Saturday, May 27
Charlie Byrnes WW2 diary as a Wellington Bomber Pilot
Wednesday, May 10
When goodness and good intentions may not be enough
Nietzsche’s philosophy in his “Genealogy of Morals” confronts the reader with two important questions: - what value has morality and that of truth?
Truth for Nietzsche is a relative matter, dependent upon our interpretations- at first glance we might be inclined to say he is a postmodernist which however he isn’t. His idea of truth depends upon whichever interpretation prevails at a given time which is a function of power. Page 45 - What Nietzsche Really Said - Solomon / Higgins.
On the question of what is good Nietzsche's critique
of traditional morality centred on the typology of “master” and “slave”
morality. By examining the etymology of the German words gut (“good”), schlecht
(“bad”), and böse (“evil”), Nietzsche maintained that the distinction
between good and bad was originally descriptive, that is, a non-moral reference
to those who were privileged, the masters, as opposed to those who
were base, the slaves. The good/evil contrast arose when slaves avenged
themselves by converting attributes of mastery into vices. If the favoured, the
“good,” were powerful, it was said that the meek would inherit the earth. Pride
became sin. Charity, humility, and obedience replaced competition, pride, and
autonomy. Crucial to the triumph of slave morality was its claim to being the
only true morality.
Bernard Magnus, Professor of
Philosophy; Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, Magill (Ed)
'Masterpieces of world Philosophy' and notes added by G. Eraclides.
Nietzsche's consistent use of
militaristic metaphors also gives an impression of aggressiveness, but by all
accounts he was a gentle polite soul. He believed one must “philosophise with a
hammer” as was necessary to wage "war against morality".
Observations
Nietzsche foresaw, as the army of
non-believers grew, nothing existed to fill the cohesive gap religion provided
even though it was slave related. So that society must descend into nihilism-
the absence of any defining values. Despite his pessimism, he foresaw an
emergent higher valued golden culture could emerge from the ashes, spearheaded
by his ‘man made’ supermen.
But firstly one must tear down the
old idols, ideas and errant slave related philosophies so that practically
nothing is spared. His theme proposes we adopt the diversity in nature, to
be free spirits, to rid ourselves of the slave mentality. For religion had
become corrupted and decadent - humility was only exercised so one might be
exalted, to support a loathing of the body, to engage in an unhealthy
collective guilt and to exasperate suffering. Christ was the great free
spirit, vainly speaking in parables attempting clarity to reject the idols and
corrupt controlling institutions. He was the only true Christian but he was
killed – so that what followed was a distortion - decadence and the corruption
of ideals – the distorters such as St Paul and what followed. Nietzsche was
against any form of utilitarianism, which is evident in today’s institutions,
aimed at serving a common good. Rather, his heartfelt philosophy is inspired by
the free spirits of the Homeric Greeks. They relied on
instinctiveness and freedom, of inner lights and life affirmation to exemplify
the joyful here and now. Aristocratic ideals not subject to the mediocrity of
democratic governance. However the
question arises as to how practical is it to rely on the noble spirit
and instinctiveness?
By instinctiveness Nietzsche
One did not have long to wait after
his death for his prophecy to be realised, given the mass slaughter of
the First World War. But the
question is how much can be fairly attributed to his reasons?
His vibrant
and aggressive style was in marked contrast to his poor state of health.
He experienced the terrible brutality of war as a 25-year-old hospital attendant in 1870 in the
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). Caring for traumatically affected or wounded
soldiers he contracted diphtheria and dysentery.
The aftermath was pain and
suffering became his constant companion. He suffered a complete mental
breakdown in 1889 and never recovered to die in 1900.
However, his work was subsequently
misinterpreted and corrupted by his sister Elizabeth in support of the Nazi
party of which she was a member.
Upbringing and
early influences
Born in 1844 in the Prussian town of Rocked, in
Germany, he was the son of a Lutheran pastor who died when Nietzsche was only
5. Moving to Naumburg his formative years were with his mother, sister and
two maiden aunts.
