The Suffering of the World
Mankind can only hope that there is enough empathy and compassion within itself to recognize our shared struggles. Without such an attitude, what more is existence; but, a show of vanity and pride.
I think the above aphorismic sentiment is a common theme in Schopenhauer's work. The older I become the more perplexed I am with regards to how ethical questions or even the lack of concern with ethics stems from a wrong disposition towards life. Yet, not every person grows up to see the suffering of humanities existence. Dispositions seem to arise with respect to lived experiences, which form an attitude towards life. So, if it is really the case that man must go through some affair, be it positive or negative, to understand what man-kind faces, then what is the proper way to have the discussion about ethics?
What is the central theme of ethics for the discussion of ethics to begin or start to take place? Is it really the sentiments of the beginning of this thread or is the notion of existence subject to the tyranny of ignorance over the vanity of one's existence?
I think the above aphorismic sentiment is a common theme in Schopenhauer's work. The older I become the more perplexed I am with regards to how ethical questions or even the lack of concern with ethics stems from a wrong disposition towards life. Yet, not every person grows up to see the suffering of humanities existence. Dispositions seem to arise with respect to lived experiences, which form an attitude towards life. So, if it is really the case that man must go through some affair, be it positive or negative, to understand what man-kind faces, then what is the proper way to have the discussion about ethics?
What is the central theme of ethics for the discussion of ethics to begin or start to take place? Is it really the sentiments of the beginning of this thread or is the notion of existence subject to the tyranny of ignorance over the vanity of one's existence?
Comments (64)
To equate habits that are adaptive with virtue seems to me a little too Aristotelian or even too dogmatic in terms of right conduct and proper belief. Yet, what examples or comparisons (sources) can you provide with adaptive habits equaling virtue?
Interesting. I'd like to ask, in correspondence with the OP, whether only through experience can one come to learn, or even know, such basic moral facts?
The way the world seems to be working is that there's some kind of serious deficiency in this regard of being informed of moral facts or truths.
Yes, through tacit experience (via childhood, socialization, pedagogy, trauma, etc) but explicitly by reflecting on experiences.
It's the age-old problematic: ignorance.
Hi,
In my point of view the suffering of other people is given to us (as a possibility) through a process of alterity that affects the self. This process forces us to project our suffering in others:
Our experience of suffering is inscribed in a chain of signification that the self, the ego, cannot dominate. That is why when we speak of suffering in a certain sense we do not speak only of our suffering but of a suffering-other. For the very moment that suffering takes place as something that happens to an "I" it is projected onto the form of a "here and now". All suffering takes place in a "here and now", but not all "here and now" are equal. This inequality in the "here and now" introduces in us the notion of another "here and now": the "here and now" of the possible other, of the other subject: Projection. I perceive myself then not as a simple self, but as an other for the other. Where do we get the idea that another person suffers? From our perception, which presents itself not as something absolutely mine, but already in a certain sense as something-other. Only in this way can we be able to say: I suffer as another suffers, because I am sufficiently other to myself.
I think from this premise a lot of things or considerations can be derived.
If one equivocates the ego with the self, then I believe most of the tenants of Buddhism can be derived. Yet, I don't believe that the ego and the self are the same thing. Hindu scripture talks about the many avatars that the self can assume in the world. With that in mind, Buddha thought that a common unifying feature of the many avatars of the self, in Hinduism, is the knowledge or experience of dukkha, or suffering.
Schopenhauer talked about the vanity of existence, which I think is the life of the ignorant, who do not understand or perceive the suffering of the world. Yet, he had high notions of what a person should do in light of this moral fact of existence, as @180 Proof put it. I think, that the knowledge of suffering, either through experience or tacit knowledge, should provide grounds to discuss ethics.
What do others think?
[quote=SEP; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#5.3] In a manner reminiscent of traditional Buddhism, Schopenhauer recognizes that life is filled with unavoidable frustration and acknowledges that the suffering caused by this frustration can itself be reduced by minimizing ones desires. Moral consciousness and virtue thus give way to the voluntary poverty and chastity of the ascetic. St. Francis of Assisi (WWR, Section 68) and Jesus (WWR, Section 70) subsequently emerge as Schopenhauers prototypes for the most enlightened lifestyle, in conjunction with the ascetics from every religious tradition.
