The Early Days of a Better Nation |
Ken MacLeod's comments. “If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.”—Graydon Saunders Contact: kenneth dot m dot macleod at gmail dot com Blog-related emails may be quoted unless you ask otherwise.
Emergency Links
LINKS
Self-promotion
The Human Genre Project
Comrades and friends
Colleagues
Genomics
Edinburgh
Writers Blog
Editor Blogs
Publisher Blogs
Brother Blogs
Skiffy
Brits Blog
' ... a treeless, flowerless land, formed out of the refuse of the Universe, and inhabited by the very bastards of Creation'
Amazing Things
Faith
Reason
Evolution
War and Revolution
Mutualist Militants
Democratic Socialists
Impossibilists and Ilk
Viva La Quarta
Communist Parties
Other revolutionaries
Radical Resources
Readable Reds
For the sake of the argument
|
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality.Engels describes this as a realization to which Feuerbach (a German philosopher who greatly influenced Marx and Engels while they were working out their own ideas) was 'driven', but he plainly agrees with it. Engels was, of course, well aware that some aspects of the world are 'sensuously perceptible' only indirectly, through instruments and what have you, and he would have been far more delighted than surprised if he could have seen such instruments as the Hubble Telescope and the Large Hadron Collider. Numbers, logical categories and other abstractions he regarded as 'reflections' of the same material world, produced by the activity of the material brain: our consciousness and thinking, he goes on to say, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. So we know what Engels had in mind when he talked about reality: the reality we inhabit. This, he says, is the only reality. Now, you may ask how he (or Feurbach) knew this. But the question that occurred to me as a result of Engels's confident statement was this: where did the idea come from that there could be another reality? I'm fairly sure that for the Greeks and Hebrews - or at least, for Homer and the Bible - everything is part of the same reality. The gods really do live on Olympus. God really is in heaven. And heaven really is up there in the sky, as celestial as the stars. Sheol or Hades really is down below, as material as magma. Spirit really is breath. Spirits (ghosts and gods and so on) are sometimes visible, usually invisible. But so is water vapour. So where did the idea of a reality outside 'our' reality (but not outside in space, outside in some unknowable way) come from? Did it all come from Plato and some muddle along the lines of: because we can understand numbers, where the numbers live is where we go when we die? 41 Comments:I think you're confusing yourself unnecessarily. I'm sure the Greeks did think in terms of a division between the gods' realm and humanity's - if they hadn't it would make little sense to think of the gods as gods. It's just that they didn't label the zones on either side of the divide as "realities". