Is 'The Law of Attraction' Superstition or an Important Philosophical 'Truth'?
I have come across many books discussing the 'law of attraction', mostly before I was using the forum. I have not come across many references to it here, although @Agent Smith referred to it about a week ago. I also have not come across many discussions of in relation to philosophy and I don't know whether that is because it is not seen as substantial enough as a philosophy. Some may see it as a form of superstition. I will spell out the basic idea.
The idea has been written about by a number of writers, including Esther and Jeremy Hicks, as well as Rhonda Byrne. As I have a copy of one of Rhonda Bryne's books, 'The Secret', I will give a short summary based on that. Byrne says,
'The law of attraction is the law of creation. Quantum physicists tell us that the entire Universe emerged from thought! You create your life through your life through the law of attraction, and every single person does the same.' It is based on the principle that, 'Thoughts are magnetic, and thoughts have a frequency. As you think thoughts, they are sent out into the Universe, and they magnetically attract all things that are on the same frequency. Everything sent out returns to the source_ you.'
Byrne also suggests that, 'Nothing can come into your experience unless you summon it through persistent thoughts'. Also, 'Your thoughts determine your frequency, and your feelings tell you immediately what frequency you are on. When you are feeling bad, you are on the frequency of drawing more bad things. When you feel good, you are powerfully attracting more good things to you'. Feelings of love and hatred also come into the picture, as, 'The feeling of love is the highest frequency you can emit. The greater the love you feel and emit, the greater the power you are harnessing.'
Those who speak of the law of attraction often suggest the importance of gratefulness rather than a focus on that which is lacking, as a way towards future abundance and success. The complex aspect is that there are subconscious aspects of thought, including whether good fortune is deserved and underlying fears vs faith.
In some ways, I find that the idea of the law of attraction difficult to accept because in many ways life circumstances often seem to include so much beyond one's conscious control. It is hard to always work out to what extent mindset and intention play an important role. However, in my experience of life, I find that negative spirals of thought frequently seem to attract misfortune while positive approaches in thought and action tend to be beneficial, although it is not always clear entirely. What do you think of the law of attraction as a philosophy, especially in relation to what becomes manifest in life? To what extent is intention of importance in the understanding of causation?
The idea has been written about by a number of writers, including Esther and Jeremy Hicks, as well as Rhonda Byrne. As I have a copy of one of Rhonda Bryne's books, 'The Secret', I will give a short summary based on that. Byrne says,
'The law of attraction is the law of creation. Quantum physicists tell us that the entire Universe emerged from thought! You create your life through your life through the law of attraction, and every single person does the same.' It is based on the principle that, 'Thoughts are magnetic, and thoughts have a frequency. As you think thoughts, they are sent out into the Universe, and they magnetically attract all things that are on the same frequency. Everything sent out returns to the source_ you.'
Byrne also suggests that, 'Nothing can come into your experience unless you summon it through persistent thoughts'. Also, 'Your thoughts determine your frequency, and your feelings tell you immediately what frequency you are on. When you are feeling bad, you are on the frequency of drawing more bad things. When you feel good, you are powerfully attracting more good things to you'. Feelings of love and hatred also come into the picture, as, 'The feeling of love is the highest frequency you can emit. The greater the love you feel and emit, the greater the power you are harnessing.'
Those who speak of the law of attraction often suggest the importance of gratefulness rather than a focus on that which is lacking, as a way towards future abundance and success. The complex aspect is that there are subconscious aspects of thought, including whether good fortune is deserved and underlying fears vs faith.
In some ways, I find that the idea of the law of attraction difficult to accept because in many ways life circumstances often seem to include so much beyond one's conscious control. It is hard to always work out to what extent mindset and intention play an important role. However, in my experience of life, I find that negative spirals of thought frequently seem to attract misfortune while positive approaches in thought and action tend to be beneficial, although it is not always clear entirely. What do you think of the law of attraction as a philosophy, especially in relation to what becomes manifest in life? To what extent is intention of importance in the understanding of causation?