This emphasis upon the ascetic consciousness and its associated detachment and tranquillity introduces some paradox (only some?!) into Schopenhauers outlook, for he admits that the denial of our will-to-live entails a terrible struggle with instinctual energies, as we avoid the temptations of bodily pleasures and resist the mere animal force to endure, reproduce, and flourish. Before we can enter the transcendent consciousness of heavenly tranquillity, we must pass through the fires of hell and experience a dark night of the soul, as our universal self battles our individuated and physical self, as pure knowledge opposes animalistic will, and as freedom struggles against nature.[/quote]
I have an illuminating recent book on him, Schopenhaur's Compass, Urs App, comprising a great deal of original scholarship, taken from Schopenhauer's journals, diary entries and margin notes. It shows how much the atmosphere of the intellectual milieu of his early life was permeated by mysticism - there are numerous references to Jakob Boehme, a Protestant mystic of the 17th century (ref). And of course a long account of his readings of the Upani?ads, taken from a Persian translation.
This passage, taken from the first pages of that book, provides an oversight of his views:
Quoting Schopenhauer's Compass, Urs App
So - Schopenhauer's reputation as a philosophical pessimist is warranted, but it must be understood it wasn't the final word. Presumably, in his place and time, he had no opportunity to sit and converse with an actual representative of the Eastern traditions he so admired, and had that come about, it might have afforded him a better insight into what he himself termed 'higher consciousness'.
The reason of why I identify the ego with the self is because the common core of both notions is unity in identity as self-relation excluding alterity and otherness.
However, I would not agree that one can be ignorant of the suffering of the world. First because I would not speak of the world but of persons and sentient beings; second because this process of projection is not knowledge but how the experience of suffering in general is given. But not only of suffering but of any experience (so I'm not a pessimist). It is not something that can simply be known or ignored but that already operates in us and in the way our perception works. In this sense no being can deny that it is possible for there to be another-suffering.
I haven't really seen anything about the eastern posited higher consciousness. Sorry to say, but it sounds too New Age to ascribe onto Schopenhauer, at the time. Maybe I'm wrong.
I am however aware, as you say, of the pointing out of the belief in the attitude of, especially, pessimism in his work.
Yet, I believe that pessimism should not discourage a person to discuss ethics. To profess pessimism is a step taken too soon by Schopenhauer. Instead a person could affirm the will to live on the grounds that suffering allows one to understand and help one another.
Vanity and pride? What you are suggesting seems to correspond to sociopathy, which is often so indifferent towards others that vanity and pride may be irrelevant to its experience. Perhaps you are hinting at hedonistic narcissism?
Quoting Shawn
I think most people, if not all, are aware of suffering and pain. Some just don't care. And some enjoy (or perhaps appreciate) the suffering of others, possibly as a way to set themselves apart from the losers.
Quoting Shawn
I don't see how there would be a 'proper' way to talk about ethics? This seems rigid. Wouldn't it be more likely that ethics is a conversation which involves culture, language and experience and could be arrived at through a range of entry points? Some of these more useful for certain circumstances than others.
Are you suggesting that our experience of humanity (or of being) is enough to allow us to be fully are of our common humanity, which leads to solidarity (or empathy)?
Do you have reason to believe in moral facts?
I was mostly alluding to Schopenhauer's own conclusions on what you call 'indifference' to the situation of the Other. I don't think he was overt about calling empathy or compassion as a unifying force, as that's what I believe is something that many teachers allude to, yet, don't really explain their importance in ethics.
Quoting Tom Storm
Well, I only say that ethics seems to originate from the suffering of others that one may be able to identify with, either through experience or tacit knowledge.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, I believe that through compassion or empathy, people can find a common goal to which they might aspire towards. I believe this was true for Plato, with respect to the injustice of the wrongful death of his teacher.
Quoting Tom Storm
Not really. I'm more in the Hume camp, where people have to have an impetus other than strict rationality to motivate themselves with respect to morality and ethics.
Schopenhauer said:
I see. Maybe the ascetic life could contribute to such a 'better consciousness', or at least that is how I interpret it. He did individuate a person or 'ego' into his concern with pessimism being the right attitude. It seems this is an important aspect of the subject at hand.
That seems fair.
Quoting Shawn
If this is true, then it would also seem to hold for hatred and resentment.
Quoting Shawn
I am inclined to hold that the foundation of morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation.
As noted, he was a reader of the Upani?ads. There are many similar passages in them e.g.
Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.1:
"In this imperishable realm, Brahman is manifest as pure consciousness, without any duality of subject and object. Whoever knows this enters into that state, becoming identical with it, attaining liberation."