Both Nietzsche grandfathers
and his uncle were Lutheran ministers, as was his paternal grandfather,
Friedrich August Ludwig Nietzsche (1756–1826) - a distinguished Protestant
scholar. His primary education was at a boy’s school to progress to a private
institution, at Pforta in Naumburg.
Later, he gained admittance to the
prestigious boarding school, Schulpforta, which recognised his accomplishments
in music and language, where he studied ancient Greek, Roman literature and
composed poems and music.
He was also influenced by Epicurus
(341–270 BC) who talked about the need to learn about what satisfies
fundamental needs, which mostly involves a radical upheaval to reprioritise
one’s life.
“He who understands the limits of
life knows how easy it is to procure enough to remove the pain of want and make
the whole of life complete and perfect,” he wrote. Seize the day!
After graduation he enrolled in
Bonn University (1864) as first in theology to later switch to philology.
Inspired by Arthur Schopenhauer in 1865, Nietzsche was enthused to then study
philosophy, and read all of his works and studied others such as Kant’s -anti- materialistic theories.
He switched to the University of
Leipzig, to follow his favourite professor Friedrich Ritschl. The Professor was impressed by Nietzsche and
published his essays in academic journals. Nietzsche was offered a
Professorship in Greek Languages and Literature at the University of Basel
in Switzerland. In the intervening time whilst in mandatory military service,
he suffered a severe accident whilst attempting to leap-mount into the
saddle of a horse. A serious chest injury meant he was placed on sick leave as
his wound refused to heal.
Returning to Leipzig he met the
composer Richard Wagner (1813–1883), and they developed a close friendship to
visit him in Switzerland. There he also met Hermann Brockhaus (1806–1877), who was married to Wagner’s sister.
Brockhaus was an authority on Sanskrit and the Zoroastrian religion, whose
prophet was Zarathustra (Zoroaster). That association was to ignite his
interest in the Zoroastrian religion and paved the way for his later works
– ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra ‘(1882- 1885).
University Life at Basel
Nietzsche, aged only 24, took up a
professorship at Basel despite the fact he was yet to complete his
doctorate. He admired both Ricard Wagner and similarly continued to
enthusiastically support Schopenhauer’s
Nietzsche examines the tension
between the “Apollonian” and the “Dionysian” forces- the Greek GOD of light and
reasons and the GOD of wine and music.
Nietzsche favoured Dionysus to be
an uplifting alternative to religion, which he contends focus excessively on
heaven. Nietzsche’s “Dionysian” energy, which he favours, dates back to
the pre Socratic ancient Greek culture which he regards as a more creative and
a far healthier force. He feels this dynamic element of
Dionysian influence has lost ground to the “Apollonian”
forces of light and reason. But the flowery language and
inaccuracies did not sit well with authoritative Philologists who were fiercely
critical to damage his reputation to the extent enrolments were curtailed to
his courses. Much later on Nietzsche attempts self-criticism, noting the
earlier work bore the fruits of his adolescence. He reverted to an “Apollonian”
as a philosopher reliant on the forces of light and
reason. Towards the end of his university tenure Nietzsche began to write
Human, All-Too-Human (1878)—which turned out to be a pivotal moment
which served to end his friendship with the anti-sematic Wagner following his
attack on his artistry. For the remainder of his time Nietzsche was a highly
respected figure at Basel, until his resignation in June, 1879, aged only 34,
due to his deteriorating health. He suffered worsening migraine headaches,
eyesight problems, depression and severe stomach complaints.
Later major work and style
After his early retirement
Nietzsche published Human only to Human (1878-1880), The Dawn of Day ((1881)
The Gay Science (1882), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1882- 1885), Beyond Good and
Evil (1886) Genealogy of Morals (1887) and Twilight of the Idols (1889). Nietzsche
style reverted to the use of aphorisms as a means to mount a critique of
conventional philosophical wisdom and to write in such a manner to appeal to
the widest possible audience.
Critiques of his work argue it is a
never ending narrative of disjointed or disorganised aphorisms. But Scholars Solomon and Higgins (What
Nietzsche really said – argue on pages 49- 50) state such a
style ensures his work is more easily digestible- freed from the chains of
metaphysical forms of thinking that Nietzsche despised.
