Classics and the Western Canon discussion
James, Var Religious Experience
>
James, Background and General Discussion
Wendel wrote: "My working definition of religion being that of a (collective) fantasy that is somehow felt to be real."that would seem to define a lot of other things, too.
Justice.
Honor.
Patriotism.
Lots of others.
Everyman, that would cover a lot of the abstract nouns, wouldn't it?
Wendel wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I don't recall whether Lucretius espoused some version of social evolution, but his belief in personal freedom, albeit based on shaky premises, sets him apart from Marx."I'm not so much concerned here with what someone believes, as with the the degree to which assumptions are recognized as such."
I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that free will is not recognized as one of the assumptions of Lucretius?
Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "My working definition of religion being that of a (collective) fantasy that is somehow felt to be real." - that would seem to define a lot of other things, too. - Justice. -Honor. -Pat..."Hm, was the same objection not raised in connection with noumena?
But no, abstract concepts lack that element of emotional reality that puts religious conceptions in a class of their own. Though I admit that something like 'Fatherland' comes close (secular religion). So I'm open for better suggestions.
To start, the word 'fantasy' may be replaced with another way to express a basis in human emotion - it is not meant to suggest anything negative.
Patrice wrote: "Someone once said that we're all atheists, except for one religion. Isn't that the truth? We're all skeptics and disbelievers until we take the leap with one religion, if we choose."Kierkegaard once compared taking the leap of faith to execution by guillotine. I tend to think of it as, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." :)
Nemo wrote: "Are you saying that free will is not recognized as one of the assumptions of Lucretius?...."Lucretius offers a closed system that leaves little room to discuss its assumptions - part of the system is an explanation of free will that makes nobody very happy. But it must be saved - for reasons that seem external to the system. Does that answer your question?
Patrice wrote: "Rather than fantasy it's reality that makes me believe...."That is apt observation: you feel an emotion coming from a perceived reality, while I see things the other way - first the emotion, than the reality.
Wendel wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Are you saying that free will is not recognized as one of the assumptions of Lucretius?...."Lucretius offers a closed system that leaves little room to discuss its assumptions - part..."
Do you see something in Marx that is equivant to what free will is to Lcretius?
Kenneth wrote: "If I talk about the purple dragon I see in front of me and you talk about the rainbow unicorn you see in front of you and we are looking at exactly the same place, then the conversation pretty much ends right there. But if we both see an orange butterfly in front of us, the conversation can continue, since we are both seeing the same reality. "I couldn't disagree more. Ptolemy and Copernicus were looking at the same universe and seeing things that were very different, but if they had sat down together they could certainly have talked about it, and maybe come to at least partial agreement.
I'm sure you know of the old thought problem of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. They are both "seeing" an orange butterfly, but one is describing it as a purple dragon and the other as a rainbow unicorn. But that's just a basis for further exploration and discussion. If they had both just felt the tail and agreed that what they had there was a snake, they would have walked away ignorant of truth. But if they had said "we're 'seeing' different things, so let's explore further and perhaps we can come to some better understanding," then the hope of real knowledge would stay alive.
If we are both seeing an orange butterfly, any further conversation would be pretty boring. It's only when we see things differently that interesting conversation can ensue.
Everyman wrote: "If we are both seeing an orange butterfly, any further conversation would be pretty boring. It's only when we see things differently that interesting conversation can ensue...."LOL! Does that explain a lot about your posts at times?
Some of my most interesting conversations have been with those whom I would not consider as seeing things differently, but perhaps like your blind men, seeing other aspects or, not blind, but seeing more deeply across a lifetime of experience or even just through a particular incident or as a result of giving thoughtful consideration to the topic at hand.
Another link, this one about Santayana, but it covers his opinion of James (his colleague) at some length. Worth a read, in my opinion. http://www.newcriterion.com/articles....
Kenneth wrote: "...It is because knowledge is about the deeper reality that allows us to compare their notes and judge them right or wrong on their hypotheses. ..."And so an operational definition of reality evolves?
