Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 35183
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:52 pm 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
Benedict Donald wrote:
Empyreal wrote:
That doesn't make any sense about the "no objective foundation for rights or ethics" - it's because we're all people and all you can do is be decent and ensure everyone can live safely. You don't need any spiritual framework for that.


Exactly.
It's not at all ironic or surprising to me that the few atheists I know are unquestionably the most "moral" people I've ever met. And I highly doubt that's coincidental.


On what basis do you say what is and is not moral? If there are no universal standards/Gods/natural law that objectively entails right and wrong behavior, it's all just opinion.


The universal standard is that we live in large connected societies and we all have stuff we want to do in those societies, including basic things like being part of groups, communities, etc. Most people stick to some standard of morality just based on that (and as I said, just that most of us aren't sociopaths or violent, etc - that isn't "muh feelz" to say, lol). Religion and higher beliefs all build on top of that. This is a stupid ass conversation, last thing I'm saying on it.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Black Roses
Fictional Works - if you hated my reviews over the years then pay me back by reviewing my own stuff
Official Website

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2022 11:56 pm 
 

Empyreal wrote:
The universal standard is that we live in large connected societies and we all have stuff we want to do in those societies, including basic things like being part of groups, communities, etc. Most people stick to some standard of morality just based on that (and as I said, just that most of us aren't sociopaths or violent, etc - that isn't "muh feelz" to say, lol). Religion and higher beliefs all build on top of that. This is a stupid ass conversation, last thing I'm saying on it.


This standard you've described is an arbitrary social convention. There are interconnected, stable communities that collectively commit heinous acts—government entities, terrorist groups, militaries, etc. If social cohesion is the basis for morality, then the Mongols and Stalinist Russia could be seen as very "moral" nations.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:55 am 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
MUCH TEXT That's what I mean by metaphysics, as opposed to wishy-washy spiritual white-lighter nonsense.

Please re-read thread title.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:38 pm 
 

Interesting thread! In a little while I want to weigh in on the conversation KAMIKAZE OMEGA started, but first I’ll share some of my own background, more in the way of a response to the OP.

I’m a philosophy nerd (studied in college, briefly taught). Ex-Catholic. I tried awfully hard to identify as a non-believer for a good while, but although I learned a lot, I had to decide that it wasn’t for me, and now I’m in a sort of rebuild mode. Anyway, I like to connect to the “larger than myself” via philosophical reading, mostly by or about the big and not-so-big names in the history of the discipline.

I think the majority of present-day philosophers are non-believers, but it’s still possible to learn from the past. It’s good anyway to sympathetically explore a large spectrum of life-perspectives and orientations other than your own* - that doesn’t have to mean reading, of course. It could be art or travel or conversation, etc.; reading is just my preferred way, and I don’t really have a knack for the others.

My biggest hang-up with spirituality for quite a long time was that it seemed childish, intellectually dishonest, and often morally repulsive. And that’s still how I tend to evaluate religious fundamentalism, to the extent that I’m most directly acquainted with it via conservative Christianity. But there’s much better and much more interesting stuff out there, IMO. Like, if I were more at home with worship- and ritual-type stuff, I’d give the Unitarian church another go; certainly they appeal to me in terms of beliefs and politics. Same with the Quakers. “Silent worship” is a cool concept - it’s like a group mindfulness/meditation exercise, only unguided - but again, not quite my thing. (I found it a bit too much like sitting in a waiting room. I dunno, maybe I could get used to it.)

*Within limits! I’ve seen atheists who like to quote the saying, “Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls out.”

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:23 pm 
 

Part 2. Thanks in advance for kindly indulging me; this is by far my favorite stuff to nerd out about.

I can sympathize with KAMIKAZE OMEGA's position - partly, and with heavy qualifications.

The question seems to be whether "atheism/naturalism/materialism" can provide any basis for morality. (KO also mentions the status of logic and the self as problematic, but in keeping with the dialogue that's already here, I'll just focus on morality.)

