Pragmatic Idealism
I thought this might be a good general topic for philosophical consideration. The following seems to be a simple enough expression of the human species' situation in relation to common sense idealism, but what do you guys think regarding its genuine practicality?
Prehistoric Homo sapiens on the cusp of civilization was from the perspective of ecological security a nearly ideal species, invulnerable to self-destructing, destroying its environment, or being driven to extinction by organic selection pressures, even though life could be hard and it was only a matter of time before a mass-extinction event like that which wiped out the dinosaurs again took place. With the advancement of culture, our ability to survive reached such a magnitude that we could do better than perennially act out our functional adaptations as an evolutionarily unassailable species; we could reconstruct the environment to suit our needs. But as our ecological and social circumstances radically transformed in both intended and incidental ways, new pressures took effect that our natures were not adapted for, and we have struggled both with and against each other ever since to tame, harness and exploit for our benefit the new dynamics of human life in globalizing civilization. We can undermine ecosystems on a planetary scale, we can annihilate ourselves with the invention of intelligent technology, we can potentially secure our way of life against natural cataclysms such as asteroid strikes and social cataclysms such as ruinous violence or the oppression that tends to stagnate cultural and technological progress. Our future is largely ours to control, but we have not yet achieved a self-control and theoretical understanding viable enough to optimize civilization in a peak mobilization, quality of life, and general prognosis for human individuals and their collectives.
Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable?
Prehistoric Homo sapiens on the cusp of civilization was from the perspective of ecological security a nearly ideal species, invulnerable to self-destructing, destroying its environment, or being driven to extinction by organic selection pressures, even though life could be hard and it was only a matter of time before a mass-extinction event like that which wiped out the dinosaurs again took place. With the advancement of culture, our ability to survive reached such a magnitude that we could do better than perennially act out our functional adaptations as an evolutionarily unassailable species; we could reconstruct the environment to suit our needs. But as our ecological and social circumstances radically transformed in both intended and incidental ways, new pressures took effect that our natures were not adapted for, and we have struggled both with and against each other ever since to tame, harness and exploit for our benefit the new dynamics of human life in globalizing civilization. We can undermine ecosystems on a planetary scale, we can annihilate ourselves with the invention of intelligent technology, we can potentially secure our way of life against natural cataclysms such as asteroid strikes and social cataclysms such as ruinous violence or the oppression that tends to stagnate cultural and technological progress. Our future is largely ours to control, but we have not yet achieved a self-control and theoretical understanding viable enough to optimize civilization in a peak mobilization, quality of life, and general prognosis for human individuals and their collectives.
Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable?
Comments (69)
We lack a philosophical basis for that outlook. The world's elite have already decided that Earth as we know it is doomed, so are looking for ways to colonize space, 'the final frontier'. Which I think is a doomed quest; we have one and only one space vehicle capable of lasting millions of years and supporting billions, and that's Spaceship Earth. And she's dangerously over-heating and under-resourced for the demands we're putting on her. And I'm sure the dream of colonizing the solar system, let alone other solar systems, will never materialise.
So I'm afraid the Western capitalist economic and political system will have to be dramatically and indeed radically transformed to cope with what is coming. Value systems will need to be changed to encourage frugality, sustainability and re-use instead of flagrant over-consumption and waste. But the materialist culture of capitalism will be completely unable to deal with this, as it challenges its entire raison d'etre.
Quoting Enrique
“Black Friday shoppers spent $7.4 billion online, the second largest Internet shopping day ever, according to data compiled by Adobe Analytics.”
Not yet I guess.
Quoting Wayfarer
It’s interesting how everyone keeps pointing to the targeting of the Western capitalist economy as the solution. China has a Communist government and operates in a global economy and produces more co2 than any other nation is the world. Is there a reason for this focus?
China is a Capitalist economy. The means of production needed to play a part in a global economy requires nothing less.
So to refer back to my question, why do posts always refer to a Western capitalist economy and political system, as if that’s all there is?
Maybe one aspect of the problem is that we don't have an adequate accounting of and consideration for human psychology. To profoundly revise the system, we have to motivate citizens, and to revise systems at the rapid paces required by advancing technology, citizens have to self-motivate. Modifying our own psyches, acting in contradiction to conventional compulsions, conditioning, and the expectations of our sub-cultures can be trauma. How do we make the necessary adjustments to intrinsic human psychology without dangerously destabilizing it as commercialist enculturation seems to prove very possible?