Everyman and Kenneth, If I understand you correctly, you both agree that a) reality is independent of our perception and understanding, b) we all share access to reality on some level.
But you disagree on whether we can come to a common understanding of this reality. IOW, whether there is such a thing as objective truth.
Nemo wrote: "IOW, whether there is such a thing as objective truth."In Fides et Ratio: On the Relationship Between Faith and Reason Pope John Paul II wrote:
"Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt." (#27)
The way I understand this, is that ultimately we all make a final judgment to the nature of truth. We settle somewhere on the scale between subjective to objective. This then has ramifications how we understand the rest of existence.
Kenneth, I agree with your comment. How can any of us tell what the "truth" is? We never see the entire picture-- we see through a glass darkly.We can never know another person entirely either, and often not even ourselves, let alone the "truth". We can strive for the truth and search for answers, that is all.
Kenneth wrote: Kerstin wrote: "Pope John Paul II wrote:"Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt." "(#27)
Without looking at the context, I'd guess it is more likely that the Pope is saying that ALL of us will have to confront the reality that truth is objective... we may do so in this life, but if not, we will not be able to escape it in the next."
Nice catch! ... Now that you say this, in this sub-chapter, "Journeying in search of truth," he talks of the inescapable truths of life and death, the ultimate meaning, and whether there is something beyond death.
He concludes, "What inspires all of these [philosophical systems] is the desire to reach the certitude of truth and the certitude of its absolute value."
What resonated with me in the sentence I quoted before is the implied decision point and the ramifications thereof. Everyone makes a judgment call of what they consider the ultimate truth to be.
My follow up question now is, am I overshooting the given context or digging into the layers?
Kerstin wrote: "We settle somewhere on the scale between subjective to objective. This then has ramifications how we understand the rest of existence."Speaking of ramifications, I'm reminded of a scene from a TV series,
"Why are you so afraid of making a mistake?
"Because I'm a doctor. When we make mistakes people die."
Kenneth wrote: "In fact, your story of the elephant just proves my point; it's because the elephant was really there that they could misunderstand what it was. "But if I understood your original point, that's what was happening; we were both looking at the same thing, but you saw a purple dragon and I saw a rainbow unicorn. [I'm tempted to think that perhaps we were both looking at a piece of modern, abstract art. It would be easy for us to see totally different things in it. In fact, it would be rare if we didn't! Or maybe we were both looking at the same cloud.]
Your exact passage was: "If I talk about the purple dragon I see in front of me and you talk about the rainbow unicorn you see in front of you and we are looking at exactly the same place..." If we are looking the same place at the same thing, it's exactly the elephant image. Or, if you prefer, the modern abstract art image.
Nemo wrote: "Everyman and Kenneth,If I understand you correctly, you both agree that a) reality is independent of our perception and understanding, b) we all share access to reality on some level.
But you disagree on whether we can come to a common understanding of this reality. IOW, whether there is such a thing as objective truth.
"
As to our first paragraph, yes.
As to your second, I'm not sure we disagree. But neither am I sure that we don't! I could give you a better answer, perhaps, if you would merely give me a full and precise definition of truth, and then of objective truth.
Everyman wrote: "I could give you a better answer, perhaps, if you would merely give me a full and precise definition of truth, and then of objective truth..."Good luck with that.
Janice(JG) wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I could give you a better answer, perhaps, if you would merely give me a full and precise definition of truth, and then of objective truth..."Good luck with that."
Yep. The tongue was firmly planted in the cheek. [g]
Janice(JG) wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I could give you a better answer, perhaps, if you would merely give me a full and precise definition of truth, and then of objective truth..."Good luck with that."
I like challenges, in whatever shape or form they come. :)
Truth is an idea/theory/belief that correspond to reality; subjective truth corresponds to the reality of the individual holding the idea; objective truth corresponds to reality independent of the individual.