I think the terminology needs some clearing up, first. It's somewhat confusing to lump those three -isms together, because there are (at least occasionally) atheists who reject materialism, materialists who reject atheism; "naturalism" is ambiguous (would Spinoza or Thomas Jefferson qualify as naturalists?); etc. As a result, I think it's hard to say what's precisely at issue here - it's as if we want to gesture in the direction of something called "spirituality" (which has a complex relationship with institutional religion) and debate the question: "Do we really need that in order to be ethical?"

And it also seems that people would, in effect, have different interpretations or points of emphasis as to the meaning of "to be ethical." I think KO's position, to be defensible, would have to place more stress on our task of theorizing about morality, as philosophers concerned to understand in the abstract what morality essentially is; whereas KO's interlocutors here would place more stress on our task of conducting our lives in a morally satisfactory way - meaning (more-or-less) going through life in a thoughtful, generous, respectable, socially healthy way.

Now it would clearly be wrong, insulting, and simply idiotic to claim that non-spiritual people can't be ethical in the second sense. Without going into the sociology of it (which I only vaguely remember), I'd say that people who identify as non-spiritual or agnostic/atheistic or religiously unaffiliated probably even have a slight overall edge on the traditionally religious population. (I think there are studies on the comparative incidence of charity and violent criminality etc. which bear this out.)

But whether or not a somehow "spiritual" understanding of the world is better-equipped to make adequate philosophical sense of morality? Obviously it's hard to be sure, and reasonable people can disagree, but this is where I'm more inclined to sympathize with KO. My sense is that: (1) It's hard to believe - it's a stretch to consistently maintain (especially outside of philosophy class) - that no moral judgments are objectively true, that the most they can possibly be are rhetorically forceful expressions of what we happen to (but need not) most deeply desire, cherish, or abhor; and (2) it'd be a similar stretch to believe in objective moral truths while also believing that the near-term fate of all we hold dear is to be permanently annihilated by the vast indifferent cosmos.

Top
 Profile  
Svarthavid
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 129
Location: Norway
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:16 pm 
 

I'm a veteran psychonaut, 11 years in the game, everything you've probably heard of. Shrooms, acid, DMT, ketamine which is my preferred one these days and MDMA. Psychedelic experiences always gets things into perspective for me, things that I generally overlook in everyday life. I'm pushing 30 in a couple of months so time for planned trips is sparse these days, but that only make those I manage to squeeze in extra delicious and much more easy to appreciate, the good and the bad that comes with being a seasoned tripper.

Weather I'd call myself spiritual? Probably a tad bit, I've been a natural meditator my entire life and like the company of my own head most of the times so the reconnecting with my self type of experiences I have on substances like these are making me see thins from a larger than life perspective, but I've always managed to call myself an atheist. Yeah, I've seen a shitload of shit I can't explain while having a psychedelic experience, but I consider my brain like Green lantern's power ring, you're brain is capable of creating hell of a lot of weird stuff which for the most part gets lumped far behind in your own subconscious. I think conspiracy theorists and those secteric/cult leader hippie types with egos larger than lives have ruined this term a lot more for more normie oriented progressives than standard religion has in very modern times.
_________________
Metal_On_The_Ascendant wrote:
Forever Underground wrote:
Kanonenfieber, Shylmagoghnar or Minenwerfer.


These names sound like you just made them up lol...I'll tell my kids these were the names of the three wise men.

Top
 Profile  
EvergreenSherbert
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:48 pm
Posts: 1271
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:44 am 
 

I've hardly done drugs at all during my life. In fact, my first experience with weed was last Thursday. It didn't go too well but I feel like it would allow for some deep experiences under the right circumstances.
_________________
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I don't feel anything except melancholy or rage most of the time.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:35 am 
 

Defenestrated wrote:
Part 2. Thanks in advance for kindly indulging me; this is by far my favorite stuff to nerd out about.