Seems that most can project a mindset with amazing facility, in the presence of incredible stresses, but adopting a mindset that critiques and changes itself, negating its own nature for the sake of progressing through a series of increasingly practical outlooks, no matter how simple these outlooks are to conceptualize, is extremely difficult.
But looking at the huge transitions that have occurred in only a single century, substantial progress has got to be possible. I think if we give everyone a decent quality of life that provides opportunities for real peace and leisure, individuals will reflect more, be more flexible, and society won't be so chained to extrinsic incentive. We seem to be going in the opposite direction. Maybe mindfulness practice can lead humans to reflect more on their own behaviors. But abuse and corruption always have the temporary leverage if humans let down their guard and turn inward. The inclination towards social entropy is strong.
Good question.
Socialist states and technocratic tinkering have been disastrous for the environment. Consider Chernobyl, the Aral Sea in the Soviet Union, pollution in China, or the desertification and pollution of Cuba.
I suspect there is little focus on socialist states for political reasons,
I think there are intrinsic contradictions in the European Enlightenment. Steve Pinker's latest book, Enlightenment Now! is about more thoroughly implementing the program of the Enlightenment through application of science, technology and rational principles. Bill Gates and numerous other luminaries said it was their favourite book of 2018. And I agree that the programs of universal education, economic rationalism, and so on, are an essential part of the equation. BUT, the Enlightenment also has a shadow side. And that is the abandonment of what is generally designated as 'the spiritual'. It is basically 'privatised' as a matter of individual conscience. This goes back to the sense that life is the product of chance (or, 'not-God'). This gives rise to the conviction that human life exists for no reason, or at any rate, whatever reason we can find for life is something we ourselves are responsible for, in a basically meaningless material cosmos. As long as that conviction holds sway, then nihilism can be the only logical view.
I agree that the spiritual aspect of existence is difficult to reconcile with idealized glorifications of supposedly rational thinking, and this daunting challenge has led many to pursue either reason or faith, as if mutually exclusive. I think both spirituality and rationality have always been closely tied to supportive, reliable community, and are equally impossible to sustain long-term without an environment that fosters close social connections. Human beings can unite around any kind of cause imaginable, the possibilities for accomplishment, improvement and combining ideas nearly limitless, so long as we learn to trust, accept, and work towards the experience of genuinely caring for or at least participating with co-citizens. All the Enlightenment ideals we can muster probably aren't going to help the human race if economic and political models, depersonalizing art forms, predatory presentation of fact, and the manufacturing of conflict continue to hinder or even splinter communities, though attempting to instill the basic capacity for rational thought is certainly a piece of the puzzle.
I am of the opinion, if people didn't have something to struggle for we would lose the will to live. We have to have aspirations. I think one of the greatest challenges facing mankind would be boredom and loneliness and general nihilism.
I was about to say that ship has already sailed (in developed nations), but we still have ultra poor who are certainly struggling. However, for, let's say the top 60% of Americans (for example), any struggles really only exist because of their aspirations (and yes, children count as aspirations). Life is pretty easy if the only point is to live how you see fit (and you don't have a huge opposition to following rules that set rather minor limitations).
Quoting ovdtogt
If those are the ONLY problems, I would certainly take that deal (and I would happily come up with some very important holes for people to dig and fill-in if they really need a purpose).
And besides that, there will always be a struggle if we choose to seek one. Notice 2 examples of a post scarcity utopia: In Wall-E, the people become fat lazy nothings - just as you seem to fear; but in Star Trek they use their new found freedom to explore the stars (and, yes, get into a bunch of new wars). The freedom found in this scenario includes the freedom to struggle, to seek more. Now, most people "struggle" to make rent or to look prettier than the next person...that does not seem likely to inspire mankind toward great things.
Wall-E is fiction and Startrek illusion. We are pretty much stuck on this ball of clay with 7 billion and rising and we'll have to deal with that. Elon Musk and any idiot that wants to can dream of colonizing Mars to face a life of misery, they have my blessing.
We will destroy civilization as we know it but the few survivors will build a nightmarish utopia filled with nihilism.
