'What Are We?' What Does it Mean to be Human?
The quotation ' Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going ', is a title of a painting by , Paul Gaugin, in 1897, when he was suicidal, in debt and painting one last painting. The philosopher, Bernard Williams, wrote about Gaughin' s searching, which lead him to abandon his wife and children , to become a painter.
I see the words of the title as capturing a unique statement of questions about the human condition. We consider our origins, our nature and destination. I am interested to know what people think about Gaugin' s formulation of questions, in relation to the philosophy of the human condition. I don't think that the questions have any easy answers, but are worth reflecting upon. Do they have any relevance for the way we think about our lives?
I see the words of the title as capturing a unique statement of questions about the human condition. We consider our origins, our nature and destination. I am interested to know what people think about Gaugin' s formulation of questions, in relation to the philosophy of the human condition. I don't think that the questions have any easy answers, but are worth reflecting upon. Do they have any relevance for the way we think about our lives?
Comments (93)
Anyway, the romantic image is that we lived as savages for thousands of years, until we discovered how fire and seeds worked and created civilization based on agriculture, and have been progressing since with the ultimate aim being the mastery of nature.
The actual evidence paints a different picture though, that of civilization developing arbitrarily and non-linearly, mostly based on environmental pressures. Early on, ruthless protection rackets, organized by petty warlords, kept people working the land and having plenty of babies in population-farms called cities. Without having real goals to fulfill by their own effort, people turned to various other secondary activities. Over many generations, people became domesticated ("civilized"), and as a result their ability to take care of themselves has atrophied. People require the assistance of an elaborate social structure that tells them what to think and do, which renders them care in exchange for assimilation into and maintenance of this structure.
The individual is nothing without society, completely helpless. The behavioral difference between modern man and his ancestors is akin to the difference between a dog and a wolf. Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude.
Read Ellul.
Strangely, as much as I like Gaugin' formulation, I don't have any romantic views of early humans living as savages. I don't really know how Gaugin thought about human origins and progress, but I do believe that ancient peoples, such as the Egyptians, were extremely sophisticated. I think that it would be a mistake to see our civilisations as being 'superior'.
If anything, I take the view that, despite our findings about early civilisations through archaeological studies, it is extremely difficult to step into the worldview of the earliest people. I am familiar with Julian Jaynes' 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind' and see this as pointing to the possibility that early human beings' mental processing may have differed from that of humanity now.
In thinking of the future, it is so hard to know where we are going, and on what scale human beings will survive. Will we destroy ourselves on a mass scale through war and exploitation of the environment. It could be that devastation occurs on some level, with pockets of humanity surviving. As for what these human beings may be like, it is hard to know. Will they live beyond the lifespans of the current people, benefiting from the movement of transhumanism or not?
I am sure that 100 years ago people would not have necessarily envisioned life as it is today, in its diversity. So, it is extremely difficult to know what the future has in store for humans, and what life may be like within different parts of the world in about 100 or 200 years time. It feels strange saying this, because we can look back on centuries of history, with the varied developments, but if we think about life since the first and second world war, it seems that changes have been so dramatic and accelerated. It makes it hard to know what will happen in the future, and whether progress will simply continue at the rate it has within the last century.
I fear that we are at the end of civilisation as we know it, but I hope that is just my own fear. For all we know, there could be a whole panaroma of history awaiting us, although my own intuition is that we are the end of some kind of cycle.
Despite having written about history and the future, I am not certain that Gaugin's statement was meant in just this way. I feel that he may also have been thinking about how individuals find themselves and view themselves in relation to the world, and historically. In this way, his three questions are more about our own significance in the grand scheme of life.
That appears to be the case. The original object of philosophy was to enable us to attain freedom, especially intellectual and spiritual. Hence Plato's allegory of the cave showing that we are not just prisoners of society but also of the way we perceive ourselves and the world we live in.
I think they do. These are perhaps the most primordial reflective questions our species still amuses / agonizes itself with after some hundred or so millennia. Religion and myth, culture and science, philosophy and politics are rooted in their own peculiar ways in Gauguin's trinity. And every answer attempts to be the final word and bury each question forever; of course, these questions are undead, or glitches in the matrix of human discursive cognition – akin to what Freddy says: "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." Grammar = ego (i.e. neurotic knot of atman).
NB: Only the second question has ever interested me philosophically as I find answers to the others as obvious and ineluctable as static between AM-FM radio stations.
Actually, I think that it was really the second question that really interests me too. I am interested in knowing what it means to be a human being. This is a question which goes beyond all the complexity of metaphysics. It does seem that we have developed as complex beings. The religious people have explained in terms of us being in between animals and angels. The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found.
The only reply which I received last night was about the past and the present. That was not really the way I conceived the thread, so I think I will edit the title, because I was hoping that the thread would be one of reflection on what it means to be a human being.
It is strange really because yesterday I was wondering whether to write this thread or one about metaphysics. I was out reading, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and that seemed connected to the end of the discussion I was having on the thread about 'what are thoughts ?'
