I recently wrote this paper for a graduate class in the humanities. I had to read Plato's "Symposium", which is a story in which Socrates sits down with 6 other men for a night of drinking when one of them suggests that to compliment the drinking they each ought to take turns praising the god of love, Eros, in their own particular fashion. My paper focuses on the role of thumos, or spirit, in Plato's understanding of love and of the Good, and argues that instead of the Good being equated with the Beautiful as Plato seems to conclude, that rather it is the human spirit itself (thumos) which ought to perform this basic function.
Enjoy, if you dare!
So "Wanderer" I've been considering the implications of this ancient piece of text, and have started considering my own concept of Good~ needless to say, the mathematical route I was just trying became to convoluded~ but now looking at my writing, I'm starting to realign the parameters of my thesis to be "what constitutes goodness" in its full scope, from the psyche of the individual (I have Alcibiades to thank for that) to society as a whole. It strikes me, looking at what I've done, how so many people want to reduce it to a few core values or causes~ it certainly isn't anything like that, however, and looking now its not so hard to realize how morality and "goodness" has developed along with our species. I've tried creating a graph or display of some sort to convey the processes, but I'm now certain that it wouldn't be two dimensional, but spherical in the third dimension (sort of like a geodesic dome). maybe this is something that can be tackled as a group, although from what I can tell I have to core factors figured out~ trying to assign mathematical properties to them was a bitch for someone how never got past algebra 2.
Still reading your thesis~ taking the notes on it, like I have been, is really what's holding me up so far. Maybe I'll post what I have written down at this point... maybe...
I don’t think we can talk in terms of ultimate anything.
For what of better terminology I’ll use my husbands saying – we get a piece of shit and knock it into shape.
What I mean by this is that while we might imagine some great love – they are all transient sensations – that lead us to conceptualise a meaning of love.
People often break up relationships because they say they fell out of love – what’s that all about?
Then you’ve got those who say love is a verb – something that we show in our caring actions towards others – partners, family, friends…
Then you’ve got romantic love and ‘pure’ love – of a child or your grandmother or something.
I know we’re dealing with philosophy here – but I like to break it down into physical events – such as hormone releases and primal drives.
I’ll have a read – I felt a sense of panic when the word thesis was mentioned – as I’m not sure I’ve got time to read a whole book right now… : ) but I’ll give it a shot – and might read a bit and come back with thoughts to ponder and discuss as I go along – as I don’t think I need to read the whole thing before posting – in order to stimulate interesting, thought provoking, meaningful and therefore valuable discussion.
I don’t think that love can be transcending in any way to reach a permanent and everlasting state.
Other than in the sense that we all might return to this same state from time to time throughout our lives.
Our biological and scientific understanding has grown so much since this was written – that it is rendered quite obsolete – although there is value in understanding it in it’s own terms in order to perhaps gain what they were implying in their discussions.
All our physiological hormonal reactions are meaningful in as much as they are useful to our survival – meaning to our interactions with others as well as protective from harm and starvation.
Our hormones produce the commonly named emotions that we all feel – but they are not based on an exact science to my knowledge. It’s all very subjective – hormonal quantities and perception is slightly different in us all.
I’ve had some interesting changes myself in how my hormones are released by changing my thinking about topics and seeing things from a different perspective.
“What the bleep” although fanciful in many respects does have some interesting concepts – if you can weed out the crap.
Daniel Quinn comments in his book My Ishmael – that our more ancient ways of living were more in line with accepting our good and bad ways – our aggressive and disruptive behaviours were to be expressed on raids to neighbouring ‘tribes’ and our nice behaviour to be kept for our own tribe – for shared protection and hunting. In other words – our closed groups lent themselves to keeping all our good feelings – now we aren’t allowed to express our bad feelings – because it’s not so easy to find the boarder of our larger countries to cross over and do some damage to vent or express our bad feelings.