Yes, there's a lot to say about this. Goes way beyond what philosophy can hope to elucidate.
Yes, so, just wondering what you would say about why Schopenhauer focused on pessimism as the correct attitude to profess towards the suffering of the world?
Quoting Shawn
A point of clarity: in this context, by "ignorance" I mean to ignore for whatever reason (e.g. naivete, sociopathy-narcissism, acculturation, ideology, remoteness-deniability, callousness-ptsd, magical thinking-otherworldliness, masochistic bias, etc).
Quoting Tom Storm
:up: :up:
It's a curious fact that Schopenhauer is categorised as atheist, when there are such obvious parallels between him and Indian philosophy (and also Stoic and Cynic philosophers). He verges on that rather cliched expression 'spiritual but not religious'. That quote I provided from Apps' book is fair representation of what his pessimism entails, but it's very different from the antinatalists and other modern secular existentialists that @schopenhauer1 often quotes from, who are nihilist in their outlook: natural life is a curse, but there's nothing beyond it.
Magee says in his book on Schopenhaur that his pessimism was more an aspect of his disposition than of his philosophy. Indeed, his philosophy shares many things in common with religious systems like Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which offer paths toward the successful reconciliation of human being with an ultimate reality; hardly a pessimistic message. So although Schopenhauer himself uses vocabulary that suggests a rather dark and despairing orientation toward the wold, one could accept all that Schopenhauer describes while still remaining sanguine. And indeed the biographical accounts of Schopenhauer indicate that the latter part of his life, he was an excellent conversationalist and had an active social life, not that of a dour, brooding philosopher.
But anyway, I think Schopenhauer's philosophy is certainly not a natural fit in secular culture - not because it's religious, or not in any kind of churchly sense, but because of his view that natural life is a kind of state of penance. That's worlds away from the modern view, that this life and the human condition are the only kinds there are.
I don't believe that his philosophy was the result of his upbringing or nurture. Pessimism towards the world that Schopenhauer describes is, to me, still a mystery. I'm hoping someone can help the fly out of the bottle with this one...
I have been summoned...
Quoting Shawn
I'll explain again.. I of course invite you to the countless threads on this subject that I have started/participated in but let me add some more...
We are the only species that bears a responsibility that no other animal must endure, that of justifying why we must do/endure anything. We are self-aware creatures, that know that we can do something counterfactual. We are not instinct-driven, as is the case with other animals (for the most part). Thus comes into play "bad faith" in that we must figure out a reason why we stick with what we do, abandon it, or do any other number of decisions. We are burdened with our own reasons for why we do anything. Thus we often try to "pawn off" our self-awareness to a number of things, whether that be distraction, ignoring, anchoring (in roles of socio-cultural origin), or a number of other methodologies.
As I've said in other threads (greatest recent hits):
Generally speaking, Ligotti's assessment holds.. we are a species that has gone beyond the "balance of nature".
So yes, in a way, Schopenhauer's compassion for the human condition, and suffering makes sense. We are outcasts from nature, even as we are originated from it. I don't mean this biologically, but in our mode of being, our "forms of life". We are Homo Exsistentialis. Procreation isn't an outcome of simply being, but an understanding of what we are doing. Now even that is suspect. We NEED reasons to put more humans into the world.. Glorification of X, more labor units, expectations, personal fulfilment, and on it goes.
And as there is nothing beyond nature, were stepping off our own meta-cognitive awareness into the void of nothingness or meaninglessness. The best we can do, pace Camus, is bear it heroically. Fair description?
I think this is a fair assumption that Schopenhauer wrote his aphorisms with the hope that humanity might benefit from the reduction of pain through aesthetic practices. What I do ponder about is how pessimism is the conclusion that Schopenhauer believes, that would, reduce suffering in the world.
The evolutionary history of humanity points at making tools and practicing some form of empathic concern for those within our sphere of interest. With such an evolutionary history, how can one negate the very will to live that brought us to life through a struggle with nature? Why would anyone want to dispose of one's will to live, and sublimate it with pessimism. In a sense some people unbiasedly might say that it would be irrational to do so.
Thank you for posting.
I would agree with this summary except the "heroically" part. We simply (must) bear it. Camus' hero is ironically a form of bad faith too. It is a form of "ignoring" of the problem. If one can pretend one is a hero, one can try to give a reason for bearing this or that.