The final part was when you were suggesting that it was best to avoid thinking about supernatural entities, and you proposed naturalism. I began thinking how some of the ways in which ideas are complicated by ideas about the supernatural.
I went on to read Ayer's book yesterday and it looked at some of the ways in which metaphysical ideas about any transcendent reality get in the way. He argues that this is not just about saying that such a reality does not exist, or about telling people what they should believe. He is arguing more for the view that such metaphysical assertions are speculation. He argues that this 'speculative knowledge' is problematic as an underlying argument.
Ayer's approach for thinking is known as logical positivism. I am sure that it has been scrutinised by other people, but it is a starting point for considering the question : What Are We ?
I have always found Plato's cave to be a useful starting point for thinking of the human condition. I do believe that we are imprisoned in our own experiences, shut out from direct access to knowledge about ultimate reality. I think that it is too easy to start believing that the shadows we and mistake them for being much more than that.
I don't understand what you mean by saying that we come from space. Perhaps, you can explain your idea a little bit further.
All humans existential elements first appeared in space. In planets, asteroids etc. Water, oxygen,molucels everything. We are spacedust as they say. No one can't deny that
Come on now. This is just a mistake. Don’t fall into this reasoning. There is no “missing link.” All evidence points to us evolving from primates, and we are in fact primates ourselves.
This does not, however, explain everything. But let us be very careful about critiquing science.
My own take in answering this question is to look at what we do— and not just in special occasions, but as Heidegger says in our “average everydayness.”
If we want to describe an object’s function, for example, we look at characteristic use. A hammer can drive in nails or open paint cans, for example, but the latter wouldn’t usually be described as its function— because it’s not typically used that way.
Likewise for human beings, I think we have the tendency to privilege abstract (rational) thinking and otherwise conscious behavior as not only our defining property (related to language) but also our basic “function” — and this is, in a sense, a mistake. Not that it’s not true, but that it overlooks what’s truly typical. Because when you look at characteristic “use”— viz., what we typically do in an average day and in average moments — we apparently aren’t very rational or even very conscious, at least in the way the traditional Western view would describe.
Rather we seem mostly unaware of various phenomena, not only our internal workings (like digestion or breathing or heartbeating) but also our bodies, emotions, feelings and sensations, reactions, attitudes, actions and thoughts. Most of our thoughts aren’t abstract but rather “junk,” just noise, in this average state. Most of our actions are habitual— automatic, unconscious, even “irrational” in a sense. Personally, the practice of meditation shows me quite clearly just how much is forgotten, overlooked, taken for granted, and otherwise ignored in my life.
So then the question becomes: when you look at habit and automaticity, or unconscious behavior, what picture of a human being emerges?
Descartes says (more accurately) “I am consciously aware, therefore I am.” This is at the start of modern philosophy and science. But to me this is like saying “I’m awake, therefore I’m alive.” What happens in sleep? Are we not alive? Do we cease to exist? No. Likewise, if our activity is largely unconscious, does this mean “I am not”? No. In fact, as I mentioned above, it appears as if there’s more evidence to suggest we’re acting mostly unconsciously— and so perhaps it is the sum that grounds the cogitare?
Food for thought.
. First of all ... friend ...
. Your first question ...
1º - "Where Are We From?"´
. You're from here ... You're from the whole ... You're from the eternal ... You're always from now ... You're always been rejuvenating ... You're not a conclusion ... You're a process ... this is why ... Man is a mystery ... this is why ... Man is perfectly imperfect ... You're from God ... You're from yourself ... because ... you're God ... and God cannot be perfect ... God is as well ... perfectly imperfect ... that's why ... there's evolution in nature ... that's why ... there's dynamism in nature ... that's why ... nature is ... that's why ... Man is ... He is a being ... because ... he is always being ... He is a continuum ... Man is in the Here-Now ... and ... the Here-Now ... is the timeless time ... is the form of no form ... is the thought of no thought ... where else could you have come from ... friend ... ?
. Your second question ...
2º - What are we?
. Please ... meditate carefully in this zen parable ... apart from any thought ... it sums up all the so-called scriptures of the world ... It's the most important reading ... if you do it properly ... you may get an insight ... which may permit you to ...
. It is not an answer ... it just ... kills all the questions ...
. It is from Hakuin Ekaku ... the zen master ...
The Lion's Roar:
ALL BEINGS ARE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING BUDDHA.
IT IS LIKE WATER AND ICE:
APART FROM WATER, NO ICE, OUTSIDE LIVING BEINGS, NO BUDDHAS.
NOT KNOWING IT IS NEAR, THEY SEEK IT AFAR.
WHAT A PITY!
IT IS LIKE ONE IN THE WATER WHO CRIES OUT FOR THIRST; IT IS LIKE THE CHILD OF A RICH HOUSE WHO HAS STRAYED AWAY AMONG THE POOR.
THE CAUSE OF OUR CIRCLING THROUGH THE SIX WORLDS IS THAT WE ARE ON THE DARK PATHS OF IGNORANCE.