Comments (55)
I don't think our thoughts have any causative effect on anything external to us. It seems like an induction problem. I would say there's a general "positive" metric and you can get there but what you do in your head won't reach it fundamentally.
I think there would need to be an analyzable proposition to justify validity of that.
The question may be, to what extent can the experiences of life be captured by the logic or propositions. Saying that, I am not wishing to suggest that rationality should be avoided, which is why I queried whether the idea of the law of attraction is superstition. However, it may be that induction is more complex than many believe. Of course, at the most basic level, mindset and intention affect how human beings act. A little bit beyond that, interpretation of experiences affects mood, which is related to mindset and the basis of motivation. It could be asked whether intention goes beyond this, in terms of vibrations. This goes against the physicalist model, but it may be in accordance with the quantum aspects of reality. This would mean that consciousness is more important than many have believed in Western thought about mind.
I'm thinking of transcendental idealism for Kant where he said we had to start with epistemology and that we could never see things-in-themself which would be a limit to it.
I know other german idealists avoided that term but I don't know if they solved it.
Would this be amenable to regular idealism?
One aspect related to this was Schopenhauer's interpretation of this with human consciousness as the thing-in-itself. Here, the human will is of critical importance. I am not sure to what extent Schopenhauer's outlook corresponds with the law of attraction. However, Byrne suggests that many thinkers, including Galileo, Plato and Einstein thought that the law of attraction existed. I am not sure that the idea is necessarily identical with idealism, but it is definitely against materialistic determinism. In some ways, it could be seen as having a phenomenological aspect, with the human mind being a centre of influence.
I see. I'm trying to find some way to understand if it's possible and the only metaphysics I know which may be able to is idealism but I'm not sure how an idealist would deal with objects that they haven't seen or conceptualized but that do affect them.
In some ways, the law of attraction may be less 'mystical' than it appears at first. It can be about how there are chain effects, with state of mind being at the centre. I do have some days in which everything starts to go wrong from the start to the end. For example, when I was working, I had a day when I was due to go to a course which I didn't wish to go to, somehow ended up going to completely the wrong venue, got lost going back to work. Then, I was due to vote and stayed out late and then realised I had brought home an important set of keys. By this time, there was a terrible thunder storm. I needed to get the keys back to work urgently and needed a taxi, but needed to get to a cash point to get money for a taxi etc, etc. All through this, my mind was going through a negative whirlpool...
I do struggle with negative thoughts a fair amount and when I realise that I am going into a kind of spiral I do try to get out and back on track. I am not a believer in superficial positivity, but more aware of the way in which mindset plays a role.
Also, so much of life is based on interaction with others. Of course, no one can control another person completely. However, in the interactive relationships, it may be about how people connect with their own intentions in conjunction with the intentions of others.
I wasn't supposing mystical. I was trying to see if there was anyway we could find it to be causative of material things or even universal things like math but given your last reply then you may be looking for a universal ethics which can "put you in the right place at the right time with the right attitude"? There are certainly ethics like that but it requires a good, universal axiology (value structure) for you to align yourself with.
I was not presuming that you see the law of attraction as mystical because I don't know your complete outlook. I think that this is the first time I have interacted with you on this forum.
I am not sure that the law of attraction is dependent on a universal ethics, and I had not really thought about how it connects to ethics. It is more about effects of action and intention. There may be some parallel with the idea of you reap as you so, in the sense of the consequences of actions coming back to the person. But, that is complex and it does seem that sometimes the wicked thrive. But, whether intent of action comes back to people eventually is a question. If anything, the law of attraction would possibly involve being aware of the repercussions of thought and action.
What do you mean by repercussions?
What I mean by repercussions is that there are ripple effects of actions, almost like a magnetism of energies. One really strange thing which happened to me once. I was on a staircase in a public library and a boy threatened me with a knife. I think he expected me to become aggressive in response and I did nothing and somehow the knife flicked back hitting his hand, although not injuring him. It seemed as if the intent he had bounced back to him.
Of course, the example I gave is fairly unusual and I have not had a similar experience. But, with repercussions in general, it is as if everything has an effect at some level. Even thinking and writing a thread starts something off with ripple effects. But, say I had not started a thread but had simply thought about the nature of the law of attraction it may be that the thoughts would have affected my state of mind on some level.