There is a type of selfishness involved here. It's very difficult for some of us to understand this form of selfishness, and to do so requires that we dismiss the idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole. The idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is the illusion which makes selfishness incomprehensible. Selfishness is the reality though. Therefore we must dispel this idea that each one of us is a part of a larger whole, as an idea which is detrimental to our endeavour to understand the reality of selfishness. We may replace this idea with the idea that each one of us ought to desire to be a part of a larger whole. Then selfishness, though it is apprehended as very real, is understood as immoral..
Selfishness is real, but so is the tendency to cooperative endeavour. Some individuals are more selfish, some are more cooperative. There is ample evidence for both. So your assertions about one being real and the other an illusion are false, to the extent that they do not reflect empirical facts.
As usual in these discussion we fail the see the duality of reality. Human character is both altruistic and egotistic simultaneously as the human body is both male and female. Everything is about balance. How far do you lean to the right of the left. Left and right are both part of the same continuum.
I didn't say that cooperation isn't real. I said the belief that each one of us is a part of a larger whole is not a true belief. What there is no evidence of, is the idea that cooperating with another person makes the two distinct individuals who cooperate into a unified whole. Therefore what is untrue, and is not reflective of "empirical fact", is the idea that a number of individual human beings could compose a unified whole.
Quoting ovdtogt
This is nonsense. An individual human body is not both male and female, it is one or the other. A human body is either male or it is female, it is not both.
Quoting ovdtogt
This, as well, is nonsensical. Right and left refer to opposite directions from a given perspective. They are not both part of the same continuum because there is a necessary dividing point between them, which is the given perspective.
This is nonsense. An individual human body is not both male and female, it is one or the other. A human body is either male or it is female, it is not both.
It is obvious you lack even the most basic knowledge of biology. Your ignorance is to vast to fathom.
Maybe we just need to introduce more people to the pleasures of nihilism (objective nihilism seems a fact, but subjectively we can choose any purpose we want). How am I harmed or hindered by acknowledging there are no objective "oughts"? I get that it is a problem for some, but it will be easy to invent "religions" that give those people purpose. How about "The Holy Hole Fillers"? A religion where they both literally and figuratively fill holes (I was thinking "in dirt", I just realized someone could take "hole filling" in a whole 'nother direction...I am fine with that religion too, haha).
By ultimately discovering that there are? 'Hell is truth, realised too late' ~ Anonymous.
The idea that you can find purpose in nihilism is as likely as being able to fill up a black hole.
Humans have throughout history struggled to survive. Our super charged brains have evolved to give us an evolutionary edge in this struggle for survival. The moment this struggle ceases to be necessary we will find ourselves in a void, an emptiness for which we are not psychologically or emotionally equipped to deal with.
Show me a human body which is both male and female, and I will argue that it is neither. Let the vastness of my ignorance overwhelm you!
Society is already being harmed by the acknowledgment that there are no objective 'oughts'. The objective 'oughts' is what makes 'members of society' from individuals.
Why do you think a man has nipples? Why do you think a female has a small penis? Why do you think a man can grow breasts? Why do you think both men and woman have testosterone and estrogen hormones in their body?
haha, zing. Do you think could convince me, or are we talking a Pascal's Wager situation?
I could just as easily state that society is just emerging from millennia of harm caused by people believing in objective oughts. Objective oughts create blind followers instead of thinking individuals.
I don't believe anything quite as strong as what I just wrote here (one person could live a great life with objective oughts, while the next person might become a terrible person due to objective oughts)...but I think your statements would be very difficult to support well.
The problem is most people don't have the intellectual capacity to be anything by blind followers. Who are these people going to follow when all the leaders have become nihilistic hedonists? (a situation we almost already find ourselves in) Only the artists and scientists will be able to amuse themselves. All the philosophers will be nihilists by then.
I don't see how that's relevant, you might as well be asking why males and females both have mouths and noses. If you want to start with something real, start with the y chromosome.
You don't find what defines us sexually as being relevant? Why do you have nipples?
How could nipples define us sexually when both men and women have nipples? I don't know why I have nipples, nor do I know why I have fingers or toes.
You don't know why you have fingers and toes? You never use them?
Looking at the way I use some parts of my body doesn't necessarily tell me why I have those parts.
Seriously? You are telling me you have no idea why you have fingers and toes?
You are an expert in the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being and knowing and you don't know what fingers and toes are for?
Wow......
As I said, that I use fingers and toes for certain purposes doesn't mean that this is the reason why I have them. You are confusing the purpose of the user with the purpose of the designer. I did not design my body, so how I use the parts of it does not reflect why those parts are there.