DARK PATH UPON DARK PATH TREADING, WHEN SHALL WE ESCAPE FROM BIRTH-AND-DEATH?
THE ZEN MEDITATION OF THE MAHAYANA IS BEYOND ALL OUR PRAISE.
GIVING AND MORALITY AND THE OTHER PERFECTIONS, TAKING OF THE NAME, REPENTANCE, DISCIPLINE, AND THE MANY OTHER RIGHT ACTIONS, ALL COME BACK TO THE PRACTICE OF MEDITATION.
BY THE MERIT OF A SINGLE SITTING HE DESTROYS INNUMERABLE ACCUMULATED SINS.
HOW SHOULD THERE BE WRONG PATHS FOR HIM?
. Your third question ...
3º - Where are we going?
. There is nowhere to go ... There is no Hell ... There is no Heaven ...
. If you do it ... in this Life ... you won't be here anymore ...
. If you don't do it ... in this Life ... you'll be here again ...
A few things that seem intriguing about the late Paul Gaugin ( :flower: :death: ):
1. My own experience with so-called suicidal ideation has been wholly and unequivocally about "me, "myself" and "I". I find it very odd that Gaugin was more of a "we" kinda guy. Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? What factors could've influenced him to take what is at its core self, self, and self, and turn into an inquiry about others? :chin: Gaugin's self seems to have, uncharacteristic for a man experiencing the blues, expanded to encompass all and the three questions he asks seem to be reminiscent of the Holy Trinity all united in one final, ultimate one which is,
[quote=Albert Camus]There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide[/quote]
2. I find it both exhilarating and also terrifying that if one has to, in a sense, engage in true philosophy one must be willing to descend into the dark and unforgiving regions of the human psyche which are but outposts of Algea & Thanatos. Reminds me of the sci-fi story, Breeds there a man...?
Your psyche may be dark and unforgiving, mine is generally lighthearted and easy-going. I'd recommend avoiding Camus and other miseryguts authors.
Suicide is indeed an interesting philosophical issue. I have experienced suicidal thoughts, but don't think that I would ever do it. However, I had 3 friends who committed suicide, 2 while I was at university and 1 a couple of years later, so this lead me to think about the nature of suicide. None of them told me that they were suicidal and there does seem to be a lot of truth in the idea that the people who are really planning to kill themselves don't talk about it.
The experience of having 3 friends commit suicide was one of the main reasons why I chose to train in psychiatric nursing, partly because I thought that the training would be useful in case I had any future suicidal friends. While working in nursing I have come across many suicidal people, and often when people were seen as a suicidal risk they used to be observed at arms length, night and day. I have known a couple of people who were observed in this way for many months, or even a year. Often, the individuals did not feel that this addressed the issue of their suicidal feelings, and some wished to talk to staff members observing them while others didn't.
Apart from medication, a lot of people do seek therapy for suicidal feelings, and it does seem that art therapy is an intervention which some people find to be useful. This may be because the people can explore the dark depths through art.
But, I am definitely of the belief that it is helpful to live with the dark depths. One of my favourite albums is 'Darklands' by The Jesus and Mary Chain, because it is just so cathartic. I do like dark fiction too. I know some people who think that it is best to avoid such territories, but, even though they may try to, it doesn't always mean that they can always do so. Of course, there are probably a lot of people who don't ever encounter such territories, because life gives them constant joy. They are very lucky, but I can definitely relate to Camus's 'The Myth of Sysphisus', and another book which I find to be a very worthwhile read is Alvarez's, 'The Savage God', which looks at suicide in literature. Nietzsche's is also very relevant too.
[Quote=Sisyphus]We must imagine Sisyphus happy[/quote].
Not all doom and gloom I suppose.
One idea which I have come across in relation to your idea of us living almost unconscious is a view that we need to become more awake, as suggested by some writers, including Guirdjieff. He spoke of how a lot of people live in an almost robotic level. I think that many people do not even stop and consider the question of what are we? Perhaps, philosophy can be a form of helping us to become more consciously aware, because it involves critical discourse and looking behind the surfaces of day to day experiences.
@Daemon disagrees.
Well done them! It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, and generates the sort of nebulous waffle we see in the present discussion.
It seems to me that some people get to the point where they ask such questions, as what are we, and others don't. For those who can't relate to this kind of question, I am sure it does seem like a load of waffle. But, I find so many soap operas and aspects of entertainment others enjoy to be a load of waffle. Even on this site, I see threads which are very popular which I can't get into at all. It just shows how we vary so much.
That has engaged the greatest minds throughout history. I’ll go with them over a random internet person.
If this question is stupid, every question is stupid.
I realise that philosophy is so different from soap operas and light entertainment. Bearing in mind that you think that I am probably focusing on the wrong question, I am wondering what do you see as the importance ones which we can benefit from exploring?
