Mac 5-6
We'll discuss these chapters after the exam.
Happy Hour on the Boulevard patio, weather permitting, on the quieter end... But if we ever want to travel a bit further afield, Mayday might be an option.
1. What's the anachronistic misunderstanding of the Stoical ideal?
2. What's up to us and what isn't, according to Epictetus?
3. How did the Stoics radically redefine human life?
4. What did Cicero call "weak and womanish"?
5. What is Charles Taylor's distinction between two types of flourishing?
6. What does the Dalai Lama say about the purpose of life?
7. What's wrong with a life of "drug-induced bliss"?
"I am not identical with my ego..."
How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence by Michael Pollan
“The usual antonym for the word “spiritual” is “material.” That at least is what I believed when I began this inquiry—that the whole issue with spirituality turned on a question of metaphysics. Now I’m inclined to think a much better and certainly more useful antonym for “spiritual” might be “egotistical.” Self and Spirit define the opposite ends of a spectrum, but that spectrum needn’t reach clear to the heavens to have meaning for us. It can stay right here on earth. When the ego dissolves, so does a bounded conception not only of our self but of our self-interest. What emerges in its place is invariably a broader, more openhearted and altruistic—that is, more spiritual—idea of what matters in life. One in which a new sense of connection, or love, however defined, seems to figure prominently.”
Discussion Questions
- What does it mean to you to live in accordance with nature? Are you stoical?
- Can we non-arbitrarily declare some things up to us and some not? How can we decide which is which?
- Should we really be "indifferent" to everything besides virtue and vice? In what sense? Is apathy of this sort admirable or execrable, or are you indifferent to that very concept?
- Can we or should we excuse (or at least try to understand) the sexist attitudes of earlier times? Should we "cancel" those of a less enlightened era? Or rebuke? Or forgive?
- Are you more humanist or transcendentalist, in your pursuit of a good life?
- William James's reference to an "unseen order" is described by Macaro as transcendental. James called his philosophy humanist. Can you reconcile these claims?
- Is there anything wrong with cherry-picking? 74
- Are weddings and babies really beyond our control? 77
- Do you disagree with the Buddha about sensual pleasure? Can you relate to "the bliss of renunciation"? 80
- Do you find wisdom in memento mori? Is it wise to "contemplate a corpse"? 81
- Do you agree that gratitude, not despair, is the better response to "the ephemeral nature of things"? 82
- Do you agree that an action is not right without "right intention"? 84
- Is "drug-induced bliss" always wrong? 86
Nitrous oxide and ether, especially nitrous oxide, when sufficiently diluted with air, stimulate the mystical consciousness in an extraordinary degree. Depth beyond depth of truth seems revealed to the inhaler. This truth fades out, however, or escapes, at the moment of coming to; and if any words remain over in which it seemed to clothe itself, they prove to be the veriest nonsense. Nevertheless, the sense of a profound meaning having been there persists; and I know more than one person who is persuaded that in the nitrous oxide trance we have a genuine metaphysical revelation.
Some years ago I myself made some observations on this aspect of nitrous oxide intoxication, and reported [pg 388]them in print. One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. --William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience
Is there anything wrong with cherry-picking? 74
ReplyDeleteI certainly hope not. I have done exactly that my whole life. In fact, isn't that exactly how we develop and differentiate as we mature? Macaro suggests that "There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking per se" (Macaro, p. 59 Kindle edition) and that this is exactly what he is advocating for in this book. I recall reading Viktor Frankl's book "Man's Search For Meaning" as a very young teen. I read many other such books after that and cherry-picked many ideas which became a part of who I am today. When I studied Philosophy and Religion in my College days, this was one of the things I most enjoyed in my studies, finding fine bits of ripe fruit (cherries) in each of the sources I studied and used in my classes. I do agree with Macaro that a problem can develop if we only pick up the sound bites and never dive deeper into the topic. Because of this, I developed a preference for reading the original source material and sometimes proposed to my professors an alternate course of study where I read the authors/philosophers writings and not the textbook about the authors/philosophers.
She.
DeleteI guess her point is that cherry-pickers ought not to settle for just the low-hanging fruit. That makes them shallow pickers. So I'm with you, we need to go beyond second-hand accounts and get the original goods.
Do you disagree with the Buddha about sensual pleasure? Can you relate to "the bliss of renunciation"? 80
ReplyDeleteBased on my observations and life experience I would agree with Buddha that sensual pleasures "on the balance...are problematic" (Macaro, p. 63, Kindle Edition). I can think of many examples of how short term pleasures, however intense, can "in the long run cause more suffering than enjoyment" (Macaro, p. 63, Kindle Edition) by leading to addiction, unintended consequences, emotional distress, physical harm/disease, etc.. On the other hand, what Buddhism calls "the bliss of renunciation...seclusion...peace...(and) enlightenment" (Macaro, p. 63, Kindle Edition) does seem to be a more lasting and a vastly more beneficial route to happiness. One might consider how you would want to be remembered, your legacy, and ask if you would want to be remembered as someone who had some fun times or as a thoughtful person of great integrity who could be trusted?