His poor physical health led him in
his quest for spiritual health - in what he describes as a constant state of
becoming which sustains him. Possibly this is why he sees no room for
compassion. But the question
arises is this a valid point to abandon the idea of compassion?
A brief summary of most of his
works is as follows:
Human only Too Human
Nietzsche's first lengthy
contribution to literature, since as his previous works comprise
only philological treatises. Nietzsche addresses his concerns of the ensuing crisis he
sees for mankind.
The Dawn of Day
The title might represent
Nietzsche's work when he is no longer under the influence of Schopenhauer or
Wagner. It is a critique of morality and suggests the need for a “revaluation
of all values.” Nietzsche talks about the problems associated
with Christianity and that it is power which principally underpins human
behaviour.
Gay Science
A polemic against rationality as he
favours the instinctive approach. That is in the sense of an intuitive style to
embrace vitality, artistry and visions that take humanity out of its present
state of enslavement. Nietzsche detests any authoritative set of values and
champions the idea of the free spirit.
It is in ‘The Gay Science, that
Nietzsche declares God is dead.
He is the first philosopher to talk
about the death of GOD, which means ( according to Nietzsche) that as
people give up the idea of understanding GOD and that reading the bible will
tell you what to do, religion will lose its grip on the culture. There are some
people who will continue to believe but fewer into the
future.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Plot Summary
Zarathustra descends from 10 years
of solitude on the mountain prepared to teach humanity about the overman. At
Motley Cow he explains the meaning of life – the overman (superman) is one who
is free from all prejudicial concepts or moralities - who thereby creates his
own values and a purposeful joyful life.
The people are bewildered and lose
interest in the overman.
But the exception is the tightrope
walker, who subsequently falls and dies. Zarathustra decides the only
possibility is to try to convert the few individuals who are willing to stand
out from the crowd. He explains to these few who come forward about the
doctrine of eternal recurrence - all events will repeat themselves again and
again eternally. None of the followers fully attain the position of the
overman, although they grow in stature. But they all enjoy feasting and a
joyful songful exchange with Zarathustra- to embrace the idea of eternal
recurrence.
Nietzsche’s narrative reverts to a
parable-like style, to describe the existential struggle and sacrifice
undertaken by the overman. The struggle is analogous to symbolically
scaling mountains, whilst remaining hearty, full of laughter and gaiety- to
exemplify the free spirit of the overman. This is his answer to the looming
chaos facing the western culture as he sees it, but is it too vague a
notion to really take hold?
Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
This is ambitious work that tempts
us to discern what is true and good. The crux of his analysis is to distinguish
between truth as in scientific truth and value which he links to the will- by
will we mean the faculty of the mind. He criticises philosophers who are
reliant upon “self-consciousness, and “free will”. Rather, he takes us
beyond the concepts of good and evil and introduces us to the notion of the
will to power- a psychologically derived drive from which we experience through
the senses to constitute one's overarching will.
In a nutshell Nietzsche proposes
the concepts of good and evil are not the opposing forces as one might think of
them. Rather, there is only the will to power that is the driving force to our
existence and enables one to discern what is true and good. When we understand
this factor it will allow us not to be judgmental but to aspire paradoxically
to a higher morality.
Twilight of the Idols,
Philosophizing with a Hammer-1888
Nietzsche revisits prior criticisms
of Socrates, Plato, Kant, Christianity and German culture. He contrasts their
alleged cultural decadence to reaffirm his positivism to Thucydides and the
Sophists. He invites his audience to test the idols of the past to
allegorically tap on them- “sounds them out” so to speak to determine if they
are hollow, just as a physician would use the percussion hammer.
‘Death Knell’ - On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin,
Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest
of his life until his death in 1900.
Conclusion
Despite
suffering terribly his prodigious work provides a testament to his own will and
immense material to ponder, about which continues to be subject to countless interpretations.
Nietzsche’s hope is that as free
spirits one can be unbounded by the shackles of dogmatism to embrace hardships
in a constant state of becoming as part of that circle of eternal
recurrence.