Everyman, I remember our discussion about "intuition" a while back. You said some intuitions are not scientifically verifiable, and I asked you for an example. You said "That God loves me." To my mind, that is an excellent example of subjective truth. :) And of course, the existence of God would be the objective truth, on which the subjective truth depends.
I watched a documentary the other day about a Hawaiian woman who was diagnosed with schizophrenia 20+ years ago and consequently lost her children and her marriage. The diagnosis was made by a Caucasian practitioner in psychiatry, from the dominant western culture. The woman refused to take medication, and was not institutionalized, and yet managed to live an independent life successfully for the last 20 years.The problem, some say now, was that there was a conflict of cultural language, beliefs, and world view. This woman was immersed in her cultural heritage, and her belief system allowed for realities that the dominant white colonizing culture of the West did not recognize. She was unable to abandon her understanding of the world, but she was told that she was schizophrenic according to the western view of civilized culture.
Say that I lived on Mars with Martian people, and our culture worshipped redness, and heard the rocks speak. Then one day, a space bus from Cape Canaveral arrives, carrying the first load of U.S. pioneers who are there to plant their flag. This new group of pioneers becomes the dominant force, bringing their belief system, culture, and world view with them. I, as a Martian, am told I am insane because I hear rocks speaking, I obey the laws of redness, and am therefore not fit to parent my children. This in turn sets up a psychological reaction in me of cultural conflict -- confusion, dissociation, and acute paranoia and anxiety.
So, what's real here? The Hawaiian woman managed to piece herself back together by immersing herself in the Haw'n legends and history and her ancestor teachings. The dominant western culture actually had to open up to the idea of possible dual or multiple (cultural) realities and admit for possible error before a situation like this could be resolved, and evolve.
So, on Mars, there was no agreement as to what was real, but the situation was resolved with the agreement that there were indeed differing realities.
I'm really curious how James will develop the problem of pathology and its socially constructed aspects. His first chapter seems to circle the point without really addressing it. Were people even thinking about this at the time, or do we have to wait until Foucault? My knowledge of the history of psychology is pretty weak.
Janice(JG) wrote: "I watched a documentary the other day about a Hawaiian woman who was diagnosed with schizophrenia 20+ years ago ...."I know both personally and through reports that people diagnosed with schizophrenia can live very productive lives. Perhaps the most famous is Nobel Laureate John Nash.
Someone once asked Nash why he paid attention to those delusional ideas of his, he said that because they came from the same source whence his ingenious ideas of mathematics also came. Only gradually did he learn to distinguish between delusion and reality, and thereby regain sanity.
Acknowledging reality and objective truth does not suffocate personal freedom and growth, on the contrary, I believe we grow and become free by learning more about reality, the peoples and cultures around us and ourselves.
I once came across a person who believed I was nothing but a figment of his imagination, and there was no such thing as objective truth. Nothing I said could change his mind. Although he was a very intelligent and decent individual, and I learned much by conversing with him, I had to leave his world eventually and return to the real world.
Rex wrote: "I'm really curious how James will develop the problem of pathology and its socially constructed aspects..."That's a good question. Generally speaking, a diseased state is something significantly different from the range of normal states, either in form or in function. I don't know how psychiatry is practiced, but it wouldn't surprise me if "normal function" is largely culturally and socially dependent.
Janice(JG) wrote: "So, on Mars, there was no agreement as to what was real, but the situation was resolved with the agreement that there were indeed differing realities...."I would say: 'differing belief systems', and hold on to the possibility of one single underlying reality. Neither would I exclude the possibility that one system may come closer to that reality than another. But all should be handled with care.
Janice(JG) wrote: " The diagnosis was made by a Caucasian practitioner in psychiatry, from the dominant western culture."I've heard it said numerous times that one of the most jarring aspects of current western culture interacting with other cultures around the world is our lack of faith, our secularism. It is not surprising for a case like this to emerge when the patient and the medical professional ( I assume western school medicine) are operating on very different planes.