Again Plato seems caught up with designing some ideal notion of emotional expression. We do what we do because it works, not because it is an ideal creation, notion or invention.
Notions of courage or dishonour are value judgements – not real states – although someone might feel shamed if called un courageous. People try out strategies until they find one that works – they might try a few each time and find that one or two work or none in which case they become more inventive or die out.
Are you implying that Navy Seals are all homosexuals?
It seems to me here that Phaedrus talks of creating an army to kill based in honour and love?
A tribe certainly has that bond – they love each other and without each other will die – so they fight to the death in war as they will die anyhow without their tribe.
Also this points to the idea that we are sheep – we follow each other – if one screams we all start screaming and so on…
It seems here that they talk about the idea of social constructs that shame people into being selfless.
So shame as key to virtue?
I disagree – shame is the key to resentment and anger.
Looks like these guys are just trying to work out ways to control others though extrinsic motivations that they can internalise and become self regulating – such as shame, fear, guilt, obligation, duty…
It seems that they have the belief that without these extrinsic motivations humans would have no reason to be good?
It’s all a construct though isn’t it? I mean they take it that Alcibiades is really running from himself and is acting cowardly – but perhaps he just got sick of the crap and saw someone he fancied heading past the door and thought he might have a go and chat them up?
How can anyone know how are person gains their self value? We all have different levels of personal value based in many different things – all unique – and all equally open to misinterpretation.
I used to value myself as a child because I knew my parents loved me and therefore I must be valuable. Then as a teenager – this seemed to fade – so what now was my value? Basically I became valuable for giving sex to others – not a great position to be in. Once I’d found a loving and caring mate – my value was then in question – I needed then to contribute to society to feel valuable – so I did voluntary work in many areas – then I needed to prove something to myself so I went to university – to proof I had some intellectual value – then had children and felt I had no value because I wasn’t happy in my role. I’ve since regained value from being able to be supportive to my husband, my children and my community.
Isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Worthiness is totally conditionally dependant – and therefore is subjective opinion.
I think we can add much to their debate – as they still seem quite immersed in supernatural thinking about reality.
If we don’t accept our primal instincts as natural normal and acceptable then we will have problems being virtuous – as we may aim to suppress the sop called dark side without understanding it’s role. This only seems to come up when we create a society that must be the peacekeepers – as opposed to using our traditional methods of peacekeeping – the erratic retaliation strategy which is self regulating and IMO part of our primal instincts.
We only lose ourselves into a bad mood of anger, rage or frustration, in context to our conscious mind which falsely believes that it is in control of our selves – it’s not – we are driven mainly by our unconscious primal brain and instincts.
We well might be aggressive when we perceive a threat to ourselves – there are many threats and we need some mechanism of protection – hence we still survive as a species – without it we might die out.
The language of non-violent communication might assist in situations where goals are in conflict – in that if we can talk about our needs – then we can better be creative together about how we can mutually meet our needs without anger, disgust or harm to others.
Shame required for moral behaviour – that’s why I hate that word - moral!
I’ve found that the longer I’ve maintain the same situation the less strong emotions I’ve felt – in terms of shame pride etc… I’ve come to a much more balanced place – where I feel secure with my situation and can trust the responses that I’ll get. Not many have this luxury. Most these days have numerous partners, house mates, friends changing and jobs changing meaning that they are in continual changing circumstances – not allowing them to feel secure and settle with their self value.
I defiantly protect and feed my children because I see them as extensions of me. In this way the boundaries of identity are blurred.
I think that Alfie Kohn’s Unconditional Parenting has much to contribute about the value of reason.
Why do we need to distinguish between worthy and unworthy people? perhaps because the society they live in is one that values products and not support.
Meaning that value is subjective based on what support that person has given you in your life and what relationship you have with them, that is mutually beneficial. Worthiness again is not universal.
Again self esteem is based on many factors internal and external – and isn’t actually something that is constant – it might at times not exist if we aren’t thinking about it at that moment. but in the next we might feel bad, then in the next feel good again – like a river flowing always changing.