I think that's the basic idea. Everyday life forces us to become engrossed in the material world, physical needs, and related concerns, and this leaves very little room for higher forms of awareness or experience. But we're more than just physical bodies. We've got an intellectual and spiritual side that mustn't be neglected. Philosophy tends to restore some balance as, I believe, do dreams and also certain spiritual techniques such as meditation and contemplation. So, traditional philosophy such as Platonism does have a spiritual dimension that can have much to offer if we learn how to use it correctly.
There have been many answers. You’re in fact living with a tacit understanding of what a human being is. In the West, since around Aristotle’s time, human beings have been defined as the zoon logon echon. In the medieval period, we were creatures of God. Etc.
“Satisfactory” has nothing to do with it. What’s a “satisfactory” answer to health— to what is healthy? Maybe we should throw out the field of medicine, since that question is “stupid and vague” as well, by your standards— after all, there’s no “satisfactory” answer.
I do think that answering the question of what are we is important, but I don't think that it is easy. So, I see it as being more of a topic for reflection. I am hoping that in this thread, through collaboration discussion that certain themes and ideas may emerge. I see it as a topic for philosophy discussion, but one which can draw from many disciplines of thought.
I keep an open mind towards various contemplative approaches. I am trying to be careful about metaphysics at the moment though, because it is so easy to end up thinking in a convoluted way. I read as widely as possible, and sometimes try and read too many different, contrasting Ideas at the same time. So, I am trying to achieve a certain amount of clarity, and trying to untie philosophical knots. I believe that this is important in our development of ideas, otherwise it may be like trying to paint pictures with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water.
I see thread discussions as experiments. Some work better than others. I do try to develop them in such a way that they come together in a way which work as being readable for people who log into the thread. However, interaction on this forum is an unusual arena of discussion, and apart from engaging in writing, each of us comes away with different results in our own thinking experience, and I am sure that this is so variable.
I agree. But I think that the real point of metaphysics is to simplify experience and enable human consciousness to transit from multiplicity to unity.
Speaking of ideas, how do you view Plato's "ideas" or "forms"?
The answer not only matters, but you’re living it.
Too stupid to understand it? That’s your business. In that case, throw out medicine too.
"Logical positivism", simply put, is the thesis that all sentences which cannot be empirically verified are meaningless; self-consistently, then, sentences describing "logical positivism" are also meaningless – thus refutes itself (like e.g. relativism, global skepticism, nihilsm, deconstructionism). Logical positivists are just scientistic folks like Ayer who profoundly get Witty's TLP wrong. So, no, it's a only "starting point for" nonsense.
I'm actually a bit shocked. I used to have relatives near Boston. I've been there twice. They never took me to the Museum of Fine Arts. Scientists really don't appreciate true art.
:up: (Ideally.)
Quoting Xtrix
:clap: :fire:
(A path I took deeper into the same primeval haunted forest ... re: Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Peirce/Dewey, Merleau-Ponty, ... Lakoff, Kahneman, Metzinger)
I agree that the painting is lovely. I googled the image but it is a copyright, so I don't think it could be put on this site. Also, I don't upload at the moment, I just use this site to write. So, I should just recommend that people reading the thread look up the image. But, I do love art and making it.
I think that many people do go through life so unconsciously and that the way forward is to try to become more aware. But, it can be a painful path and just in recent discussions which I have been having with @Madfool , I have been speaking of the philosophical danger. Just now, he has started a thread on this and I have just responded within that one, speaking of how we can feel that certain philosophical outlooks can make us see ourselves as being of absolutely no significant at all. I believe that your own view is that we can move from this, to creating meaningful existence.
I see it as a complex and delicate art. Out own lives may come in all forms with a mixture of pleasure and pain. How do we make sense of these? I think that it does need to involve a sense of authenticity, or genuineness. We do have to try to face facts of existence philosophically. As you and others realise, I have asked questions about philosophical mysteries. I didn't find any real answers and I am not sure that I ever really expected any, because if they could be found, I am sure that the philosophers would have discovered them long ago.
Personally, I do believe that it is so hard to establish any real metaphysical certainties. This can lead into two possible opposing directions. We can get to the point where we believe that there is nothing beyond us, or we can go into mystic flights of fantastic dreams. However, it may be a whole realm of possibilities. We may believe that there are no supernatural powers beyond us, but still enter into fantasy in the form of fictive fantasy, but with an awareness that it is indeed fictive.
One other possibility is of looking for what Aldous Huxley spoke of as 'A Perennial Philosophy', which is more a way of looking at the overview of recurrent themes, underlying various quests, which looks at these, but in a very neutral manner, rather than with an emphasis on establishing these as actual metaphysical facts.
r
Having looked at the painting, one can tell why he was in debt and suicidal. I've seen better art on the side of van. He's no Henri Rousseau that's for sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionism#/media/File:Henri_Rousseau_-_Le_R%C3%AAve_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
As for the questions:
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think they are:
Quoting Jack Cummins
...rather like the painting, they could have been formulated by a 10 year old.
Maybe I'm just not getting it.
It would go quite well in my bathroom!