I can sympathize with KAMIKAZE OMEGA's position - partly, and with heavy qualifications.

The question seems to be whether "atheism/naturalism/materialism" can provide any basis for morality. (KO also mentions the status of logic and the self as problematic, but in keeping with the dialogue that's already here, I'll just focus on morality.)

I think the terminology needs some clearing up, first. It's somewhat confusing to lump those three -isms together, because there are (at least occasionally) atheists who reject materialism, materialists who reject atheism; "naturalism" is ambiguous (would Spinoza or Thomas Jefferson qualify as naturalists?); etc. As a result, I think it's hard to say what's precisely at issue here - it's as if we want to gesture in the direction of something called "spirituality" (which has a complex relationship with institutional religion) and debate the question: "Do we really need that in order to be ethical?"

And it also seems that people would, in effect, have different interpretations or points of emphasis as to the meaning of "to be ethical." I think KO's position, to be defensible, would have to place more stress on our task of theorizing about morality, as philosophers concerned to understand in the abstract what morality essentially is; whereas KO's interlocutors here would place more stress on our task of conducting our lives in a morally satisfactory way - meaning (more-or-less) going through life in a thoughtful, generous, respectable, socially healthy way.

Now it would clearly be wrong, insulting, and simply idiotic to claim that non-spiritual people can't be ethical in the second sense. Without going into the sociology of it (which I only vaguely remember), I'd say that people who identify as non-spiritual or agnostic/atheistic or religiously unaffiliated probably even have a slight overall edge on the traditionally religious population. (I think there are studies on the comparative incidence of charity and violent criminality etc. which bear this out.)

But whether or not a somehow "spiritual" understanding of the world is better-equipped to make adequate philosophical sense of morality? Obviously it's hard to be sure, and reasonable people can disagree, but this is where I'm more inclined to sympathize with KO. My sense is that: (1) It's hard to believe - it's a stretch to consistently maintain (especially outside of philosophy class) - that no moral judgments are objectively true, that the most they can possibly be are rhetorically forceful expressions of what we happen to (but need not) most deeply desire, cherish, or abhor; and (2) it'd be a similar stretch to believe in objective moral truths while also believing that the near-term fate of all we hold dear is to be permanently annihilated by the vast indifferent cosmos.


Thank you for the well-thought out post.

I assume technically there can be/are non-atheist materialists (although I don't see how that could be justifiable or coherent).

There are no doubt scores of atheists who may claim a naturalist/materialist outlook, but the vast majority of atheists I've encountered believe in a whole host of transcendental categories that have no ground or justification in that framework (the laws of logic and math, the self, objective morality, identity over time/change, etc. etc.).

As you've said, people can behave ethically without having a rational justification for their morality—or even one that's been thought-out or defined in any way. Most atheists do. In fact, most of us are better than our worldviews.

The question for me isn't so much "do we need spirituality to be moral", because in my view there is no morality without metaphysics. There can be no real moral standards in a purely material, uncaring universe. When atheists act morally, express moral outrage or impose their morality on others, they are presupposing metaphysics (spirituality) whether they know it or not. Is that a problem? I guess not. Not everyone must have a totally coherent worldview.

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:28 am 
 

Right on.

Theistic materialism: Maybe not a "live option" - I can't think of any examples apart from the ancient atomists. God(s), like everything else, is made of atoms, but still deserving of reverence in some way; I think Epicurus regarded the deity/-ies as supremely detached and self-sufficient (therefore unconcerned to intervene in human affairs, unconcerned to issue rewards and punishments in an afterlife), and accordingly worth emulating. There is (was) also the early modern materialist Christian philosopher Joseph Priestley.