I think it’s normal to love our ‘tribe’ our close family and friends. It’s normal to compete with anyone outside of that tribe.
All tribes are different and all tribes have different values and ideas of beauty. What is beautiful for one tribe is ugly to another. It’s OK to have difference. The lie that is told to us in our mother culture – the ones that lock away the food so we are forced to work in this prison – also believe that there is only one right way to live – this is not true – based on this believe they have played annihilator all over the planet – you have 3 choices, assimilation, reservation or death – and then we lock up your food and force you to work in our system.
Perhaps if we want to make people behave better and act more morally, we should stop being so ridiculous and accept that we are here because we worked – ways that didn’t work died out and so we are left perfectly designed to work the way we are without modification or improvement.
These ideas of improvement are very recently in our history – 3 million years of evolution and about 3,000 years ago we had our ‘lock up the food’ revolution and now think that everyone is to be improved!
Deep seated cultural perception that our culture doesn’t have wisdom about how to live.
Identifying our culture – all the food is owned and under lock and key.
Putting food under lock and key is one of the cornerstones of our economy. Because if the food wasn’t who would work?
Second way to identify our culture – they perceive themselves to be members of a race that is fundamentally flawed and inherently doomed to suffering and misery. We perceive wisdom is rare, we’re surrounded by bad things and we live unsustainable lives.
Our utopian / idealistic systems would work if people were better than they are – traditional systems (3,000 years ago +) worked with people how they are; unimproved, unenlightened, troublesome, disruptive, selfish, mean, cruel, greedy, and violent – our modern mother culture systems aim to rely upon trying to improve people – as brought in about 3,000 years ago when we started to lock up the food.
A big effort Aaron. Well done. I was quite relieved that it wasn’t a book! only 8,000 words or so – easy to get through…. : )
So to add a little bit more to this idea of Thumos or "spirit" - I just wrote a little bit (as a response to someone on A|N) about how we might be more understanding of religious people if we can properly understand what they call "spirituality", "energy", or even "soul" in terms of thumotic motivation (well, I left out the Thumos part). Here is an edited version of what I wrote:
I've been working recently on an interpretation of "spirit" which, to us atheists, just means "motivation", but this concept, I believe, strikes at the heart of both the essence of values and is the direct cause of the inuitive "understanding" religious or "spiritual" people have of "energy" or "life-force". Motivation just is the life-force, the matter and energy set in motion which drives us, propels us, and urges us onwards towards all that is good and worthwhile in and about life. If you don't think this explanation is too "woo", which is how some people of a mind different than my own would feel, then perhaps this could serve as both a good explanation of this belief that your soon-to-be-ex-wife holds, and you could even let your daughter know that her mother is not completely off the deep end, but rather that she has taken something from reality and devised an explanation for it as best as she could, only her methods are seriously lacking. Some things are better understood if you understand the motivations (ah, there's that word again!) behind them. And it can actually help us to be so understanding. If I am right about this whole "motivation" thing, then this "strange energy wiccans believe in" is really something quite valuable if properly understood. If there is nothing wrong (or even something to be gained) from entertaining the idea of the life-force, or whatever you want to call it, and if you believe as I do that we can tap into our deepest motivations and desires to foster our life-force and enhance our motivations to their highest degrees, then perhaps this can work out just fine as a type of atheist "spirituality", one which can help us to engage with religious people more on their own terms and one which could help your daughter to understand and even get closer to (or even rescue!) her mother from the absurdities of irrational thought.