Nemo wrote: "Truth is an idea/theory/belief that correspond to reality;."Well, it's a lot shorter than the 200 pages or so of Plato devoted to trying to define truth, but I would love to hear Socrates take on your definition.
Your next challenge, of course, is to define reality. [g] After all, your definition hinges on a clear understanding of reality. If we don't know what reality is, we don't know what truth is.
Nemo wrote: "I don't know how psychiatry is practiced, but it wouldn't surprise me if "normal function" is largely culturally and socially dependent. ."Excellent point. James, of course, was writing in a mostly white Western tradition, though he does (and I think will) invoke Buddhism (how faithfully to its cultural roots we will have to see).
But wouldn't it be interesting to read a Japanese or Indian (country) or Aborigine James writing on the same subject?
Wendel wrote: "I would say: 'differing belief systems', and hold on to the possibility of one single underlying reality.."What popped into my brain as I read that is George Eliot's Casaubon and his "Key to all Mythologies." You seem to be suggesting that there can be a "Key to all Religions" if only someone had the wisdom to write it.
Everyman wrote: "Your next challenge, of course, is to define reality. [g] After all, your definition hinges on a clear understanding of reality. If we don't know what reality is, we don't know what truth is..."There ya go : )
And then there's the story of the invisible ships...
http://www.eoht.info/page/Ships+not+seen
Speaking of the search for "objective truth":8. An American businessman announced a controversial, $1.5 million plan to “recreate” the 9/11 terrorist attacks by flying a plane into an abandoned building, to “prove once and for all” whether the attacks were a hoax. (Lindsey Bever)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...
Everyman wrote: "Your next challenge, of course, is to define reality. [g] After all, your definition hinges on a clear understanding of reality. If we don't know what reality is, we don't know what truth is.*Yes, I might as well re-write the entire OED while I'm at it. :)
If I've learned anything from Aristotle about definitions, it is that a definition only tells us relationships between different concepts, it does not give us an understanding of what a thing is in itself.
Plato's dialogues show that a joint inquiry always starts from a common ground of understanding. Which is why I started this conversation by asking what you would agree and disagree. Since you already agreed on my definition of reality, it is too late to retreat and retract now. :)
Janice(JG) wrote: "And then there's the story of the invisible ships...."That may not be as strange as it seems.
You're probably aware of the famous psychological experiment (see how I snuck psychology into a discussion about James to make it properly relevant? [g]) about selective perception from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG69...
If you know the secret, or are aware of it (as many are today it's been so popularized), it's obvious. But when it was initially made, and for those who don't know anything about it, it really is amazing how many people get tricked by it.
It may be relevant to Varieties if we consider that there are people for whom the concept of a religious experience is outside their selective perception.
Everyman wrote: "It may be relevant to Varieties if we consider that there are people for whom the concept of a religious experience is outside their selective perception..."Maybe perception is the measurement of reality, which then brings up the subject of awareness.
While taking an art history class, I learned that Monet's first series of haystack paintings completely confused the exhibits' audience, who did not know what they were looking at. They couldn't see the haystacks.
Up until the Impressionists started playing around with light and the effects of light, subjects of paintings were defined by outlines, and were clearly delineated and therefore recognizable as whatever subjects/objects were in the painting.
When Monet showed up with his haystacks, it took an adjustment of perception, a shift of focus, or even maybe a new and broader awareness, for people to understood what they were looking at.
I love the idea that art could have contributed to a new awareness and expanded perception of light, and I wonder just how much that changed perception might have affected people's view of the world and life in general at the end of the 1800s and the advent of the 20th century.
Janice(JG) wrote: "...I wonder just how much that changed perception might have affected people's view of the world and life in general at the end of the 1800s and the advent of the 20th century...."What are the odds an art history major has done a thesis on the subject?
I wouldn't want to bet against it, Lily.