I am indifferent to the painting and the questions.
Self-reflection works for some people and many questions will do. Seems to me it is often the wrong people who are self reflective - those who need to reflect don't and those who don't need to often paralyse themselves with fruitless, churning self-analysis.
These three questions do not interest me anywhere near as much as: What Am I Doing? What Do I Want? Who am I? I regularly find myself pondering these as I go about my business. It is not always possible to obtain answers.
As for your alternate questions, might I suggest that the difficulty in obtaining answers may have something to do with not fully understanding where you’re from, what you are or where you’re going....
Just a thought.
Here's where you can download the image and some information about copyright. If anyone's interested
Same here. To “untie philosophical knots in our understanding” starts at home.
You can suggest it, but you'd be wrong. :razz:
That's neurosis, not skepsis.
Ever questioned. Ever failed. No matter. Question again. Fail again. Fail better. :smirk:
Guilty. I am much more interested in myself than in reality. :razz:
I am not sure about the actual construction of metaphysics any longer. I think that when I first began thinking about philosophy, which was before I began questioning the existence of God, my own starting point for my own argument was from thinking about God. During my experience of questioning religious beliefs, I began thinking from a psychological point of view. I began to frame my own thoughts around actual supernatural entities.
Nowadays, I have not adopted the view that there is nothing beyond human beings and empirical reality but just think that it is hard to establish with any certainty. I do believe that this has been seen by many thinkers. Kant recognised the role of intuition, but as A J Ayer, points out, we need to go beyond intuition, with rational explanations. One way of doing this can be through a priori principles , and Ayer points to possible creation of tautologies.
So, my understanding of human beings and our knowledge comes with certain reservations. This applies to the idea of Plato's theory of forms. I do believe that the cave metaphor is useful for pointing to the way we don't have direct access to the knowledge. But, that is not to say that they don't exist, and I do believe that we can probably see a parallel between the idea of the forms and Jung's ideas about archetypes. The archetypes are manifested in dreams and the enfoldment of our life dramas, so, for this reason the symbolic dimensions of our existence are important, and are probably easier to speak about than any objective metaphysical reality.
Thanks for providing a link to Gauguin's picture in your post.
I think that ideas of how to see the universe and consciousness are beginning to see human beings more in terms of self organisation of consciousness, as argued by one writer on this site@Pop has suggested. This is in contrast to metaphysical systems which began from objective principles outside our own consciousness.
In particular, I do think that Plato's analogy of the cave was useful for expressing the way in which we are seeing illusionary shadows of reality rather than reality itself. However, I think that one potential fault of this was that it still encourages the idea of looking for objective reality outside of consciousness, rather than starting from the processes of our own consciousness.
So you are not impressed by Gaugin's painting or his title? Art is so subjective and, even the way we form questions too. All I can do is offer a brief summary of the way his title questions work for me. The question is where we come from offers a neat little enquiry into origins, allowing for the scope of the debate between the religious and the scientists. The second one, which I chose to focus on, and I cut out the rest of my title, is about looking at one it means to be a human being. This is about how we work, mind and body and how we are significant in the world and the universe. The final one of where we are going is looking at the future, and it allows for the the consideration of what we do to the planet.
Of course, I am not saying that his title is some kind of model. I only brought it to the forum because it throws 3 questions together. My discussion began with a more detailed discussion of progress. However, I am aware that this is being debated in the science thread. If that thread and one other thread on nature had not been going I might have chosen to try to develop this area further. But, I am specifically interested in trying to think about what it means to be human, so I have tried to develop the thread in that way.
I realise that the questions may interest some forum members and not others. I don't know how much further the thread will go, or in which way, so really I just keep an open mind for any potential areas of debate and dialogue it may stimulate.
I think most people tend to go through phases when they examine their own beliefs in metaphysical realities. Personally, I never reached a point of total metaphysical negation or nihilism. Any arising doubts were instinctively met with counter-arguments to the effect that even if no personal God existed, the existence of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Order, and Justice would still have to be admitted. After all, the visible universe is undeniably constructed in an ordered, logical fashion, that could be accidental but could equally suggest some form of creative intelligence behind it, etc. While my conception of God alternated between a personal and non-personal Deity or Ultimate Reality, it never became atheism as such.
Regarding Plato’s “ideas” or “forms” I think it is ironic that one of Plato’s most fundamental concepts has stirred so much controversy. Obviously, different thinkers have interpreted the Platonic “ideas” or “forms” in different ways. Jung’s archetypes can help us explore what Plato meant by “ideas”. However, Jung developed his theory of the archetypes in the context of psychoanalysis. Personally, I tend to find Plotinus closer to Plato.
What Plato was trying to show was that consciousness or mind tends to organize experience according to certain patterns. It stands to reason that if there is a higher consciousness, mind, or intelligence that creates the invisible world of spirit as well as the visible world of matter, it would do so according to similar patterns.
The problem that Platonism seeks to solve is how the absolute unity of spirit becomes the multiplicity of thought and matter.