Quote
“I am a forest, and a night of dark
trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses
under my cypresses.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche- Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Thursday, May 4
More Soulful Reflections
The earliest formal accounts of the soul probably came from ancient Egypt and Babylonia but I want to begin with ancient Greece since there is a clear link to later monotheistic religions.
Not only have
that but Hindu philosophy has strong links to Greek Aristotelian metaphysics as
they share a fundamental
common theme embracing a divine and immortal mind or soul.
Aristotle’s metaphysics is analogous
to the ideas of the Upanishads which locates the inner self, whose spirituality
was of great interest to Albert Schweitzer.
For in Greek thinking both Plato and Aristotle believed in
immortality but there was a distinction in relation to the soul. Plato's idea was
of a soul as indestructible part of the body versus Aristotle’s view it was the
intellect and not the soul that survives death.
Greek thinking influenced monotheism for thousands of years with Aristotle’s metaphysics integral to both the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions. For instance, Aristotle ideas were incorporated into Islamic thinking, when his significant first ever formal works on metaphysics were translated into Latin. Islamic scholars were much more open then to new ideas before later retreating into more of fundamental stance. Christianity similarity adopted his ideas that were incorporated into the great religious philosopher of the 13ty Century, Thomas Aquinas.
His religious philosophy was officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1907.
A similar position arose with the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, who eventually asserted the resurrection of the dead is a fundamental
principle of Judaism
The formulation of dogma was helpful to Jews pressured to defend their
religion and needing to have ready replies to theological attacks on it.
Maimonides formulated Thirteen Fundamental Principles
of Jewish Faith, the last of which is belief that the dead
will be brought back to life when God wills it.
By the 13th century that view became accepted into Judaism, and as Maimonides included it among his Thirteen Principles.
But it should be noted in the early periods there existed much more
diversity than there is now in the Christian religion.
By way of example it wasn’t until the 6th century that the idea of
reincarnation was considered heretical.
This isn’t surprising given the eschatological expectations of a
messiah that permeated Jewish thinking just prior to the unexpected execution
of Christ.
That idea of messianic figure was rife at the time whose expectation
was for the Jews to gain their freedom from the Roman yoke as was
foretold in the latter OT texts and in particular to the book of Daniel.
According to Professor Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Kelly in
their publication “All Things Shining”, what began in Christianity under the
influence of Pauline influences to combine Jewish mysticism with Greek
rationality was a bad idea.
For the Greeks of Plato’s era, in the 5th century BC,
human’s beings had one, single universal essence: at their best they were
rational agents who, through disinterested philosophical argument, could
discover objective, universal, timeless truths of nature and human ethical
excellence. For the Hebrew it was the special covenant with GOD. The truth then
was commitment to the covenant. To some degree this conflict of cultural ideas
continued except for those devotees of Kierkegaard, who accepted his synthesis.
In terms of the so-called eastern religions composed principally of
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, Buddhism took its lead
from Hinduism less the priestly connections with worship and associated
rituals. It was to spread across SE Asia to be further morphed into different
strands along the Silk Road as it incorporated aspects of Taoism in China.
There is some debate as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.
Based on the idea that religion is defined as the worship of a God (rather than
the rejection of worship) in that sense Buddhists is a philosophy.
But if you define religion as a belief which promises reality and
involves the study of sacred texts I think it can be regarded as a religion.
There are many different strands as for instance Tibetan Buddhism incorporated
the idea of local Gods into its basic tenet.
The differences between Hinduism and Buddhism also relates to the idea
of the negation of the self. In Hinduism, human soul, is believed to be connected to the Brahman.
However, Buddhism in its enlightened state negates the idea of a self,
believing its independence cannot be separated. However, what might be
construed on the pathway to enlightenment is a duality. Therein we have the
conventional sense of self that applies only until such a state of
enlightenment is realized.
First Nations People
Interestingly the Australian Aboriginal society, existing for possibly
some 70,000 years in isolation pre colonisation held similar views to all of
the world’s major religions and in particular in relation to the soul.