The point is then, we are the species that needs the delusions to get by. Ignore, distract, take on a role (existential hero, replete with cigarette or narcissistic personality disorder!.. pace Nietzsche!!!).
You are questioning it right now. Isn't this your answer, the germination of which is in your very inquiry? Why is nature creating creatures that question the "will to live"?
That they are delusions are also a matter of conviction.
Stories that become one's way of coping, I have deemed "delusions" but you can call it a number of things.. reasons, rationale.. etc. Either way, this is not how the rest of nature works, and hence why we are uniquely (suffering) Homo Exisentialis.
If your asking for my opinion or thought on the matter, what I understand about the very will to live is that by most theories it is healthy and good to want to live, and the denial to live from an attitude (for example, "pessimism") is irrational or maladaptive. What are your "meta"-cognitive beliefs about pessimism, and what it may mean to a person?
Thanks for posting.
I'm not asking your opinion on "the will to live", rather I am pointing that you are questioning it. And even now, we can debate it, giving reasons for enjoining with it. This is telling us something.. my theme of how we are not on balance like the rest of nature...
I am simply questioning whether it is something that can be justified as a reason to operate on, or whether these reasons are brute facts about existence. The facet of attitudes on one's life or arising due to lived experiences, resulting in, dispositions is what I wanted to consider.
Maybe in another thread I would frame the issue about what do attitudes mean to a person; but with respect to Schopenhauer (generally speaking, monotheistic religions are also associated with this tendency, which Schopenhauer did not like or favor) what is the function of an attitude, such as pessimism, in one's life?
I'm trying to say that there are various "coping mechanisms" that people use to ignore the notion of suffering in life, and thus the need for empathy in the Schopenhaurian fashion is not even considered.
Yes, I believe what you are saying is true and more fruitful to the understanding of human nature, which has been a debate framed in the right manner by Schopenhauer. The issue Schopenhauer brings up, in my mind, is the importance of attitudes, and how they form beliefs or, as you call it, "forms of life."
Any comments on this?
Thanks for posting.
First we must define suffering...
Suffering as my profile already states (take a look I'm sure you've seen it) comes in the "inbuilt" and "contingent" varieties.
Contingent varieties are the cheap/easy ones to identify. These are the ones that analytic philosophers are going to hang their hat on because they are more "empirical". They are everything from ill-health, disasters, to any harm you can think of.
Inherent suffering is the kind that is more what Schopenhauer was getting at.. That even if you stripped away all the contingent "slings and arrows" of life, there is still something underneath that is driving this dissatisfaction that doesn't go away. This is akin to the Buddhist notion of Dukkha or dissatisfaction. Humans have a self-awareness that no other animal has in that we can see this dissatisfaction play out in real time, and know its happening as we are living! @Wayfarer can do a deep dive on all the Buddhist/Hindu ways of describing this, I'm sure.
And then I added in a more "meta" sense of suffering pace Ligotti. That is to say, we are a species that evolved like the rest of nature, but yet is not in a "balance of nature". Where other animals have a form of life that is instinctual, ours is by-far more deliberative, which adds another burden uniquely human. This is what I mean by "forms of life".
Schopenhauer thought that indeed people had "fixed" characters that were basically more attuned to suffering. These characters had the ability to "deny their wills" in saintly empathy (agape love one can say). Other people might not have as much ability to penetrate this understanding. I added in ideas that they were too fixated in their coping mechanisms (distraction, ignoring, etc.).
Humans can form narratives to suit any rataionale they want to get to... So if life is supposed to be X, Y, Z, they will develop a story to provide it that rationale. These are all justifications for why we (must) pursue X, Y, and Z. But the fact is that our very ability to form counterfactuals and diverse narratives tells us that we don't have to have this rationale. That it is indeed only a rationale...That we are the species that needs a rationale.. We don't just "do", we know we do and we have provide reasons for why we do.
The Dionysian instincts that the ancient Greeks alluded to are tame in the mind of a human being nowadays. We have aspired towards an Apollonian way of life. By doing so, we have reduced the brute aspect of existence that we once endured, per our evolutionary history. It would be strange to say that the fundamental reason we are unhappy or suffer from boredom is something to be overly concerned about. Existence is becoming more endurable than it once was seems like a common theme amongst academics.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think you reference an important insight of human nature here. What can be said about this is that science has transformed the way we perceive cause and effect. The Principle of Sufficient Reason or PoSR for short has allowed us to create such a Apollonian world in which we inhabit. Science is another tool or method of understanding how the world works. With a better understanding of cause and effect, we can better situate ourselves in the complexity of the world. What I'm trying to say, that there are things a person can be certain of regardless of whatever rationale we assume. Some rationales may be more truthful than others.