And now I've finally gotten back to the real point of this group, which is ways to convince believers or fence-walkers, or at least ways to argue our case using the terms of the believers themselves. I recently responded to a girl's post here who said she is doing a final project for her senior year in high school on presenting the case for atheism to her largely theist (I'm assuming Christian) classmates. Here is the relevant part of my response:
On the topic of spirit, this seems (to me anyway) to be especially relevant to both a believer's beliefs and to morality and values. People have this vague idea of morality being associated with some "essence" of their character, something which speaks to them through their conscience. But while they see this as something supernatural, we obviously think that it is something natural, and something we likely have evolved to have. Animals display moral behavior as well. But getting more to my point, this thing called "spirit" or, worse, "soul", may be a manifestation of some deep set of motivations which may very well be interpreted as a "life-force" or an energy which drives us to live well. I think this is just a natural outcome of living things needing to be highly motivated and needing to feel powerfully motivated by life, and to feel it as deeply as if it were some amazing power which permeates "all of existence", simply as a matter of survival and natural selection.
There are some, maybe many people even here on this site who might dismiss all this as woo. I hope you're not one of them. My point is this. Play some rock music, get everyone going, and then express why we atheists can feel this powerful motivation coursing through our veins just as well as (if not better than) any religious or spiritual person. Tell them that this desire to be, to live and live well, and to be strong and to be a member of a strong group may just provide the foundations for morality and for all values. Tell them being good may be just what is good for life here on this planet, and that we need not appeal to the supernatural any longer to feel value and to feel motivated to be good people, for ourselves and the people we care about. Tell them that this drive may help explain why we feel we should be good even to people or animals or all living things, even if we don't know them or expect any reward other than personal satisfaction of fulfilling that deep psycho-biological drive to foster life and creativity. Tell them that happiness is a terrific motivator, and that sorrow dampens the motivation for life, and that we all desire to spread happiness and alleviate sorrow. Tell them all this, and they may see that we have a lot more in common with each other than they thought, that we are not "of the devil" or any such absurdities, and that they are welcome to join you in this life for this life, and maybe you've got a chance at really convincing a few people. But don't expect any miracles. ;-)
Here's another response, this one to a user's question if there was such a thing as a "power of thought":
I think we all can experience a power, an energy, a "life-force", or a "spirit", and that this is just something natural and not supernatural at all. It seems to me that we have evolved to feel powerful motivations for living life well, for believing ourselves to be good and worthwhile, for feeling like we have a sense of purpose and a meaning to our lives, purely as a matter of survival of the fittest. Obviously organisms who experience life this way would have a survival advantage over organisms who didn't, or who lacked such convictions, or were ambivalent about whether they were "good" and life was worth living. There is definitely a power in feeling and believing positively and creatively about oneself.
Meh. I would disagree with all of that, except for the first sentence. I subscribe to what I call a "socio-environmental" theory of human adaptation (evolution) wherein as our species becomes more interconnected socially, our society itself replaces our physical environment as the stimulus of which we adapt to~ really though, its sophisticated self-domestication. The concept of a "good-life" is derived entirely from our societal paradigms, and its value to the "self" is manifest in the human esteem. Esteem likely developed due to the emerging proto-society, where the view of the collective is important to the individual due to the developing need to "fit in." The more an individual is "in" the more cohesion and benefit they reap from the group, necessitating that a function to gauge said approval or disapproval form to aid in the individuals social interaction. Internalizing this notion would be the most efficient, making it a primal drive common to humans and thus enhancing the society in return; this creates a cyclical pattern that fuels itself~ where the society reinforces the individuals drive to belong (through incentive) and conversely, that internalized drive homogenizes the group, making it more cohesive.
The "sense of purpose" mentioned above is merely the emotional response to this inherent drive to achieve "normality" and inclusion, for when it is examined from an outside perspective, it is quite true that the only purpose we have is to our species itself. Outside of that context, human life is meaningless~ just as an individual ants life is meaningless, or a moose or any other creature.