No that is true. You do not have fingers and toes for the reason you use them. :rofl:
You use them in unreasonable ways. :lol:
It is really quite unreasonable you have fingers and toes. :cry:
It is really quite unreasonable that you use them for certain purposes. :sweat:
There is absolutely no reason you have fingers and toes at all. :chin:
That you use fingers and toes is not a reason for you to have them. :groan:
Nietzsche, the expert on nihilism, would say that we must give our fingers, toes and nipples a goal. But we seem to have excessively goaled ourselves into utilitarian hell. "I don't have enough money or security to be good" is the common sentiment, most are travailing merely to stay solvent or avoid the very real possibility that their occupational interests will collapse, and too busy covering their vulnerable toosh for reflection and innovative problem-solving. Not that everyone ever would be substantially rational even in ideal conditions, but we can do a lot better than leading lives that generally revolve around all-consuming work, intimidation, self-defense, countermeasures to destroyed reputation, shallow publicity and the coercion of citizens isolated by financial mechanisms.
I’m intending to study Horkheimer and Adorno, The Dialectics of Enlightenment, instead.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/#H4
* You see that attitude expressed here in almost every thread.
I would consider myself also to be an expert on nihilism and I am financially quite comfortable.
I am however looking to ..
Quoting Enrique
Not so much my nipples.
But
would know what to do with them. He has got man breasts.
Everyone certainly needs challenges and stimulation, but as far as social engineering, I think its a big misconception that struggle somehow facilitates cognitive growth or any evolutionary process in general. Its favorable conditions that foster the persistence of new mutations and diversification of niches. Resistance and harsh environments ossify evolving forms into a few rigid, unalterable types, if survival is possible at all. Think of how many more species live in the Amazon rainforest compared to the Arctic. Life, including the human mind, can create, differentiate and select itself in such a huge, complex variety of ways that forcibly imposing a particular scheme of concepts and value judgements is completely inadequate to theorize let alone successfully plan human evolution. Prolonged obligation to contend with a non-negotiable set of ideas produces neurotic fixations and degrades rationality. We've probably made a miniscule fraction of the advancement civilization was truly capable of.
I think it would be great if we could make human culture the Amazon rainforest of altruism, but so many huge psychological and institutional barriers. That's not to say moderate stress can't shock the human system out of ennui, but the duress itself is not conducive to enhancement of thought and behavior. Antagonism is an inhibitor, its the possibility of real security between the inevitable periods of what needs to be temporary, non-threatening, relationally non-destructive conflict that produces personal and social progress. But self-defense as preemptive, conspiratorial sabotage might always be a popular choice. The perception of possible advantage certainly feels like success.
Since you all undoubtedly want my opinions, I assert that man breasts are neither pragmatic nor ideal.
Values are such a grey area, everyone knows what's morally good, but if it causes you pain or disadvantage, it begins to seem so inadequate, almost like a means to sucker populations into unequal standing. As Enlightenment Kant said, to the extent that our moral judgements are rational, this is "practical reason", a veneer of universal pragmatisms, not even close to satisfying human nature's vast assortment of personal preferences. That's why Kant describes the fundamentals of civic morality as a matter of duty, not pleasure.
Can you unpack this a little more, for me? Specifically, I’m wondering where the notion of veneer of universal pragmatisms comes from.
If it were up to us we would just shit in the street, but a veneer of universal pragmatism prevents us from doing that. That then becomes the Quoting Enrique
I'm referring to the categorical imperative, if we can will an act with import for the well-being of the community to be a universal law, then it is moral and we have a duty to abide by it, and are actually worthy of more respect the harder it is for us to abide by it. "Everyone must like koalas", not significant enough to be of moral relevance. "Everyone must work at least forty hours a week", not realistic, necessary or logistically sensible. "Thou shalt not kill" wouldn't please every human all the time, and this is attributable to a huge range of causes, natural temperament, situational pressures, but if we all conformed to the directive, no war, no military spending, no risk or fear of violence, it would make the world a universally better place. Its not a natural law, but it would work so well that we can regard it as a fundamental moral precept to be upheld however possible, a valid human ideal at the very least. According to Kant, the "conditions of the possibility of experience" in the context of human values transcend pure reason's scope, not intrinsically formative to all human knowing like the experience of spatial structure for instance, but reasoning can arrive at some universalizable principles by considering practical consequences.