To the extent I'm concerned, I won't deny the law of attraction, but I'd like to tweak it a bit, you know, just to keep it real(istic).
It's not that one's overall positive/negative attitude causes a numerical increase in one's good/bad experiences. That sounds like woo-woo/pseudoscience.
Au contraire, and more accurately, one's overall attitude, whether +/-, causes the amplification/intensification of one's experiences, great/horrible.
The depth of feeling is, I suspect, mistaken for an increase in one's experience of the corresponding valence.
To illustrate the point, suppose I'm on cloud nine today. I go to work, on the way a stranger offers me a seat on a packed bus. True this gesture is a kind one, but my response to it is exaggerated, I get the same feeling as if I'd won the lottery. The rest of the day everyone ignores me. This one act of kindness carries me through the day and I return home and relate to my family what an amazing day it was. Note, no one else was good to me.
At the other extreme, you're in a bad mood. You go out to the garage where you car is and a bird poops on you. You instantly blow a gasket and/or become miserable. It feels like you lost a million dollars. The severity of this anger/despondence doesn't go away instantly, it lasts, lasts very long and even when you return home after work, you're still simmering/seething/depressed. Here too, only one bad thing happened to you, but your reaction was intense.
As you can see amplification (the strength of feelings) is more plausible than multiplication (increase in the number of experiences of a valence corresponding to one's attitude)
One man army!
I prefer logic to magic, science & history to pseudophilosophy & mythology, nature to fantasy. I don't have an emotional need for wishful thinking.
For a non/anti-idealist, I think the two – folk psychology & statistical mechanics, respectively – are not at all related in any significant way.
Your reply points to the complexity of psychology and exaggeration of emotional affect. I know that at times this has worked negatively or positively for me personally. I can remember at one point when I was really thinking about leaving my mental health nursing course because I was doing badly in practical exams certain pleasant social experiences enabled me to work on areas where I was failing.
Similarly, I find that little aspects of life, such as friction between people I am living with or little incidents can affect mindset so much. Even on Christmas day, I cut my finger on a knife and it just wouldn't stop bleeding. Somehow, that seemed to make everything go wrong and I got negative and the effects of this negativity seemed to last beyond that day even.
I wonder to what extent this happens to people in general because the experience of negativity and positivity in people may vary significantly. I even try to pay attention to what music I play. Not too much of 'Nirvana'. But, to say avoid all 'dark' music and arts may be going too far because some extremes may be important. Some CBT may help but it definitely seems that human beings have the power to exaggerate and amplify emotional affect.
Magical thinking is unhelpful which is why I am asking about the issue of whether the idea of the law of attraction is superstition. Nevertheless, on some level, from my experience it seems to work, as I notice a clear link between my intention and what happens. Of course, I am not suggesting a form of 'magic' whereby complete control of life is necessarily achieved, although some people seem to be able to have more mastery over circumstances than others. But, it may be that the role of intention is underplayed in academic philosophy, because of the influence of determinism.
Maybe one needs to set up a reminder on your smartphone - the first thing in the morning, be/stay positive. I'd like to experiment that on myself, but I'm so god damned lazy that I'd rather my day was miserable than put any effort at making it better. Is it a wonder that I'm so gloomy 99% of my waking life and that's not all, I have nightmares and weird dreams in which I relive all the bad experiences in my life. It's either fear or humiliation. Not much of a choice there, oui? :chin: Hmmmm...
Anyway, returning to the topic of your interest the law of attraction - I feel, setting the aside the possibility that we could be deluding ourselves, we could work something out; you know, test the hypothesis, like any sane or practically-minded person would. What say you?
I do struggle with negativity but I think it I am better at coping with it than I used to be. Often, I do remind myself of the law of attraction and it seem to work, even if there is an element of 'fantasy' or 'delusion'. I am not sure how the idea of the law of attraction could be proven. Research could be done by interviewing people about their experiences but even that would only show how the idea works psychologically.