They believed that the dreaming one is reincarnated to return in different existential forms to inhabit the land to which they are inextricably joined. So they believed the land owned them and so the idea of owning land was nonsense. Life was a continuous circle defined by predestined totems and the law which gave rise to kinship and the means of governance without the need for supreme rulers.
Modernity
Finally we can turn to our modern way of viewing the immortal soul which depends in turn on how we view the mind and consciousness. In respect of our mind dependent consciousness and what is deemed reality is a source of continuous debate.
On the one hand we have the
hard- nosed materialists who believe that the output of the brain and our
consciousness can only be the product of
the human brain. That view contrasts to the non- materialists who argue
consciousness is a fundamental state in the universe to which we are all
inexplicably linked.
Such questions will remain debating issues since no one can be
absolutely sure what reality is.
So that ultimately it boils down into what you believe and that’s
where the ABC‘s recent research as in the Conversation talking about a survey
into the soul in 2021 is of interest. The results suggest that, as a nation, we
may not be as sceptical as we think we are.
The survey results showed that on an overall basis 69.7 percent
of respondents said they either believed in or were open to the existence of
the soul, with 14.7 percent unsure, 5.7 percent thinking it unlikely, and 9.9
percent saying they do not believe it exists.
But only 48 per cent of Australians say they believe in ghosts or
the possibility they may exist, but 69 per cent say the same for the soul,
according to new research.
What about young people
Surprisingly,
perhaps, it was the youngest age group — 18-26-year-olds — who expressed the
most openness to the non-material: 49 per cent said they believe in the soul,
and 48 per cent in life after death (in both cases, another 28 per
cent were open to the possibility).
The percentage who said "I believe this does not exist"
about any of the options never rose to double digits for this cohort (9 per
cent for ghosts, only 4 per cent for life after death).
By contrast, the oldest age bracket (76+) were much more sceptical: a
full 40 per cent said they do not believe in ghosts, and 28 per
cent dismissed the possibility of life after death.
The gender disparities will be less surprising to some. Men were on
average more than twice as likely as women to tick the "I believe this
does not exist" box.
When it comes to the existence of God or a higher power, men and women
said they believed or were open to it at almost the same rate. But for the
rest, women were markedly more willing to profess belief: 50 per cent to
38 per cent for the soul, 38 per cent to 30 per cent for life
after death, 34 per cent to 26 per cent for angels.
Soul-searching summing up.
So that we can conclude the question of souls is still one that
matters. It is, in effect, wrestling with the meaning of human life and what is
it that makes us human — and whether each of us is more significant than the
rocks or pebbles in the sea.
In my view it’s not so much the doctrines of the various religions that bind its followers, for there will be matters of interpretation, but rather that search for meaning that continues so that the division between the secular and sacred is rather blurred. Like adherents of Buddhism emphazising it’s a philosophy and not a religion by pointing out the tenets of their sacred texts and beliefs in the path to enlightenment. But mostly something that is considered sacred is connected to religion and if you change a definition of region not to mandate worship of a GOD but reality with sacred texts than it is a religion.
So, Buddhism is a religion like any others which all have their
philosophical underpinnings. Then there is far more commonality in religious
thinking than we might think except for a few twists along its evolutionary
journey. Talking to people who have converted from Christianity to Buddhism
they believe Christ was a reincarnated Buddha. People will continue to adapt as
will our beliefs, slowly over time.
This is why the belief in souls persists, even in this apparently
secular age.
Friday, April 21
In search of self and it's soul
This paper examines the article on the soul as per the link below as a good reference point to underpin discussions.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-
Everyday use of the word soul and excitable neurons.
The soul is routinely used to describe our reaction to a musical song or a piece of art or any creation by saying it speaks to my soul.
To be more explicit we may also add it gives me shivers down my spine – our central nervous reaction of highly excited neurons.
Then there's rare moments to feel the emotional impact taking in breathtaking scenes on walks or to observe beautiful gardens.
Around the campfire at night when
gazing into the flickering sparks or embers under a starry cosmos we may experience dreamlike comfort.
So that this is state of soulful human wonderment which draws us into thinking about non- material things. But that doesn’t
translate of course into ideas of an immortal soul.