So, with the assumption that some rationales are more true than others, what do you think is true about the lack of concern with ethics, in our world? Is it really ignorance of the good or unrestrained wants and desires that make us suffer?
What I would point out is that the description of humans as 'animals' is very much part of the naturalist worldview (naturally!) It is taken to be an inevitable entailment of evolutionary biology, which displaced the supernatural accounts of creation. But then, there was a great deal attached to that supernatural account, including much of what was thought worth preserving from the Greek philosophical tradition. So, yes, we did evolve like other natural forms, but at a certain point a threshold was crossed which separates us from nature (and which I think is very likely the origin of the myth of the fall.) And I dont know if naturalism has the depth to deal with it, not least because of the rigid and often unspoken barrier cordoning off anything it considers supernatural.
"Responsibility" to whom?
"Justifying" other than that "we must"?
Is being "self aware" also sub-personal (i.e. pre-self regulatory processes constitutive of "self") or just a superficial confabulation (i.e. token-reflexive, user-illusion)?
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, Camus (like Zapffe et al) recognizes 'existence' is a pseudo-problem only for idealists (or antirealists, subjectivists ... supernaturalists), that is, for those who adopt an egocentric stance of 'ontological transcendence' (pace Spinoza) that is inexorably frustrated by the ineluctable and immanent resistance-to-ego of existence (i.e. anicca, anatta ... dao ... swirling-swerving atoms recombing in void, etc). There is no "problem" that's "ignored", especially by lucid absurdists, who neither absurdly 'idealize non-ideal' existence (re: hope) nor absurdly 'nihilate non-negative' existence (re: despair), insofar as we strive suffer to create manifold spaces by and within which to thrive aesthetically and ethically between absurd extremes. :death: :flower:
... such as "the delusion" that our "species needs delusions", etc?
Quoting Shawn
As schopenhauer1 suggests, the existential stance of "pessimism" is also a "delusion" for coping with, imo, a (mostly) maladaptive habit of neurotic overthinking anxiously fearing for (pace Epicurus/Epictetus ... Spinoza) our species-specific defects-dysfunctions aka "suffering". :fire:
To lay out in its clearest terms:
"We primarily don't operate by instinct like other animals and this makes us an animal apart from the others, even though derived from the same evolutionary nature in that we are constantly under the pressure of making stories and reasons.. that is not to say only after-the-fact stories of 'why' but also the the fact that we have goals we attempt to seek. In short, a self-awareness of our own very willing nature". This adds a burden, a layer of responsibility (suffering) that no other animal must deal with.
Quoting 180 Proof
This will ever be my debate with Nietzscheans on this forum. I'm sorry but Schopenhauer cannot be surpassed by Nietzsche's contrarian view. Schopenhauer is what all must deal with, and though attempts were made, they failed to address it. Suffering is real. The fact we must contend with it at all, absurdist stance, or any delusional stories (religious, hedonistic, tribal, familiar, or otherwise), shows this.
Quoting 180 Proof
I agree and disagree with you. In the fact that you are answering @Shawn, I agree. He does seem to be a case of overthinking, living in a basement, wallowing in it (didn't he have a theme of this with his piggy stuff?).. making a sort of cliche out of Schopenhauer only being for the depressed and inert.
I disagree with you that "pessimism" is neurotic overthinking. This is a contrarian cliche. The problems, at least, as I present them, are apparent and paramount at almost each and every moment you deliberate and decide. The reasons you chose, whatever they are, cannot in good (academic) conscience be called "instinct" unless you reduce it that "all animal behavior is instinct" which it is not. Rather, we have that extra layer of "Why must we?".. And it is exactly the "denial" of this into tawdry and easy existential "modes" of coping such as "Denying, distraction, anchoring" make exactly the point I am making. So, I find it ironic you mention Zapffe to contradict me when he is very much in line.
It's not something we are "overly concerned about". It just "is" the case. I don't have to "add" anything to it. It's like the difference between "demonstrates" and "explains". Sure, I can remain silent and let life "demonstrate it" (show the gadget work), or I can explain the mechanisms underlying it (explaning).