I think everyone falls short of their moral and philosophical ideals; it happens any time we say/do X without considering whether it squares with all the other things we say/do - or, any time we realize that it doesn't square, but proceed with it anyway. And having ideals in the first place seems like an odd thing to do if our worldview simultaneously implies that "in the end" our ideals cannot be realized, or have the status of useful fictions. It's an ongoing process for me, but this sort of thinking makes me uneasy with dismissing the views of people who find a deep conceptual connection between morality and spirituality. (Here's a recommended, readable book about such people.) None of this constitutes an air-tight proof of anything, of course, and there are other, opposing ways of seeing things - Camus's Absurd Hero and whatnot.

EvergreenSherbert wrote:
I've hardly done drugs at all during my life. In fact, my first experience with weed was last Thursday. It didn't go too well but I feel like it would allow for some deep experiences under the right circumstances.


Haha. I pretty much can't do weed, and I envy the sort of thing that Svarthavid describes. I've had like two positive experiences with weed - far more common were the anxiety attacks and borderline (?) psychotic delusions. I'm a pretty anxious guy, so, I guess the stuff isn't for me.

My brother-in-law turned me on to the podcaster/author/comic Pete Holmes, a "Christ-leaning spiritual seeker," mentored by Ram Dass; and when I peeked at Ram Dass, I saw that his mentor (name escapes me) was the subject of some stories - taken with a grain of salt - according to which a proper diet of spiritual exercise does things at least as positive and constructive as what psychedelics can achieve.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:25 pm 
 

Defenestrated wrote:
Right on.

Theistic materialism: Maybe not a "live option" - I can't think of any examples apart from the ancient atomists. God(s), like everything else, is made of atoms, but still deserving of reverence in some way; I think Epicurus regarded the deity/-ies as supremely detached and self-sufficient (therefore unconcerned to intervene in human affairs, unconcerned to issue rewards and punishments in an afterlife), and accordingly worth emulating. There is (was) also the early modern materialist Christian philosopher Joseph Priestley.

I think everyone falls short of their moral and philosophical ideals; it happens any time we say/do X without considering whether it squares with all the other things we say/do - or, any time we realize that it doesn't square, but proceed with it anyway. And having ideals in the first place seems like an odd thing to do if our worldview simultaneously implies that "in the end" our ideals cannot be realized, or have the status of useful fictions. It's an ongoing process for me, but this sort of thinking makes me uneasy with dismissing the views of people who find a deep conceptual connection between morality and spirituality. (Here's a recommended, readable book about such people.) None of this constitutes an air-tight proof of anything, of course, and there are other, opposing ways of seeing things - Camus's Absurd Hero and whatnot.

EvergreenSherbert wrote:
I've hardly done drugs at all during my life. In fact, my first experience with weed was last Thursday. It didn't go too well but I feel like it would allow for some deep experiences under the right circumstances.


Haha. I pretty much can't do weed, and I envy the sort of thing that Svarthavid describes. I've had like two positive experiences with weed - far more common were the anxiety attacks and borderline (?) psychotic delusions. I'm a pretty anxious guy, so, I guess the stuff isn't for me.

My brother-in-law turned me on to the podcaster/author/comic Pete Holmes, a "Christ-leaning spiritual seeker," mentored by Ram Dass; and when I peeked at Ram Dass, I saw that his mentor (name escapes me) was the subject of some stories - taken with a grain of salt - according to which a proper diet of spiritual exercise does things at least as positive and constructive as what psychedelics can achieve.


I agree, we all fall short of our ideals. But that's what makes them ideals—standards by which to base our behavior.

If you're on the lookout for some interesting content on spirituality—and given your express orientation in Christianity—I would recommend Jay Dyer. He's an Orthodox Christian with a highly advanced understanding of metaphysics and epistemology, and his debates with atheists are super interesting (because he always wins). https://www.youtube.com/@JayDyer

As a Platonist/Pagan, I'd also recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/@ericorwoll
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtR2i4 ... 9f4b2kt0Sw (specifically his playlist "Metaphysics")
https://www.youtube.com/c/KeithWoods/videos

Top
 Profile  
Benedict Donald
Veteran

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:36 am
Posts: 3067
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:10 pm 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
[I would recommend Jay Dyer. He's an Orthodox Christian with a highly advanced understanding of metaphysics and epistemology, and his debates with atheists are super interesting (because he always wins).