Do abstract ideas such as “man”, “woman”, “horse”, “house”, etc. exist on a higher plane from which they are copied into the physical world? I think that put this way the question tends to complicate the issue and give rise to misunderstandings even though, on one level, it points in the right direction.
To simplify things, it would be helpful to go beyond those “forms” and focus on what they ultimately consist of, i.e., basic things like “color”, “number”, size, distance, etc. These would be the actual “forms” contemplation on which leads to direct experience of consciousness itself.
It would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to conceptualize this any further. And nor is there any need to. Practice and direct, personal experience is the only way to reach that place of which thought can only give us an indirect hint. But once that place has been reached, even momentarily, as Plotinus is said to have done more than once in his lifetime, it becomes clear that consciousness or intelligence is what we essentially are, where we come from, and where we ultimately return to.
I took the title as a whole, in relation to the painting - as a critique of industrial society, by a man who ran away - leaving behind a wife and five children, to the South Pacific to paint. The guy is a monster and, based on this painting - he's not very good, really. He's a depressive in paradise, making self justifying statements of his art.
Contrast this with Henri Rosseau's painting, similar subject - much cleaner lines, more vivid colours, wit and humour with the animals in the undergrowth. I see none of that in Gaugin's painting. It doesn't pull the eye anywhere in particular - as if to tell the story. It's daubed across the canvas in a haphazard manner. The figures stand in disproportion to each other, in a barely discernible landscape. No, the best I can say for it is that it would complement the colours in my bathroom.
I admit that I sometimes reflect on your set of questions: What do I want? What am I doing? and Who Am I? When you was a teenager I used to spend so much time dwelling on who am I and I remember going to a church youth club day event on the topic. Identity construction was so central and I can remember wearing badges of all my favourite rock bands. What am I doing is a question I frequently ask myself still. I do think that it is worth asking what do I want because it is possible to act blindly without enough attention to one's real intent. I do find that the clearer I am in my focus helps some kind of pursuit of goals because I have found that sometimes if I am not aware of what I really want I get such a random assortment of life experiences
Your goals are connected to ego concerns and I think we have to be aware of them. I think that Gaugin's goals are important for reflection too, but I am inclined to spend a lot of time reflecting. I think it is possible to spend too much time reflecting. I am also aware that I am better at reflection after events than reflection in action.
I am replying to others' response and please don't think that I am ignoring yours. I just need to think about it, so I will get back to you in a day or two, because I am trying to think how I see Plato's ideas and, I am reading Plotinus currently.
Your comment relates to the context in which I viewed and thought about the painting of Gaugin earlier this week. It was in an article called, Art & Morality: A Bittersweet Symphony' by Jessica Logue in 'Philosophy Now' (April/ May 2021) It was looking at the relationship between art and personal morality. Despite showing the painting by Gaugin, there was only passing reference to him but looked at judgements we make about art and its relation to the personal lives of those who created it.
One of the people it focuses upon is Kurt Cobain, the singer from Nirvana, who killed himself. It asks how we view his life and suicide in connection with his artistic legacy. The author is asking to what extent can certain lifestyles and acts be justified in the context of the artistic and creative process?
I would definitely not go as far as your suggestion that Gaugin was a 'monster'. I don't know enough about his life to be able to say that why he left his wife and children. But, my intuition is that there was probably something really wrong in the marriage to lead him to make that decision. But, I think that the topic of how authenticity is played out in the artistic pursuit is important to ask. We can ask to what extent the artistic pursuit be followed above all else? How far should one go?
My knowledge is fairly scant but I understand he attacked the beliefs of his wife's family. Probably religious beliefs. I don't know anymore than that. 'Monster' was maybe a bit much; but still, they had five children - and his wife was supporting him, until he ran off to the south pacific.
I think that's important context, that illustrates the meaning of the work. He paints this unspoilt paradise, and titles it to cast aspersions on the life he left behind. Then, it's not very good. The blues and browns are indicative of depression - and it's as if he's poised to learn the lesson that wherever you go, you take yourself with you. But he hasn't learnt it yet, or perhaps ever. He's turned paradise into hell - and perhaps, thus we see the central figure reminiscent of the damned in Botechelli's painting based on Dante's Inferno.
I've looked at some of his other works, and they're better than this, but still, the compositions are unwieldy, and I see the same weird disjointedness between figures or objects in his paintings over and again. He maybe enjoyed painting, but I don't think he's very good at it. It would have been a good hobby for him, but if there were ever a case of "don't give up the day job" - this is that.
No problem at all. I've got lots of things to do myself, so take as much time as you want. No rush whatsoever.
I've never been able to reflect on 'we' I don't really know who 'we' is, but I am somewhat acquainted with myself - as per the ancient Greek injunction 'Know Thyself.'
Actually, even though I use the term we fairly often I can't really say that I feel any real connection with 'we'. I suppose that I use the term to speak of being part of humanity, but in practice I don't really feel any collective sense of belonging. In the real world, it often seems like war between the many competing egos.