As Zapffe explains better:
Quoting Shawn
In the Schopenhauerian view, our constant willing nature, and dissatisfaction make us suffer, yes. In the more "empirical" world of a utilitarian or hedonist, it might be the accumulation of the preferences frustrated, or pains felt, or harms encountered, with the world, along with the emotional distress this causes our psyche.
With Schopenhauer, compassion is all-apart of the same manifesting premise. That is to say, if the world is Will, individuated into an illusory version of itself (the manifold beings of the world), then a saintly person is driven from the feeling of "fellow-suffering" of all the manifold beings. That is to say, they can feel this agapic love and then act upon it. The acting upon this feeling is saintly compassion for Schop, and this has the effect of making one less individuated.
In a purely contemplative way (rather than the saint that simply feels and acts upon), the way forward is to recognize what is the case. That to Schopenhauer would be to understand the mechanism of how we suffer. That we suffer is taken for granted. If we don't know that we suffer, we still suffer. His dwelling on it, is only because that is the very thing he is explaining and studying. Suffering is the label he has for what is happening. If we talk about thermodynamics in physics, but we don't "think" thermodynamics in everyday life, well, duh, that's the difference between simply "stuff that's happening", and an "explanation of the stuff that's happening".
As has been the case, I enjoy your posts more than most people who disagree with me. They seem the most informed, even if we disagree, allowing for more in-depth conversation. It isn't just being knee-jerk contrarian and "gotcha"... This elevates conversation at least.
I agree with the "myth of the fall" being a metaphor for our "separation" from the rest of nature. It's an apt metaphor, that Garden.
Yes, that is where we will indeed part ways, as far as the supernatural goes. I would replace your soteriology with catharsis. If we recognize the situation, it might impel us to act in certain ways different than the current. One of the greatest stories we "anchor" ourselves in is our economic way-of-life. Work hard, play hard. One must feel "useful", and so on. These are powerful. The motivations for it are easy enough to answer, but one must recognize the Schopenharian nature of what is going on to answer it. It is manifest in the boredom and despair we feel when we don't "feel useful", or if aren't anchoring ourselves in something (work hard/play hard, travel, climb the mountain, experience life, drugs, family life, etc. etc.).
Ad hoc assumptions which raise more questions than they answer not clear at all.
Whatever. I'm not a "Nietzschean" (though I share affinities with his anti-idealist naturalism) and in my previous post I raise objections to (your) "pessimism" referring instead to Camus, Zapffe, Epicurus, Epictetus & Spinoza without invoking "Nietzsche". Try addressing my actual argument, schop1, instead of copping-out by shadowboxing with a strawman. :wink:
... are mostly not conscious decisions / choices according to (e.g.) Buddha ... Socrates, Pyrrho ... Spinoza, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Peirce, Wittgenstein ... and corroborated by (e.g.) cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, embodied cognitivism & CBT. :roll:
Yes, well I don't know where you got the idea that Schopenhauer is only for the depressed. Philosophical pessimism does not make one depressed. Correlation does not imply causation.
Yes, I believe Wittgenstein called it the "metaphysical subject." It seems that the act of willing in Schopenhauer's philosophy is mired with a sense of unease about one's state of mind in a world with a Will greater than any other individuated will.
Thank you for the compliment, I try not to violently disagree, even where I differ.
You know that the term catharsis (and also therapy) both have religious roots, right? The Cathars were a powerful gnostic sect of the Languedoc region (now southern France) in medievaldom. They were subject of a notorious act of mass slaughter by the Popes armies in the notorious Sack of Bezier in 1209 (wherein an entire town with all its inhabitants was set aflame, with the presiding general saying famously Kill them all, God will know his own.)
The word goes further back than that. It invokes different ideas of purification important to the Greeks, in their great variance of opinion.
I did not mean to contradict your reference to the Cathars. In looking at more ancient sources, the desire for purification finds expression in the personal, the civic, and the religious register that does not resolve simply into the categories I just used to speak about it.
Tyranny coalesces resistance along significant points of divergence. But a coalition of divergence is not a convergence of opinions regarding the good. That is why the value of the secular extends beyond what is held (or not) in common but involves the way purposes can be shared by very different ideas of the "pure."
Otherwise, it is just your theology up against mine.
This is a common attitude in the discussion of morality among the forum members. And I think this is erroneous because it misses the main foundation of ethics and morality.