As an aside, what constitutes a won, or lost, debate?

Is it the debaters' skills in debating, and how they present their thoughts? Or is the win/loss based on the actual thoughts/ideas themselves, regardless of how the ideas are presented?

For example, I've watched many debates on YouTube where scions of the so-called "new atheist" movement (Dawkins, Harris, the late, great Hitchens, and lesser-known folks such as Matt Dillahunty, etc). I've never seen any of them 'lose' a debate, but I suppose that's entirely subjective.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:52 pm 
 

Benedict Donald wrote:
KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
[I would recommend Jay Dyer. He's an Orthodox Christian with a highly advanced understanding of metaphysics and epistemology, and his debates with atheists are super interesting (because he always wins).


As an aside, what constitutes a won, or lost, debate?

Is it the debaters' skills in debating, and how they present their thoughts? Or is the win/loss based on the actual thoughts/ideas themselves, regardless of how the ideas are presented?

For example, I've watched many debates on YouTube where scions of the so-called "new atheist" movement (Dawkins, Harris, the late, great Hitchens, and lesser-known folks such as Matt Dillahunty, etc). I've never seen any of them 'lose' a debate, but I suppose that's entirely subjective.


I believe it should come down to how well one can ground and justify their claims. The 2 sides compare worldviews and intellectually spar in order to see whose worldview is more coherent and rationally sound. I'm referring specifically to Jay Dyer's debate with Matt Dillahunty. By the end, Dillahunty—an avowed skeptic and empiricist who claims we shouldn't accept anything without good scientific evidence—had to admit that the laws of logic (and other transcendentals) "just are". This is blind faith on Dillahunty's part, as he could not ground/justify transcendental categories from an empiricist standpoint; Dyer, a Christian who grounds them in the Divine Mind, can. This is what made Dyer's position more rationally coherent, while Dillahunty's was ultimately ad-hoc. That constitutes a win for Dyer in my mind.

The Big 4 Atheists can come across as intellectuals, but the content of their arguments are by and large fallacies. They have no education in real philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) and what they argue is typically a combination of rhetoric and emotional appeals (specifically Hitchens). They won debates because they debated incompetent theists, not because atheism is the more rational position.

Here are a couple of Dyer's debates where his opponents basically admit defeat.



While I'm not a Christian, I greatly admire Jay Dyer for his competence on real philosophy and metaphysics, which is lacking in both atheism and theism today.

Top
 Profile  
Benedict Donald
Veteran

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:36 am
Posts: 3067
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:22 pm 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:

While I'm not a Christian, I greatly admire Jay Dyer for his competence on real philosophy and metaphysics, which is lacking in both atheism and theism today.


One thing many tend to overlook about atheism is that it's simply an answer to the question of belief in god(s). It carries no more meaning than that. It does not specify their political stance, their morals, their favorite music or anything else under the sun.

So, for me personally, a debate between me & Dyer would likely result in his "winning". But unless he can prove the existence of an immortal superbeing, he's likely just wasting my time...and his. His would be a hollow "victory", to be sure.


Last edited by Benedict Donald on Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:31 pm 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
The Big 4 Atheists can come across as intellectuals, but the content of their arguments are by and large fallacies. They have no education in real philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) and what they argue is typically a combination of rhetoric and emotional appeals (specifically Hitchens). They won debates because they debated incompetent theists, not because atheism is the more rational position.


You'd probably want to call Daniel Dennett an exception to that. I don't think he made as much of a splash as the other three, however - I didn't read Breaking the Spell, and don't remember it getting the same level of attention as The God Delusion or Letter to a Christian Nation. (Dawkins ended up getting a South Park episode, for one thing.)