However, the balance between negativity and positivity is complicated. There is often the principle of seeing the glass as half full or half empty as a way of seeing. In some ways, it may be better to be able to see both aspects, the negative and the positive simultaneously. Negativity has bad consequences but false positivity can sometimes be very unhelpful too. There is some need for realism but faith as well, in spite of adversity.
Also, some people seem to have more 'luck' in life or better circumstances. Or, is there more to it than that? It is hard to know for sure.
IMO, (e.g.) hindsight / confirmation bias + confusing correlation with causation + hasty generalizations = magical (wishful) thinking. Jack, I bet you believe "everything happens for a reason" because "there is no such thing as coincidence". :sparkle: :roll:
Caveat: "Faces in the clouds" may be watching you! :razz:
Read Schopenhauer. Read Husserl et al. Read Sartre et al. "Intention" (i.e. folk psychology), mate, is still front and center in much of (continental) philosophy.
I definitely was brought up with the folk wisdom that 'everything happens for a reason', but it may be more patterns than actual reasons. Of course, as you know I am influenced by the idea of synchronicity, and I am uncertain how much in life is chance.
I am reading Schopenhauer on will at the moment, so I will see if there is any relevance there, and I do have a book on continental philosophy. In the last 18 months I have been reading more of the established philosophers. While I was working I did read a lot of pseudoscience, but, really, I prefer reading as widely and critically as possible.
You believe that recoiling in horror is the effect of you telling them that their words do not have the effect they believe they have?
You see it work when you pick put an instance of it "working", but you don't count the many, many, many instances in which it does not work. In fact, I'd wager that, strictly speaking, the "law of attraction" has been falsified many more times than shown correct in your own experience, but you aren't registering that.
I don't think this has much to do with determinism, honestly. They are separate issues. I think it is false but don't have to go so far as to put forth "positive thinking" as an argument against it.
Yes. The implications are dire for many people, especially the censors.
I admit there are plenty of times when I tried to approach life with gratefulness and optimism and had a horrible day. The advocates of the law of attraction argue it is due to subconscious factors, and it is questionable how deep is the subconscious in its power to unleash the terrible and abominable. Mostly, if I have a bad day I often find that the best approach is to take it easy for the rest of the day and even listen to some 'therapeutically negative' music for the evening and try to get a good night's sleep and hope that the next day will be better. Often, it is.
I am not sure that the topic of intention and mindset is about determinism either, and the link which I saw was about how people have or not have to choose their destiny. However, it may be that mindset and attention is more about the will as a source of motivation.
That explains your apparent lack of horror.
I don’t know what you mean.
It’s simple, you believe that telling someone that their words do not have the effect they believe they have can cause them to recoil in horror, and because you do not not believe this you do not recoil in horror.
I don’t believe that, though. What I do believe is that they often don’t like to hear it.
And they recoil in horror, yes, we've been over this.
What would you say if I claimed that it's magical thinking for you believe that anything you could say to another person could cause them to recoil in horror?
I would agree. The other person causes his own actions. The act of hearing my words, processing what I said, and recoiling in horror are the effects of which he is the cause.
What would you say if I claimed that it's magical thinking for you to believe that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?
I would disagree. The contact of a needle and a pain receptor causes pain.
What I meant to say that if you believe in or think there is something to the "law of attraction", then it should work like a law of nature. So, you say that you've had instances in which having a certain mindset produces good outcomes. The problem is that you may have a positive mindset for a large stretch of time, and only "attract" some positive goal in one instance of that temporal duration.
If it were a law, then any time you had a positive mindset, positive things should immediately follow. Or it is not a law as is understood in nature. So bad days or good days don't serve as a way to show whether such "law" works.
Destiny is also tricky. I think it has a poetical use which can be powerful, but I wouldn't take it literally. I do agree however, that will is fundamental to the determinism debate.
The philosophy of the law of attraction is that it operates all the time, but that the reason bad consequences is due to contradictory wishes. That implies that aspects of the self are playing games with ourselves. I know that I have internal war over my wishes. For example, when I tried to work at a hostel where I hated working and tried to be grateful and develop a positive mindset, practically everything I did at work went wrong until I realised that I really didn't wish to work there.