First, I don’t know where the context of human values relates to the conditions of experience. If you’d said the “conditions of moral worthiness in the context of human values”, I wouldn’t take so much exception. But the conditions of human experience are space and time alone, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the pure practical reason of moral determinations.
Second, granting the general obscurity of Kantian prose allows us to somewhat freely interpret what he is saying. From that, it can be found that the will doesn’t act. Rather, the will chooses its principles, called maxims, from which the “commands of reason, re: imperatives, are derived, and such imperatives reflect pure practical reason, insofar as the imperative of categorical nature is treated as a law. The moral quality of a person is given by his respect for that law and the recognition of his duty in obligation to it, without regard to the object of his subjective inclinations.
Again, even granting some interpretive freedom, the following seems to deny that freedom:
“...There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law....”
“It” is the maxim, not the act. The will does not determine the act, it determines the principle that becomes a maxim. The imperative doesn’t determine the act either; it just tells us the “ought” of our moral constitution. Pure practical reason determines the act.
Most imperatives are “hypotheticals” and do indeed do not prohibit us from succumbing to the influence of desires and wants. Only the categorical carries the power of law, and thus the possibility of moral worthiness, and for no other reason than to give ourselves an irreducible ground, a rational base for qualifying our sense of personal morality.
Anyway......just sayin’. Your writing is close enough for hereabouts, so you can leave mine behind as just another interpretation, if you wish. Thanks for your clarifications.
Yeah, I understand those as subjective inclinations, wants, desires and such. Dunno how pragmatism got into moral judgements though, which does its best to thwart all those inclinations. And it isn’t practical reason for moral judgements, its pure reason, but with practical, objective, predicates. And civic morality has external legislation, but moral judgements have internal legislation, the former is juridical duty of right, the latter is ethical duty of virtue.
Just seemed all mixed up to me, even if the gist was pretty close.
Ok. Thanks.
Pragmatic Idealism is fine, for an individual.
Personally, I don't see this "us", I'm by myself here. My feelings, my thoughts, my interpretations, my resources, my knowledge, my circumstances, my desires, my friends, my philosophies, beliefs and ideals. I can as an intellectual exercise consider what might be best for some "us", the humans who are here and the humans that will come and for specific people, like you or perhaps the needy.
However, there are things I have barely any control over and things I have complete control over. I don't trust most people and I actively distrust those with power. People with good intentions think they should be trusted, the only obstacle to trust is unfamiliarity, not true. They can trusted if you go along with their good intentions, otherwise, then you are I don't know... "lacking free will and rationality"?
That's the truth about power, there are things people will put up with when they don't have it, rational debate is just the most effective tool. Idealism quickly becomes tyrannical but it needs power.
I've got "self-control, free will and rationality" but I'm me and you're you and that's not a bridge that can be gapped. There's no unconditional "us".
Not as idealistic as Kant, didn't "write it on the tablet of my heart", as the Bible says. lol But we can discuss it, I'll come back to you guys with somethin'. Anyone else who's got some moral ideations, go ahead!
I seem to recall Kant not claiming that morality is essentially rooted in the rational premises he called maxims, but rather is as metaphysically indeterminate as noumena. Maybe I was reading this into what he wrote, though I got the impression that the moral sensibility not only transcends reason in his view but also the total individual, and the pure reason you mentioned, causal structure inherent in particular phenomena, becomes practical reason as the universal moral sensibility guides human behavior, with humans accessing this universality with a sort of personal leap of faith. Commitment to individuality inherently produces a rational cogency. This is not what we technically refer to as the pragmatist movement, but it has the spirit of pragmatism by providing for citizens to naturally intuit that it will simply work, as an aspect of what it means to be human, and the presumably minor deviations attributable to temperament and circumstance are corralled by a practical duty that cannot be reasonably denied.
Without Kant's emphasis on the respectability of duty, what we could call integrity, his alleged universal laws aren't actually universalizable, and as you say, commonly subject to degeneration depending on social context. I think he may have the nature of core moral ideals honed to conceptual perfection, a firm foundation of basics that rationalizes the modern outcome of cultural history in a broadly accessible way if you can stand direct contact with his frustrating prose, probably preferable to assimilate by brief summary unless you want a chore. Infusing the categorical imperative into real world situations is a lot more complicated than being true to your human self, but its a viable place to start.