Unfortunately the most thoughtful and thorough non-religious (or for that matter religious) philosophical writing tends to be really dry, tedious, and frustrating to try to read, like a book of instructions for filling out tax forms or something. That's why I hesitate to point to J.L. Mackie and the like as the "best" atheistic writers - regardless of their expertise. But if the reader has a thing for classic philosophical dialogues in the style of Plato, then David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are as good as religiously skeptical writing gets, IMO.

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:
This is blind faith on Dillahunty's part, as he could not ground/justify transcendental categories from an empiricist standpoint; Dyer, a Christian who grounds them in the Divine Mind, can.


This to me is not an unpromising line of thought, but it needs much development and commentary to be clearer and more persuasive. (In my experience, it sounds pretty senseless and silly when you first hear it encapsulated in a couple sentences.) But I see two basic parts to the "case": (1) It's necessary to say something (probably quite a lot) about what empiricism is and purports to accomplish, and what difficulties it fails to resolve; and then (2) what it would mean for something to be divine - essentially, the basic task of theology, right? - and how accordingly an appeal to the divine would make for a genuine resolution of those difficulties.

If this stuff is of interest to anyone else, though, might be best to continue via PM.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 10:02 pm 
 

Benedict Donald wrote:
KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:

While I'm not a Christian, I greatly admire Jay Dyer for his competence on real philosophy and metaphysics, which is lacking in both atheism and theism today.


One thing many tend to overlook about atheism is that it's simply an answer to the question of belief in god(s). It carries no more meaning than that. It does not specify their political stance, their morals, their favorite music or anything else under the sun.

So, for me personally, a debate between me & Dyer would likely result in his "winning". But unless he can prove the existence of an immortal superbeing, he's likely just wasting my time...and his. His would be a hollow "victory", to be sure.


Many atheists overlook the fact that personal incredulity is not a valid argument. You may be unconvinced of the existence of God/s, but the truth or falsity of theism is not contingent on what personally convinces you. Neither do many atheists these days understand that "proof" is any evidence or argument that justifies or helps to justify a position. Proofs help to distinguish justified true belief from mere opinion. In this regard, there are many theological proofs that have been argued and developed since Socrates and Plato. So hypothetically, if your response to Dyer's arguments (proofs) was mere incredulity, he would indeed win the debate.

Top
 Profile  
Benedict Donald
Veteran

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:36 am
Posts: 3067
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2022 11:19 am 
 

KAMIKAZE OMEGA wrote:

the truth or falsity of theism is not contingent on what personally convinces you.


Indeed. Existence of a deity/deities is either true, or it's not, regardless of one's own beliefs about it.

Top
 Profile  
EvergreenSherbert
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:48 pm
Posts: 1271
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2022 10:57 pm 
 

Just gonna throw it out there that the original question in OP was "what do you do to connect with something "larger" than yourself?". I fail to see how any of this is relevant.
_________________
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I don't feel anything except melancholy or rage most of the time.

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2022 1:44 am 
 

EvergreenSherbert wrote:
Just gonna throw it out there that the original question in OP was "what do you do to connect with something "larger" than yourself?". I fail to see how any of this is relevant.


Sorry if I helped prolong that digression more than was tasteful.

I mentioned that I find philosophical reading helpful, personally, but I didn't really describe it much beyond that. (I guess I saved most of my energy for contributing to the sub-dialogue with KO.) So...a couple items in that connection:

Following a philosopher's train of thought attentively and sympathetically can be a good way to temporarily shake yourself out of the "mundane" or "merely practical" way of seeing things. I imagine art and science do the job just as well for certain temperaments, but really, it doesn't have to be anything too abstract or abstruse - Pete Holmes (mentioned a few posts back) has some nice ways of describing how bizarre and breathtaking he finds it just to pause and remind himself that we're all "standing on a giant rock hurtling through space," which of course we all become rather accustomed and oblivious to in light of our everyday concerns and responsibilities.