I have just realised that I have replied to the majority of people who have written comments to my thread post and I had left you out.I thank you for your contribution, and your writing style and angle is always is so unique, speaking more from intuition.
We have our lives. It includes varying levels of suffering compared to other people who are alive.
And we struggle with ourselves.
I have no idea what is going on.
I completely agree that suffering is a big part of human existence. I think that the particular questions Gaugin raises, especially the one of what we are do affect the way we cope with the suffering. I believe that the more insignificant feel on a cosmic level means that we place more emphasis on the mundane aspects of our lives. However, I am sure it has worked in the opposite way when people were often encouraged to put up with suffering, without complaining too much because they would be rewarded in the afterlife.
I finished reading the writings of Plotinus yesterday. On an intuitive level, they make sense to me, but I can see why a lot of people find that ideas, such as the soul and the One are problematic.
I do come with an appreciation of the idea of the Forms, but, once again, with certain critical reservations. I know that Aristotle, was critical of the idea, because he could not see how they could be measured. I do think that Jung's ideas about archetypes is useful for considering the whole area of thought. You say that he was coming from a psychoanalytic approach, and, of course, that is true, but you must bear in mind that he had such an in depth knowledge of ideas, especially of aspects of Western and Eastern religion. He was a writer who went far beyond psychology, and into the realm of philosophical discussions.
If I am honest, I read writings of Plato and Plotinus but I find it difficult to come up with a clear acceptance or rejection, although, at some point, I may come to such a position, in the context of thinking about them in connection with other areas and aspects of philosophy.
I don't think our "humanity" is as mysterious as we make it sound. We are pretty much a product of our environment, conditioned, and predictable. And we have yet to learn what it means to be be a "human", as that word suggests.
Yes, Jung introduced some interesting concepts like synchronicity and also the use of techniques like “mandalas” as tools for re-focusing or re-centering and re-connecting the mind which I find very interesting, as well as dream analysis and interpretation. Incidentally, such techniques can also be found in Platonism and in Ancient Greek religion in general (as well as in Christianity and other Western traditions).
If I’m not mistaken, I think he says somewhere that each person must follow the path prescribed by the spiritual tradition of his or her own culture, which I tend to agree with and I think that’s what I’ve been doing or trying to do myself.
Jung was prepared to look into paranormal experiences for which reason I much prefer Jung to Freud, for example. But as you say, Jung was extraordinarily well-read and you need to be nearly as well-read and learned as him to fully understand his teachings in all their complexity. His published writings are about twenty volumes and a good few are still unpublished.
But I’ve got nothing against Jung. I’m just saying that, personally, I find Plotinus and other Platonists easier to assimilate and put into practice than Jung. For me, Plotinus would be the core of spiritual teachings and practice and Jung something to be explored as an intellectual support for Plotinus in the case of those who feel the need or have the time for it. But this is just my personal opinion.
I think that it is important to ask to what extent human beings are a product of the environment and predictable. It goes back to the nature vs nurture argument. I think that genetics comes into the picture as well. We can ask are criminals born or made? I think that it is complex mixture and experiences which people have can have such a detrimental effect in shaping how we become. But, I do think that some individuals seem to have the ability to rise above so many factors which are going against them, and I see this as an ideal worth aiming towards, because it can even be tempting to give up in the face of too much stress and oppressive life circumstances.
This is connected to learning to become human. I think that it is important to have ideals and dreams. I believe that if we don't strive towards the highest possible ones it is easy to be dragged to the lowest ones. I think it is worth thinking about people who have strived to be the best examples, such as Ghandi.
I think If we put aside all conceptual debates, the authority we attribute to the views of “experts”, learn to observe without the lens of acquired knowledge, and build the capacity to face facts even if they are unpleasant, then it should be obvious that we are nothing but a bundle of experiences. We are conditioned through and through by these experiences, not only psychologically but also biologically. Essentially the human mind has become a trash can, wherein by the general consensus known as society. we have agreed to shape and mold ourselves ideologically, practically, politically, morally, economically etc. This shaping/molding mostly doesn’t factor in what is right, good, just, virtuous, and beautiful. except as a passing reference or a footnote when its convenient and profitable to do so, but rather this programming has self-interest, profiteering , competition, violence, uglification etc. as it’s bedrock. So this is the humanity we are talking about aren’t we? A rather simple and easy observation.
You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.'
I think it is up to us to try to stop that from happening. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of information on television, newspapers and the internet. Some of it tells of human beings behaving in horrific ways, and humanity is so large that is easy to end up feeling of complete insignificance.
However, I think that it is possible to go beyond all of that. I have times when I feel useless and I am sure that I have plenty of vices. Despite that, I do hold on to the quest to try and cultivate my mind through trying to cultivate my mind, through thinking,reading and writing, as well as interacting with people. Sometimes, I find groups the hardest aspect of life because group dynamics are so complex. But, ultimately, I believe that each one of us has to take responsibility for our life or destiny and I am determined to prevent my mind from becoming a 'trashcan.'