I detest the use of words like "obviously," for it seems an attempt to bully the reader into accepting the following claim. The statement that follows is pure assertion for two reasons~ one being that whether an individual considers themselves good doesn't correlate to living a worthwhile life. There are many people who have lived lives that were known not to be good, but continued in their own self-interest; in short, the societal paradigm of a "good" life has little bearing on whether an individual would consider it "worthwhile." Consider Gypsies, who lived outside of societal norm and had transient lifestyles, both of which would be neither "good" or "worthwhile," and yet continued to persist on the fringes of society. Maybe this first point is turning into a rant.. I guess, in short, my issues with that are that "good" and "worthwhile" are subjective, and thus shouldn't be universalized.
I disagree with the polarized sentiment of the last sentence in that response as well. A "power?" Be more explicit (whoever wrote that). Am I to assume they mean there is definitely a benefit to believing positively and creatively about oneself? Well, in that case, yes and no. It works to an extent, but too much (which can be common) will actually work against the individual within a society~ we call it Narcissism.
A few quick replies. First of all I entirely agree that the use of the word obviously is bad form, however this is not the way I would write if I was shooting for philosophical precision. But you're right, this claim may be far less obvious than I made it seem. I'll come back to this one.
What I really want to get at is your competing theory, what you call a "socio-environmental theory of human adaptation". Before I really get into breaking this down, I would first point out that we are speaking across each other. I am talking about a theory of values, and you are responding with a theory about metaphysics. I may for example agree with you that much (if not all) of our evolution is dependent on fitting into the social environment rather than the natural environment, and yet still argue that value (and thus the values of society) is something which is based in the desire to think positively about oneself and one's society. You seem to be making a separate moral claim, and this is what I want to flesh out.
You may be making one of two or three separate moral claims. First, you may be saying that morality and values are completely subjective and relative. But if this is the claim, then whether we want to accept being "more socially interconnected" is completely up-for-grabs; there would be just as much of a chance of any given individual accepting the opposite as the basis for his values, and this would render your claim about values being dependent on social interconnectedness invalid. Which leads me to believe that you are rather saying that values just are fitting in to a society, and any society is just as good as any other. This also presents an absurd conclusion, since then it is no more likely that a society based on more Western values of secularism, science, reason, democracy, truth, justice, etc., are any better than a society antithetical to these goals. They would just be different. But I don't think this is what you would argue either. So you see my need for clarity on your position.
It is also possible that you may be arguing a more nihilist perspective, or some difficult-to-conceive-of combination of any of the preceding theories. I would suggest we begin with the two distinctions I began with. We need to know whether values is something objective, subjective, or somewhere in between (as in, a little from both). You seem to be making the claim that values are completely subjective, which if you are, I will attempt to show you the absurdity of such a position (as I have already begun to do so). Secondly, we need to know whether values are completely relative, or if they are absolute. This is the more important distinction I think. We may very well both agree that values are completely relative, and I think if we do so this would go a long way towards explaining why someone might be tempted to conflate the two distinctions and conclude that values must also be completely subjective. But one might argue instead, as I do, that values are completely relative (and then come up with a sophisticated way of fleshing out what this means), and yet then argue that values are also neither completely objective or completely subjective, but rather somewhere in between, i.e. a little of both. Drawing all of this out is a perhaps a bit of a chore, but it seems to be a necessary one for any serious discussion on the theory of values.
What I'm saying is that, from an objective point of view, morals are a representation of a social species progression and development, and are intrinsically tied to that species progress at the moment of morality. Stone Age morality would be representative and fitting for the human species social progress in the stone-age. Modern morality, and its disparity in relation to Stone Age morality, is indicative of the progress the Human species has made in such time, and represents technologies and the social development of humanity up until this point.
Some of my posts might have been talking across because there is another discussion on here that was addressing evolution, and I might have gotten posts confused.
I guess, in conclusion, what I'm saying is morality is relative to the environment and social (and technological) development of the species in question. That, however, only addresses morality and the rationalization of it from a societal standpoint~ I'd say that the closest to a universal morality would be that which benefits the most while at the same time hurting none (or in some cases the least).