If you guys disagree somehow, bring it on!
If a person makes 25k where cost of living is low, and they don't have kids, they can live a pretty comfortable life (rent, food, plus money for internet/cable depending on priorities). That was my only point when I said that life could be struggle free for 60% of the population.
I make more than that, but live in a high cost of living area so that I can either pay rent or my student loans. But I would still call my life "struggle free" because that is how I choose to live.
I was not making any sort of economic point...other than kids are expensive as sh*t.
And minimum wage in California is $12 an hour...so ANY (documented) full time worker here makes 25K a year.
I think 25k SHOULD be more than enough for a comfortable living. Our desires and aspirations mean we won't be satisfied without MORE...how much more? and what exactly do we want more of? Hard to say, but everyone wants more than they have now.
But if we are storming the bastille, just let me know...even if 25K is enough for me to live comfortably...it doesn't mean others should have billions (or even dozens of millions - I am with FDR, government takes 100% over $350,000)
Anyway, like I said I get that it was just an example, I just wanted to be clear that 60% of people living a struggle-free life is very very far from true. Most people live in the places where lots of people live, which are consequentially expensive places, where the kind of incomes that most people make will barely let you scrape by with zero safety net, which is not at all "struggle-free".
Most people have more than they need but less than they want.
Yes, I was a bit dismissive in my response. But other than the tone, I stand by it...I will use a line from your previous paragraph as an example:
Quoting Pfhorrest
Jees...what are you the queen of England? Needing a whole apartment to yourself? :razz:
I entirely get your point, and I would absolutely vote in line with your thinking. But surely sharing an apartment is not the epitome of struggle? Isn't your desire for your own dwelling creating your suffering?
And this is coming from someone who loves the idea of living alone. Still can't afford it (and I make a decent amount more than 25k, so point conceded on the requirements for a comfortable living), but I would not say my life is full of struggle.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I was about to argue with this a little, but it is pointless. For all practical purposes, I am with you. In the only way that matters (voting), I am definitely with you. I just want to highlight that some people can choose to be happy in the midst of an awful situation...what allows them to do this? Can it be replicated by the rest of us, or is it just a personality trait?
Ever heard of Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl? It was a big seller in the 1960's, one of my mother's favourites. Frankl was a psychiatrist who had been interned in the Nazi death camps and noticed that some individuals adapted much better than others to these dreadful environments, which he attributed to their ability to find meaning. 'Frankl believed that people are primarily driven by a "striving to find meaning in one's life," and that it is this sense of meaning that enables people to overcome painful experiences.
After enduring the suffering in these camps, Frankl concluded that even in the most absurd, painful, and dehumanized situation, life has potential meaning and that, therefore, even suffering is meaningful. This conclusion served as a basis for his logotherapy and existential analysis, which Frankl had described before World War II. He said, "What is to give light must endure burning."
He formed a school of psychiatry called 'logotherapy' which developed on these themes.
I've probably got some unique insights in this area from being psychologically tortured during an unjust jailing for many months with a high level of isolation, and I wasn't in very good condition to begin with. It could always be worse. At least I've got my mind. I've got nothing to do but survive and nurture my sanity, so no peripheral pressure. You're a lot less likely to explode or implode if you've got company, but my mood still hasn't recovered and its been almost two years. Even if you're a person that tends towards optimism, the unrelenting stress changes the chemistry of your brain and your whole sense of reality begins to warp. Many Americans don't even know what constantly perceiving immediate, imminent danger is like. I'd agree that most first-world citizens are happier than they think they are, at least their brains aren't being rotted. We usually take that for granted. Without some ideally timed interventions, I probably would've been destroyed.
One of the most pernicious techniques of social control is manipulating relationships, mentalities and general behavior with pain. Pain can change a worldview, it can efface humanity, it can make humans submit to abuse and even complete irrationality. Everyone dislikes this socially induced pain so much that we seem to be somewhat compulsively moving towards institutions of desensitization, but this tampers with the cognitive contribution to motivation so much that many become nihilistic and hardened until unresponsive to even serious practical concerns. If we lose our conceptually emotional commitment to cultural prospects, innovative idealism evaporates and then our constructive pragmatism also.