I am not sure that I would agree with Jung that we should follow the path of our own culture. I think that I remember coming across that idea in his writings somewhere, but as he wrote volumes, I would not be able to locate it easily. My understanding of his basic argument was that there is a danger of people in the West turning to those of the East, and getting in a bit of a mess because the ideas are based on a different set of metaphysical assumptions. I can see his argument, but wonder if it made more sense in the climate of the time he was writing because, he was writing in a time in which Christianity was the prevailing system of thought, but I think that the underlying thought of our cultural epoch is so fragmented anyway. I think that we need philosophy to try to put it together again.
I have found Jung to be my own mentor really, but I do agree that we need to read so much to even understand him. I see his writings as the starting point, for going beyond, into many diverse areas. I did find Plotinus inspiring really, and will probably go back to him, as I charged my way through ideas which called for far more reflection and analysis. But, I do read many writers from all kinds angles. One writer who I have read a few books by, and I find extremely interesting is Rudolf Steiner. I have only come across one person referring to him apart from me, but I do believe that he was an important systemic thinker who has not been given enough attention within philosophy.
Democracy is a shared consciousness and shared power. I believe it is possible we have greatly increased our shared consciousness and that we are at a point of developing a new consciousness
based on science and histroy. We may be entering a new age that is a high-tech reality and one of peace and the end of tyranny. But then what are we to do with ourselves if we don't need to work from sun up to sun down?
You speak of labor-intense societies. A high-tech society is not labor-intensive.
Quoting Jack Cummins
You have expounded on a non-applicable meaning to what was said. In any case i think i have addressed your initial objections.
You have not really given an argument at all, other than say that what I am saying is 'non-applicable'. You are suggested in your previous post that 'we are nothing but a bundle of experiences' and that ' the human mind is a trashcan' which reduces human beings to insignificance. Surely, a person is more than that.
I din't refute what you were saying as there is no need to refute a starwman.
Nor did i notice any questions seeking clarification.
Okay, my question for clarification would be what is your basis for believing that we are merely 'a bundle of experiences' and that the 'human mind is a trashcan'? You have not provided a basis for this view or opinion?
The basis is observation of facts. It's not a belief, it is so. Is there anything in you, or me, or anyone else that isn't a product of conditioning? Conditioning being your experiences, your knowledge, everything that has been dumped into you (the trash can analogy) since you were a baby. By your family, by the school system, by your work environment, by the beliefs and value you affiliate with, so on and so forth.
So as it stands a human is nothing but a bundle of all those dumpings. A bundle of experiences. How you think, act and react comes from all that. It's an easy observation, but may not be a pleasant one to discover we are this, hence the resistance. In order to soothe away this pain you may invent some belief of a different factor like soul etc.But that's just a belief.
But, we don't have things simply dumped into us, because we can work with them and interact with our experiences. Even now, as I am writing I am sifting and choosing words to focus on and explore. I don't see how that is mere conditioning? As the cognitive behaviourists suggest, experiences don't control us. It is our feelings about those experiences, and this can be worked with, in therapy, or by our own critical interpretation. We can shape our own reality.
I think that my phone battery is about to run out. So, if you write a response and I don't reply it is because I have to wait to get home and put it on the charger.
What you are calling "interract" is also called 'reactions'. The reactions are also predetermined by the particular conditioning. So the question then is can you face the facts as they are. That we are nothing but programmed reactions.
Like i said previously you cannot fall back into "the experts say", A critical exploration will reject that kind of authority, and see them as mere beliefs, which may or may not even be true. These theories are incomplete and evolving, thus cannot be trusted to give a complete picture. The only reliable tool you have is your own observation.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. that's a popular and comforting belief, which chooses to ignore that the reality one shapes is based on one's own conditioning, and the aspirations that come out of such conditioning. A shaped reality is a subjective reality, and by definition isn't true reality.
I realise that a 'shaped reality is subjective', but as far as I can see that is what we are left with individually, to work with, for better or worse. You speak about conditioning, and aspirations and this leads me to think that we are back to the conundrum of free will. This all depends how you view it, whether it is viewed as human beings being lead by external causes or making choices as individual actors. The key aspect is reaction vs action. It is complicated, in terms of the focus. One thing which I wonder about is whether we can create free will, or gravitate towards it, through greater consciousness or awareness. What I am trying to say is that rather than just being robots of conditioning, perhaps through greater understanding and insight we are able to attain greater levels of freedom of choice.
Is there a question in the above?
Is this what we are, or all that we are – some(thing) with the potential "to become human"? My online musings are ... inconclusive, and not very encouraging:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
And yet our sisyphusean challenge will remain: "to become human" ...
Quoting 180 Proof
I like your sets of reflections, and I find the one which stands out is 'we are not what we think we are.' It seems likely that human beings probably develop interpretations of themselves and humans in general, some which deflate and some which inflate themselves. A lot of the thoughts which we have may be wrong, or, at least, only very partially true.