But philosophy can be good for this sort of thing as well - pausing and reminding oneself of the various bottomless mysteries (time, space, infinity, God, death, "Why is there something rather than nothing?") which often baffled, frightened, and amused us as kids...until we somehow resolved, with the encouragement of grown-ups, to do something "productive" instead. And much of this seems to tie in very closely to spiritual exercise. For example, in the course of reflecting on what he (and anyone) must really mean by the words "my self," David Hume seems to travel a similar path to the Buddhists who meditate on the illusoriness of the self. ("Thoughts without a thinker," to quote a suggestive book title.)

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:48 am 
 

Defenestrated wrote:
EvergreenSherbert wrote:
Just gonna throw it out there that the original question in OP was "what do you do to connect with something "larger" than yourself?". I fail to see how any of this is relevant.


Sorry if I helped prolong that digression more than was tasteful.

I mentioned that I find philosophical reading helpful, personally, but I didn't really describe it much beyond that. (I guess I saved most of my energy for contributing to the sub-dialogue with KO.) So...a couple items in that connection:

Following a philosopher's train of thought attentively and sympathetically can be a good way to temporarily shake yourself out of the "mundane" or "merely practical" way of seeing things. I imagine art and science do the job just as well for certain temperaments, but really, it doesn't have to be anything too abstract or abstruse - Pete Holmes (mentioned a few posts back) has some nice ways of describing how bizarre and breathtaking he finds it just to pause and remind himself that we're all "standing on a giant rock hurtling through space," which of course we all become rather accustomed and oblivious to in light of our everyday concerns and responsibilities.

But philosophy can be good for this sort of thing as well - pausing and reminding oneself of the various bottomless mysteries (time, space, infinity, God, death, "Why is there something rather than nothing?") which often baffled, frightened, and amused us as kids...until we somehow resolved, with the encouragement of grown-ups, to do something "productive" instead. And much of this seems to tie in very closely to spiritual exercise. For example, in the course of reflecting on what he (and anyone) must really mean by the words "my self," David Hume seems to travel a similar path to the Buddhists who meditate on the illusoriness of the self. ("Thoughts without a thinker," to quote a suggestive book title.)


I own Thoughts Without a Thinker but I've never done more than skim through it. I should give it another go.

Top
 Profile  
~Guest 1388265
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:48 am
Posts: 43
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:54 am 
 

I find I get "spiritual" experiences through a number of things. Overcoming one's fears both physically and psychologically leads to a sense of transcendence. That's why people get addicted to rock climbing, spelunking and similar things (in my case, boxing and sparring in the ring).

Reading philosophy and theology is of course essential. I'm currently reading Plotinus: Argument of the Philosophers (part of series) that goes into detail about Plotinus' metaphysics, how they're a continuation on Plato and how they actually incorporate Aristotle's attacks on Plato into a new, more comprehensive Platonic system.

Over the years I have engaged in meditative/TM exercises. I went through a massive Aleister Crowley phase in my mid twenties and tried becoming a Left Hand Path mystic (ultimately ended up Right Hand Path). I want to try that again, specifically oriented in the theurgy of Iamblichus, but I'm married with a baby almost here so it's hard to find the time.

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 1:22 pm 
 

Very nice. I haven't yet found my thing in terms of physical exercise, let alone the more dangerous stuff, but I'm sure that's great. I'm also taking my time with the Neoplatonism, though I did actually finish a nice little book (a rare feat for me) by Pierre Hadot on Plotinus. Definitely fascinating - I'm weak on the actual history, but it sort of represents the dominant philosophical/religious system in the West before Christianity took over, right?

I don't actually own Thoughts Without a Thinker,* just thought the phrase was a nice way to capture the Buddhist/Humean view on the problem of the self - catchier anyway than "bundle of perceptions." I had read Hume's exploration of the topic in his Treatise** at some point in my early/mid-20s, not too long before I stumbled into a Buddhist center where guided meditations took place. (I was like five years ex-Catholic and doing some occasional "shopping around," but for the most part in those days, I would hang out at the secular humanist center.) Anyway, one of the meditation themes happened to be Anatta or "no-self," and I thought that was a cool connection.