Philosophers such as Kant, JS Mill, J. Rawls, and most likely Nietzsche laid down the foundation of their conception of morality. It is duty and obligation, not compassion, that is the basis of the philosophical argument for morality and ethics.
Ask yourself -- do you have compassion towards your enemies, say a cruel regime? No? So, do you consider them in your deliberation of ethics? Or do you only consider those for whom you feel compassion? This is really the question you should be asking.
Quoting Shawn
I think the bigger problem is the misunderstanding of what ethics and morality is.
Quoting Shawn
Duty, obligation, and justice.
Not to sound snide; but, what about the ethics of care, by philosophers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings? The very centerpiece of ethics has been the role of the mother or teacher in one's life, without which a very crude form of ethics would develop.
Why would you preface your post with "Not to sound snide/.."? This is a discussion forum, so, I totally understand if you disagree.
Actually, if you read up on of ethics of care, the same theme runs though their arguments. Because, again, ask yourself, do you need to feel empathy before you decide on the ethical course of action? Benevolence is an act that does not wait on the emotion of compassion. Same with respect -- you might have angered me and insulted me, and spoke of lies about me, but I will still exercise my sense of duty and obligation to act in such a way that I do not violate your essence as a human being.
No, this does not make sense for a woman to do the things she does for her child out of a sense of duty. I've heard this argument before and feminist ethicists really would not agree.
The ethics of care stem from a deeper urge than a ratiocination of a derived Kantian categorical imperative towards duty.
If that's how you see it, then I will not try to convince you.
Right.. then you try dealing with my arguments first ;).
Quoting 180 Proof
This is just a bad steelman/strawman. I am not talking about the debate about determinism, or brain chemistry, or destiny,.. Nor am I discussing the addicted person, or a mental disorder, or whatever crappy rebuttal you are trying to concoct contra the human animal's ability for deliberation and goals. For example, you decided to sit down and write a post. Sure, maybe your personality and brain chemistry uniquely made you do this and say that, but my point is that you are AWARE of counterfactuals and you CHOSE this one (whatever else might be the case surrounding this decision). You can try to put as many dumb strawman responses to the contrary but humans have a higher degree of freedom and awareness of counterfactuals at a level and kind much different than other animals. The deliberation may be "weighted" one way or the other due to various factors, but to us we are making decisions and following goals that we construct. That's how the phenomenology seems. You decided to go to the market, go for a jog, post on a philosophy forum, read up on the newest existentialist author, or any number of things. To YOU, YOU could have done OTHER. It's not a debate on what causes your decisions, it's the difference of phenomenology between humans and other animals.
Where the hell did you see me say that notion? If you read my profile I think quite the opposite of that. I suppose you have seen my profile. And if you haven't, read it, you might get my viewpoints on the whole pessimism thing as I lay them out there. If you have read it, you are just trying to get a rise out of me by accusing me of literally the opposite of what I think on that matter.
Yes I am aware of all that. But what is the "super-natural" other than the longing for something different?
Rather, all I am asking for is consolation.. therapy in seeing what I see. Get what I am saying?
Gee that's a leading question! Supernatural and metaphysical are really the Latin and Greek synonyms for 'beyond nature'. Catharsis was interpreted, in metaphysical traditions such as neoplatonism, as the means of spiritual purification, so as to awaken the relationship with the 'beyond nature', which was taken to be an awakening to a higher identity.
That is at odds with naturalism. I suppose you could see catharsis in a naturalistic sense as a purgation of traumatic memories. In some of the awareness-training workshops I did back in the 90's I witnessed a lot of that - people bringing things to the surface that they have been carrying around for decades. Involves a lot of crying but also a great sense of release - your archetypical 'cathartic experience'.
Yes it is in this vein that I mean catharsis. If "Pessimism" is the reality, then catharsis is when everyone sees what you see (reality). So the scales over the eyes has been lifted. We are no longer seeing what is not. We both understand not only each other's suffering, but Suffering. We are all in the same situation. We are all part of the same scheme.
Since my being "AWARE" is post hoc confabulation, I "CHOSE" before I became "AWARE" (as Libet's experiments¹, etc show) that I have "CHOSEN" (e.g. from prior "counterfactual" imagined options), therefore any "decision" is (mostly) unconscious² as I point out here without raising the concept of "determinism" (which is your strawman, schop1, not mine).
.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024487/ [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology) [2]
Just more red herring. Do you like to cook it on garlic or lemon butter? As I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
These two ingredients are not mutually exclusive at all.
True, I did think that too.