Delighting in sensual pleasure does not of itself make one a hedonist, at least not of the self-indulgent and (again) shallow sort. For us non-dualit/naturalist/humanist/pragmatist/empiricists, there's a continuum from sensual to intellectual pleasure... and nothing after it. So we must get it while we can.
DeleteDo you agree that an action is not right without "right intention"? 84
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, right intention, is the second step in the eightfold path of Buddhism. As a Stoic, Seneca writes that "An action will not be right unless one's intention is right, since that is the source of the action." (Macaro, p. 66, Kindle Edition) He goes on to connect intention with "mental disposition" and finally truth. In the legal world, a criminal intention can make all the difference in what the final charges will be (1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and 3rd degree or manslaughter). The rub is, how can we know the intentions of another person unless they confess those intentions. Still more difficult, how do you prove, in a court of law which relies so much on physical evidence, what the intentions of another person were? However, when it comes to virtuous actions, I do think it is fair to conclude that a good, ethical, and happiness producing outcome probably originated in "good intentions".
Agreed. Good intentions aren't enough, though, we have to have some regard for the actual consequences of our actions. You know what they say about the road to hell...
DeleteI don't see a reason we should debate right and wrong. At the end of the day we are faced with what is better for the communty and what is best for us. In the end it comes down to which you are trying to please. If having the right intention causes a person to feel less unpleasant emotions, then it could be argued, that is enough for the individual.
DeleteCan we or should we excuse (or at least try to understand) the sexist attitudes of earlier times? Should we "cancel" those of a less enlightened era? Or rebuke? Or forgive?
ReplyDeleteI think its rather necessary to try to understand the negative or discriminatory aspects of early philosophers. Understanding their reasoning for these beliefs may help us to unravel them from the more fruitful parts of their ideology. Now, should we forgive them for these thoughts? I do not see much reason to do so. Perhaps, since they were saturated in a more discriminatory culture, their times should be seen as a mitigating circumstance. In other words, they are still guilty of their thoughts and actions, but they have a better excuse than, say, someone of modern times who holds the same beliefs.
The recent controversy around David Hume is a good example of this, and Julian Baggini's defense seems right: though some of his writing strikes us as racist, other things he wrote contradict the racism. We'd like to hope that he would be noble enough to acknowledge the discrepancy, were it brought to his attention. He couldn't see it in his own day, just as we probably can't see contradictions in our own thinking that future generations will call us out on. Even the best and brightest of every era are limited by their situation in time and space. Forgive us, we are fallible mortals.
Delete"We should acknowledge and condemn his racism. We should understand how European history and colonial oppression cannot be separated from each other. We should study the ways in which oppressive concepts and ways of thinking may be found lurking behind the works of canonical thinkers. And we should be expanding the cannon, looking beyond dead white men.
DeleteBut Hume was a philosophical titan who will surely be included in any list of history’s greatest thinkers, even a maximally diverse one. The ideas and habits of thought he promoted are ones that lead us to tolerance, respect, modesty and better understanding, not to bigotry and ignorance. The stain on Hume’s character is real, but it should be seen as an all-too human flaw on a profoundly and fundamentally humane thinker."
https://medium.com/the-philosophical-inquirer/intellectual-sins-6ae0980ae931
"We should see that his racism is not merely detachable from his philosophy, it actually goes against its spirit and substance. No good Humean today could share his racist views, for reasons Hume himself would have recognised as good." https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/edinburgh-university-cancel-david-hume-rename-building
DeleteThe issue of dogmatic thinking as pleged philosophers for as long as philosophy has been studied. If we truly believe philosophers are interested in discovering an objective truth about things we should see the issues of sexism and racism as nothing more than another dogmatic ideology that was bound to be touched on if they had lived long enough.
DeleteTo live accordance with nature I believe is best summed up with Reinhold Neibor's serenity prayer. To have the strength to change the things we can the serenity to accept what we can't, and the wisdom to know the difference. It seems to me if you're truly able to live your life with that view in mind everything every suffering every ecstatic moment they all become more manageable and less hurtful when they're gone.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is great value in contemplating corpses. A great deal of the beauty of life is infused with elements of death and decay and if we shy away from those aspects we lose out on a great deal that can make life so much more meaningful and enjoyable. While at the same time it's like that herodotus quote that exposure to mortal perils (and to death more generally) breeds contempt for it, and can do a great deal to remedy a fear of death.
ReplyDeleteIs "drug-induced bliss" always wrong? 86
ReplyDeleteWhen I use the term "drug-induced" I am also refering to alcohol as well. I do not subscibe to a universal concept of right and wrong. I find these terms to be extremely ambiguous and unhelpful in a lot of situations. However, I do think they can serve a purpose in explaining what is harmful and helpful given a point of view. So in response I will say that I do not think a "drug-induced bilss, outside of a medical circumstance, is helpful to our community. If a society is to function each person much give up an amount of natural rights. If a person is unable to think rationally and acknowledge the lack of rights at any given time he or she might revoke any agreement made. This plunges us back into a form of chaos.