I think social engineering is to some degree reinforcing an unconsciously limiting "maintain/fight/panic/spontaneously combust" mindset, and that's why we're regressing on issues of conscience. Abuse is phasing citizens less and less, and we discharge affect in ways that do not align with a desire for progressiveness in belief systems. Reformist movements don't usually happen anymore. Maybe naturally empathetic demographics still exist somewhere, but I haven't experienced this in many years.
And jail is atrocious, the penal system should be reformed. It would be a great deterrent if culture didn't force citizens into it regardless.
Damn. No (at least not more than a quick mention), but it sounds like I need to check it out. Seems like he is trying to answer my question :smile:
Quoting Wayfarer
This reminds me of "Night" by Ellie Wiesel. However, within that story it highlighted that this "purpose" you refer to, worked for some of the Jews, but not for others. Would Frankl be suggesting that those who suffered heavily (versus those who adapted "well") did not have a strong faith to begin with? Or that faith is not "purpose"? And if you ask why I bring up "faith" when you are talking "purpose"...to find a "purpose" to the holocaust would require gobs of faith...wouldn't it?
Or is he referring to "purpose" as things like..."I can't wait to see the sun on Tuesday?" or "I look forward to lunch on Monday"?? I understand that much better than some overarching objective purpose for my life. A purpose for this minute, day, week, etc makes more sense (for me) than a purpose for my existence (I guess I am making all sorts of assumption that you and Frankl meant the big life purpose vs the small daily purposes?).
As the person in this thread arguing that more people should be able to find contentment in life...I certainly believe in no objective purpose. So what allows me to shrug off "struggles" that others take seriously? (besides me being an un-caring ass - that is at most half the reason for my care-free demeanor :grimace:) Maybe my subjective purposes are enough? I should probably read the book and stop bugging you, haha.
Agreed. But most people who identify as happy are unlikely to say their life is full of struggles. For some people completing a math problem is a struggle (whether they are good at it or not). Notice that I would NOT tell @Enrique to buck up and get over it...it was only a little torture. That is a struggle. There is no frame of mind that makes it not a struggle. Similarly, @Wayfarer's example of the holocaust...A positive mindset may help you survive, but there is no mindset that allows the holocaust to become a pleasant situation.
However, if I make 25k a year, and that means that my only affordable living situation is renting a room, and I will never afford a vacation, and will likely not be attracting a life partner, and may die at 62 instead of 82 due to reduced health care,...I can still view that as a largely struggle free life...unless I lament all the things I don't have/can't do.
And I do not mean to suggest that people who complain about their difficult paycheck-to-paycheck lives are not struggling. They are if they say they are. What I am saying is that if they changed their mindset...then they might not have to struggle (or could at least have their struggles reduced).
It’s not lack of reflective decision-making that’s the problem. Haven’t we been doing that? Of course we have, but not all of us. That’s not going to change.
It’s the paradox about who we are; we want order and we want individual freedom. Can you have both? How is it possible?
Cultural and sub-cultural divergent evolution happens unconsciously and rapidly, almost to the point of creating totally discrepant worlds, so dealing with that issue is paramount if we want a multiculturally stable society.
A multi-branched government distributes authority so that single organizations cannot achieve the absolute control that tends towards corruption, but this is being usurped in the U.S. by a system of non-transparent departments.
Representation allows citizens to have some control of policy-making by influence on the professional fate of government officials, but participation is inadequate, and exorbitantly costly campaign funding means that candidates for the most prestigious offices are always extremely rich, thus not dependent on a particular constituency of typical citizens for their livelihoods or cultural security, though this could easily change with activism.
Media is creating a confused chaos of information from such a plethora of covert agendas that most citizens imbibe facts and beliefs with no real cognizance of whether they are true, valid or justifiable.
In the U.S., the economy is becoming gradually more oppressive and job markets more unreliable, so that the attention of citizens is completely absorbed in merely protecting themselves and their families from poverty.
Like you said, larger populations are more impersonal, with a strong sense of community lacking in nearly every neighborhood.
These are some of the divisive sociological dynamics, the extremely obvious ones, not even touching upon the more psychological factors. All these problems are in principle easy enough to solve. All that is required is deliberate organizing efforts, a simple enough source of purpose and meaning for the modern world. The psychological barriers are probably much more difficult to handle. I wish I had the knowledge, competency, and especially the resources to find solutions, but no one in actuality cares much what I think anyway I would imagine lol Interesting to think about though.