*Oof, almost referred to this title by its initials just now... :boo:

**It can be read online at Wikisource here.

Top
 Profile  
MRmehman
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:34 pm
Posts: 789
Location: The Painted World of Ariamis
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 3:33 pm 
 

EvergreenSherbert wrote:
I've hardly done drugs at all during my life. In fact, my first experience with weed was last Thursday. It didn't go too well but I feel like it would allow for some deep experiences under the right circumstances.

I read this and instantly thought back to the time I took shrooms in the woods and saw the "truth" that we are all actually the descendants of these huge, bigfoot-like ape people. Now that's what I call a Hidden History of the Human Race, though I doubt it'll turn up on Blood Incantation's next album.
_________________
"He who is tired of Candlemass, is tired of life."

Top
 Profile  
EvergreenSherbert
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:48 pm
Posts: 1271
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:06 pm 
 

That sounds awesome. I don't plan on trying much besides weed, maybe some other psychedelics but those can really fry your brain.
_________________
LongHairIsSoFuckingCool wrote:
I don't feel anything except melancholy or rage most of the time.

Top
 Profile  
gasmask_colostomy
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:38 am
Posts: 1640
Location: China
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:31 am 
 

On the drugs front, I think you have to be careful about figuring out whether you are a “drugs person” or not. There are surely some young guys reading this, and I wouldn’t like them to think drugs work in the same way for everyone. If you try several kinds of drugs, you WILL get sick, you will be hungover, you will see and think some strange things. If you are lucky and take care about the environment you do drugs in, you MAY feel awakened, you may have a spiritual experience, you may understand something you couldn’t before. Bottom line is that drugs aren’t magical and still need you to do your homework and be prepared as much as meditating or bungee jumping. And even then, they’re not for everyone.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama

Top
 Profile  
Defenestrated
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:50 pm
Posts: 300
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:43 am 
 

Yes, that can't be stressed enough - it's perfectly legitimate, and might well be emphatically correct, to say that something isn't for you, even if some people don't comprehend. I've been through some really rough stuff by way of some pretty innocuous stuff (legally purchased, in one case administered during a dental procedure), and I have some good buddies who still occasionally tempt me to play with fire. I was a slow learner, but fortunately not too slow.

I'm not sure what a full list of red flags would look like, but I would want to include a family/personal history of mental health conditions like anxiety and addiction.

Top
 Profile  
Sepulchrave
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:29 pm
Posts: 1994
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:52 pm 
 

I'm a bit of a New Age person tbh. Not that I promote alternative medicine or crazy antivax conspiracy theories but I find myself pretty attracted to Taoism and some Buddhism (mainly via the writings of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche). I also find William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" pretty inspiring and eye-opening. The first time I read his work it was like a light had switched on in my brain that had been off for at least a decade. But really books are only a tool for spiritual health, once I got hung up on whether this guy or that guy I read was right or wrong I'd just get anxious and confused. I found it much more useful to simply stick to learning about practices and traditions that make the most intuitive sense to me, rather than searching for the one that fits some vague idea of being "sophisticated". And ultimately the point is not to be dependent on the words that are written about enlightenment, so in the end no one else can sort out your mind but you. I think, with these traditions I mentioned, a teacher of some kind is important for deeper knowledge. I respect those who are sceptical about spiritual BS a lot more than those who accept it straight away from the start just to get rid of their neuroses/feel like a transcendent person/avoid responsibilities/etc. as soon as possible. Also I listen to a ton of Steve Roach albums. In fact I've got Dreamtime Return on rn.
_________________
wizard_of_bore wrote:
I drank a lot of cheap beer and ate three Nacho BellGrandes. A short time later I took a massive messy shit and I swear it sounded just like the drums on Dirty Window from Metallica's St Anger album.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

 
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group