Introduction
Firstly let me summarize the
author’s response, as I see it, which is to define the soul in terms of the various
religious doctrines and to acknowledge the persuasive psychological
needs those views offer.
His conclusion is we are stuck with
the idea of a soul while questioning the validity to hold such views.
Modern day use of the word “soul”
has waned.
But given modern day advances in science the use of the word “soul” has been largely replaced by “’Consciousness” or the
“mind”. Indeed
the ancient texts use so many different terms for it such as breath or heart that its challenging to make any conclusions as to the extent it was talked about then. One must accept there will be many incorrect translations.
Rather it is preferable to use consciousness/ mind which has undergone a minor renaissance in modern day terms which in turn has invoked renewed interest in the ancient platonic ideas.
The author rather obviously follows
a bottom up materialist’s view, amongst a plethora of current views. In a
nutshell the brain and its output is all there is.
But unanswered questions arise as
to why and how such consciousness arises – that’s the hard problem about
consciousness talked about by Mind Philosopher David Chalmers. He argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically
autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties.
Chalmers is a dualist but remains
agnostic to the idea of a soul ……….. So, as a scientist, I just can’t go there yet
Then we have the quantum level of
consciousness which in a nutshell means the universe
is consciousness.
Other theories are the soul/mind
advocates who suggest that all things have a degree of consciousness; birds,
plants, even molecules.
Finally one might conclude it’s
more a matter of mysticism that involves a leap of faith to become a believer.
From my perspective,
belief in a soul comes back to how we feel about our experiences? –
are they in the context of a psyche/spiritual experience or does one firmly
stay in the materialist camp?
Faith and rational thinking
underpinning the belief in the immortal soul
In that respect it might be interesting to talk about what specific ideas were held by the philosophers. My aim goes beyond the author's ideas to provide additional information that underpin such beliefs.
In ancient Greece it was believed the realization of the good life – a virtuous one, was for the soul as a substance to gain ascendancy over the body. The idea that permeated society was it was imperative to teach the virtuous way of life to the youth. Hence knowledge inherent in the soul needed to be strengthened.
That memory of virtuous knowledge
was believed to have been mostly forgotten during the trauma of birth. However,
we know, merely understanding ethics or the virtues doesn’t mean folk will
actually follow that example in life.
The birth of Consciousness as a
moral persuader
Socrates, responding to
charges of impiety and corruption if Athenian youth, held that his conscience provided
the ethical guiding light.
Hence we have the idea for most people that it remains a clear guide in relation to how we feel about our ideas of justice or whether or not decisions made were based on a fair and ethical basis. But having a conscious does no translate into an immortal soul.
However. Socrates was convinced that, in addition to our physical
bodies, each person possesses an immortal soul that survives beyond the death
of the body. But he was also concerned that the so-called “logos” lives on in
terms of his wisdom after our death. Logos is the divine reason implicit in the
cosmos, giving it form and meaning.
But such ideas were of interest to
St Paul who merged Greek rationalism with Hebrew mysticism which is less
emphatic as to the nature of the soul.
Experiences and feelings underpin
ideas of the soul
There is a wealth of information in the Biblical stories which leaps of faith, occasioned by miraculous occurrences. They are of course just stories that introduce the idea of irony and aim to make sense of the word then.
But in the end the Jewish religion boils down to a belief we are more than our bodies and that a dimension of
consciousness, soul, survives death eternally. The fact that it is more clearly
defined in Christian versus Jewish doctrines is an interesting fact that
doesn’t detract from the overall consensus by either that the soul survives death.
That sums it up for the Abrahamic
religions of the world- Judaism, Islam and Christianity who share many of the
OT stories which try to make sense of the world when they were closer to
everyday existential challenges than we are today. Abraham for instance started
out believing in many GODs before settling on just the one which became the
catalyst for the three religions today, no doubt influenced by the events of
that time and the feelings that arose as a consequence.
Hence I think the evolutionary
effect in biology points to particular feelings one has more so than an actual
fear of death.
