winner).

[Kenneth]

Do we have a plan yet for reading James? I'm interested to see how many chapters we'll be reading per week.

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "Do we have a plan yet for reading James? I'm interested to see how many chapters we'll be reading per week."

I haven't set it yet. I am debating a bit. There are 20 lectures in the series. A natural decision would be to read two lectures a week, which in my text would be about 60 pages a week. But that would take us 10 weeks to read the book, and I'm not sure whether the group is interested in spending that much time on it. There's a lot of meat in it to discuss, but is there the sustained interest for a longer read?

The alternative is to read 2 lectures the first week to get into the book and its ideas, and read 3 lectures a week thereafter, for a total of 7 weeks. (I don't think more than three lectures a week would allow enough time to develop a robust discussion.) Three lectures amounts to about 90 pages a week, which is a lot for this material but is doable if people have the commitment (though it is, after all, getting into summer when many of us want to be spending more time outdoors gardening or hiking of whatever and less time reading in front of a cozy fire).

I'm happy to take input from the group on which schedule seems more desirable, and I'll put up the question in the James discussion folder when I set it up in a day or two. In either case, though, I would count on the first week covering the first two lectures, and then two or three lectures a week thereafter.

[Kenneth]

Everyman wrote: "Kenneth wrote: "Do we have a plan yet for reading James? I'm interested to see how many chapters we'll be reading per week."

I haven't set it yet. I am debating a bit. There are 20 lectures in the..."

10 weeks seems long... I'd be up for 90 pages a week. Really that's only 13 pages a day, which may be more difficult depending on how dense this is (I have no clue... I'm excited!). But then again, I'm a religion person... My vote is for 7 weeks.

[Rosemarie]

Seven weeks sounds good to me too.

[Nemo]

How long did it take James to deliver the 20 lectures? It seems natural to take the same time to read them.

[Everyman]

Kenneth wrote: "...depending on how dense this is..."

From what I'm finding, the writing isn't dense. After all, it was written as a lecture with the expectation that people would be able to hear it once and understand the concepts and follow the line of argument. But the ideas contained in it are rich and complex.

But then again, I'm a religion person

Despite the title, so far I'm finding that this isn't about religion per se, but about the psychological aspects of religious thinking, not of any religion specifically but of religion generally. He hasn't said this yet specifically, but I'm mindful that every human society we know of has had some form of religion. I think it's the investigation of this phenomenon, rather than the specific details of any particular religion, which is behind the lectures.

But then, as I say, I'm just in the early sections of the work, and this may prove all to be wrong.

[Everyman]

Rosemarie wrote: "Seven weeks sounds good to me too."

That's influential, since you were one of those who voted for it. If most of those who voted for the book are happy with seven weeks, that would be significant.

[Rosemarie]

I remember reading this book in first year university and found his writing understandable, focussed and the ideas clearly expressed-- and interesting. I reread the book years ago and am really looking forward to read it again with this group.
Here is a quote from the back cover of the book:

James's masterpiece stands at a unique moment in the relationship between belief and culture.....With psychological insight, philosophical rigour, and a determination not to jump to the conclusion that in tracing religion's mental causes we necessarily diminish its truth or value.

[[deleted user]]

Whatever schedule is set will be acceptable to me.

Nemo, I was looking for how long it took James to deliver the series of lectures.

Found this--off topic.

The founder of AA said The Varieties of Religious Experiences was the inspiration for AA.

http://silkworth.net/religion_clergy/...

[[deleted user]]

Well, the University of Edinburgh offered James $3500 for a set of ten lectures. The lectures were "usually given over a six-week stretch."

[Lily]

I've found the first two lectures incredibly boring stuff on terminology, boundaries, and other of academic interest background whose value I don't yet comprehend. But, the third and fourth lectures are perking up the interest for me. I voted and cheered for this with little knowledge about what we were getting into, other than having others I respect commend the book to me for years and having done some fair amount of reading on religious and psychology topics over the years. I am looking forward to the experience and hope many others of the diverse perspectives here will join the journey.

I do think I may find this material to read more than once, even though it was originally delivered in lecture form. Some of the allusions, especially to the work of other experts, are more likely to have been recognizable to the audience than they will be to me. A bit of googling may be beneficial to flesh out understanding.

[Nemo]

I'm curious about the differences between James and Freud in their approaches to religion.

[[deleted user]]

Nemo wrote: "How long did it take James to deliver the 20 lectures? It seems natural to take the same time to read them."

I learned this morning WHY there are twenty lectures, not ten. James was contracted to present 2 sets. He delivered the first set in 1901 over the course of about a month. Then worked on his health and worked on the second set which he delivered in 1902. (I hadn't realized that it was TWO lecture series.)

[Nemo]

Adelle wrote: "Nemo wrote: "How long did it take James to deliver the 20 lectures? It seems natural to take the same time to read them."

I learned this morning WHY there are twenty lectures, not ten. James was c..."

I was wondering about that myself. Thanks for the explanation. Are the two sets of lectures ordered chronologically in the book?

James delivered the lectures when he was 59, just 9 years before his death. I assume that the views expressed represent his matured opinion.

[[deleted user]]

Yes, the lectures in the book ARE in chronological order.

Mmmmm. I'm not sure, though, I would categorize them as "his matured opinion." My take on James is that he was always pretty open to ideas. In, I think, the decade prior to his writing TVORE he had been quite interested in psychics and spiritualists and seances, abnormal psychology, and even witchcraft. He wanted to investigate such things with an open mind.

You note James was 59 when he gave the lectures. At 52 (1894) he had his first (recorded) attack of angina pectoris. Perhaps that focused his thoughts more on mortality. As it happened, both sets of his lectures had to be postponed a year due to his poor health (enlarged heart, etc.)

The year he accepted the Gifford offer, but before he began writing, James had been reading George Fox's Journal. Regarding "openings"... as in "the Lord opened to me..."


By late 1898, James had a plan to write the first set of lectures as "an Objective study of the Varieties of Religious Experience" and the second as "The Tasks of Religious Philosophy"... but as he worked the religious lectures grew and the religious philosophy subject, in the end, was but one lecture.

(I was quite taken with the novels of Henry James. Bought a couple books as background. I've started rereading the 2nd half (which covers the time period during which Varieties was written) of William James: In the Maelstorm.



William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism

[Dianne]

Greatly appreciate the background from everyone, thanks! I agree with the seven week plan. When does that officially start?

[Nemo]

Adelle wrote: "...he had been quite interested in psychics and spiritualists and seances.."

There seemed to be a spiritualist culture in Europe and America in the late nineteenth century. Many writers of that period have written about and/or participated in seances.

[Everyman]

Dianne wrote: "Greatly appreciate the background from everyone, thanks! I agree with the seven week plan. When does that officially start?"

Official start date is May 25. (It says 24 on the home page but that's an error.) First week's discussion will probably be posted the evening of May 23.