Okay, this may seem like one example, but on a daily basis I do find such links. Of course, I realise that there is the question as to whether it is simply my perception and interpretation or is attraction itself which influences events? If the law of attraction is true in any way, my perception of it may affect the unfolding of events in my life. On the other hand, you don't wish to see a law of attraction so it does not appear to you. I don't know how much it comes down to choice of how one wishes to see life events and aspects of life and personal will and motivation.
No, that’s not true. Many many more things are needed to cause a person to feel pain. Try again?
For instance?
Such as a cause of needle, and please pardon my racy language, penetration.
I don’t understand. Why is it magical thinking to believe pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain?
I don't either, actually. I've been playing the devil's advocate, your advocate, in order to try to understand your reasoning. Standing in another person's shoes, as they say, in order to at least engender some empathy for your position on the matter. This approach has failed, I'm sorry to say, so if we are to bridge this gap in understanding you will have to do the heavy lifting.
Earlier you wrote:
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet subsequent to this claim you agreed that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain. If you pricked a person with a needle it is far more likely that they would recoil (reacting to the pain) than if you were to merely say something to them. There is no fundamental difference between words and needles in this context. Both can physically connect two people in a causal chain.
Incidentally, no one thing causes another thing to happen. We merely identify the most efficient 'causes' that are in line with fulfilling our goals.
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our desires and goals largely shape our reality.
The effects of spoken words on a human being is the same as all acoustic waves, at least the ones our biology is capable of detecting. The waves vibrate the ear drum. So spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. So we should not being saying words cause such-and-such reactions in human beings (taking offence for example), when human beings are the causes of such reactions.
If words only affected eardrums then it would not be possible to communicate verbally. Sounds cause patterns of auditory sense data to be transmitted to the brain which in turn causes particular neural effects.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a causal chain? Perhaps the following video can help. Pay special attention to the cats. They are biological and an inextricable part of the causal chain.
I’ll pass on the YouTube video.
Cells in the inner ear transform vibration into electrical signals. No other thing or force is causing this to happen or performing this activity.
That activity is always happening, silly goose. What you neglect to take into account is the intentional pattern that is transmitted, and that is caused by the spoken words of another’s voice.
You really should watch the video, it’s super cute.
“Intentional pattern”…nifty phrase, but “patterns” is a weird way to describe mechanical sounds, and “intentional” would apply to any sound we make on purpose.
The reason we understand another’s words is not because “intentional patterns” float through the air, but because we can associate meaning with another’s sounds, all of which requires a level of understanding acquired through years of active learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.
I meant the patterns in the electrical signals that you mentioned. Specific patterns that correspond to a sequence of sounds, such as spoken words. Neurons in the cerebral cortex recognize these patterns due to their conditioning or as you say “ learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.” Spoken words cause particular neural activity, in other words.
My point is that neurons cause particular neural activity. The body performs the actions, therefor it causes them.
You're simply limiting a causal sequence, so what? It would make sense to do that if the events in question were too far removed from each other to find a reasonable causal connection, but that is not the case.
I think you’re trying to insert a chain between two disparate events in order to say one caused the other. Sorry, I don’t see it, or you haven’t made it clear, one or the other.
I’ve tried to explain to you that the information or pattern is independent of the medium. For instance, I’m conveying this message through written language but I could also convey it by voice. Two “disparate” mediums, same information or pattern that your brain recognizes. Comprende, senor?
Yes, I comprehend it. But you don’t cause me to comprehend it, is my point.
My last point was merely that you would comprehend it via written form or by voice, things of a different kind (disparate).
We could have avoided this silliness if you would have whatched the Cats and Dominos video. Cats and dominos are DISPARATE. :lol:
What is silly is the amount of time you’ve spent to say very little. I have to wonder why you tried to refute my initial point.
It was a small demonstration of causality, my friend, nothing more. I provoke, you reply.
Maybe it’s the other way about. You’re doing exactly what I caused you to do.