Fear of death arose as a
consequence of materialism more as a modern day phenomena presented as an
underlying quest for immortality. But that’s not to say there was fear of
GODS and various forms of sacrifice (including human )offered in early periods. Add to that
religion used for political purposes to gain power and brainwash youth to
become terrorist suicide bombers.
The duality concept – body and soul
Augustine
The idea of this duality of a
separate soul to the body was talked about in the meditations of St Augustine
(354 - 430) and further complemented much later on by Thomas Aquinas, but with
a twist. He is regarded as the father of religious philosophy by the Catholic
Church.
Aquinas invigorated the philosophy of Aristotle which had been
abandoned during the so-called dark ages but taken up by a more enlightened
Islam before retreating to fundamentalism.
Aquinas believed the question
relating to the immortal soul within the body to be an insoluble nonsensical
philosophical question. He turned the question around by arguing it was the
body that was the nature of the soul and not the soul for the body. Therein
that part of the body as represented by its intellectual soul is an
incorruptible form.
Further philosophical views.
Spinoza
The idea of substance talked about
by Spinoza was to captivate Einstein who saw the energized source and immortal
soul as a natural corollary as to how energy passes front one state to another
in accord with the laws of the universe.
Descartes also thought the body and soul are interacting entities
with different attributes.
Immanuel Kant, as a scientist, took a different route maintaining the
categorical imperatives, which gave us our ethical views must come from GOD
otherwise where else could they rationally arise. According to Kant there
is a moral necessity to believe in an immortal soul as it underpins enriching
cognitive experiences that give impetus to obtaining the greater good and to
guard against scepticism.
Kierkegaard on the other hand, regarded as the father of the
existential movement, begins his synthesis in support of the immortal soul with
a series of rhetorical questions. The crux of his existential philosophy begins
with the inescapable idea of a self which is spiritual in nature and which
invites a leap of faith to ensure meaning to existence. His synthesis is of
body and soul suggesting eternal things connected to the soul combined with
everyday necessities must be lived in a balanced manner.
First Nations Views
Turning to the Australian
Aboriginal society in search of their ideas on a soul we find the idea of the
land and existence as all form one circular cosmic soul which is introduced
continually via the dreaming.
The land and all there is as a
result of the creator spirits who seeded authority to humans once sufficient
knowledge was acquired to tend and nourish Mother Earth.
This is achieved by predestined
laws dependent on what side of the Moëty one is born to be either
hunter/gatherers or conservationists charged with ecological responsibility.
The responsibilities are defined by
totems that vary between nations with one chosen by the elders who demonstrates
a charisma in respect to one of the totems. The totems designate what animals
and landmarks can only be hunted in different areas are the responsibilities
within nations.
Conclusion
As the author notes, the idea of an
immortal soul as part of the human psyche is going to stay with us. But the
idea of a soul as integral to our psycho /spiritual existence has undergone a
minor renaissance in academia in more recent times. For we are more than just
flesh and bones.
Questions
· Are such matters best left alone as mysteries?
· What do we think about the initial article on souls?
· Is it preferable to talk about mind and consciousness
and what do we think about the possibilities that make up the human psyche?
· What do we think of the idea.., if death can
be the end of me as a finite individual mind, it does not mean it will be the
end of me altogether. It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere
by-product of matter ……,it seems to me quite probable that (my mind) will lose
its limitations and be merged with an infinite mind ………?
· Does the article provide any food for thought or
quantifiable existential challenges to a belief in the soul /afterlife?
· Do you agree with the idea of being stuck with a soul or
do you have an alternative view as per below:
· Could personal patterns of thoughts as in souls live on
just as the works of those before us in their writings live on afresh in each
generation and transfer in intergenerational memory?
· What do we think about the idea that death is the
ripened fruit into a new form as proposed by Heidegger?
· Can consciousness be ultimately from a primordial source
that remains a mystery?
· Having rid ourselves of the illusion of time, can that
free us from the fear of death as Einstein nonchalantly dismisses its relevance
as his letter to his friend?
· How would you describe a human being in relation to
their soul assuming you believe in the existence of an immortal
soul? E.g. are we spiritual beings with a soul residing in a physical body?
· What message do you think the author aims to
convey?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)