Lily wrote: "Speaking of the search for "objective truth":8. An American businessman announced a controversial, $1.5 million plan to “recreate” the 9/11 terrorist attacks by flying a plane into an abandoned b..."
Truth is all relative until it hits home. Ultimately, to deny truth is to deny our own existence.
Nemo wrote: "Truth is all relative until it hits home. Ultimately, to deny truth is to deny our own existence. "Yup.
"A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule." - William James, The Will to Believe
This article on "mental illness" with respect to religion may be of some interest. It handles the harsh discrediting stigma of medical materialism in a contemporary light.Problems with the Mental Illness Model of Religion
Nemo wrote: "Plato's dialogues show that a joint inquiry always starts from a common ground of understanding..." msg 150That is an interesting point and a useful way to approach a collective inquiry into something.
However, did it work for the OJ Simpson jury? The juror who took up the task of taking an intitial survey of where everyone stood going into it seemed to have initiated the unintended consequence of cutting off deliberation.
Theresa wrote: "However, did it work for the OJ Simpson jury?"That's a fair point, but please, let's not get off on the side issue of OJ.
Theresa wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Plato's dialogues show that a joint inquiry always starts from a common ground of understanding..." ,,,did it work for the OJ Simpson jury?..."
Before I answer the question "did it work", we need a common understanding of what it means for a jury trial to "work". :)
A murder trial is a type of joint inquiry, based on a common understanding of justice, what constitutes murder, what is reasonable doubt, etc., etc. It does not always end with the right verdict, but neither does a joint inquiry. The televised Simpson trial lasted for almost a year, and the jurors had plenty of time to deliberate the evidence and witness testimonies. I don't think a few more hours of deliberation would have made a difference.
The OJ trial was just one example that everybody knows about. What I actually had in mind was a formal inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women in canada. Where to start? If they want to find out what and why all this happened do they start with what they already agree about - it's a cloud - or do they not rush to judgement too soon and instead shout back and forth: purple dragon! no, Rainbow unicorn! What if they all agree at the start that it is a cloud (or that the accused didn't do it, or that the situation is all the fault of the legacy of colonialism). If find that their common ground is already set, what is the point of continuing to question?It seems to me that it becomes more and more important to figure out what is going on by putting our minds together but how to avoid "groupthink"? And how to find some common ground from which to start? With Socretes it was all one on one. He didn't do so well convincing a jury of anything.
Most times in history when anyone has questioned the prevailing religious beliefs, they have been called heretics - at least for a few hundred years until the church has time to respond to and incorporate those challenges. With James, writing at the turn of the 20th century, questioning the nature of religious experience, I wonder what kind of responses his work elicited from religious authorities?
Theresa wrote: "If find that their common ground is already set, what is the point of continuing to question?."I'd liken the common ground to the foundation of a building, and the continued inquiry to the building process that leads to a gradual increase in knowledge. If one keeps uprooting the foundation itself, nothing would ever be built.
putting our minds together but how to avoid "groupthink"?
What's the difference between the two?
Well, here is one definition of "groupthink":Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resou...
Putting our minds together to discover new realities might involve the kind of thing that went on in Plato's dialogues, although with less leadership from a teacher. it seems that whenever there is a discussion of religious experiences, and people are sharing those experiences, they often seem to be merely preaching to each other without really getting through.
At present I am also reading The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer. It touches on some of these subjects.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Idea of the Holy (other topics)Joseph and His Brothers (other topics)
But Where is the Lamb?: Imagining the Story of Abraham and Isaac (other topics)
The Denial of Death (other topics)
Why Evil Exists (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Rudolf Otto (other topics)James Goodman (other topics)
Sam Harris (other topics)
Christopher Hitchens (other topics)
Ernest Becker (other topics)
More...
I'm not so much concerned here with what someone believes, as with the the degree to which assumptions are recognized as such. Popper might say, the degree in which they are open. Lucretius' ideas are not so different from my own, but he scores low on a 'Popper scale'.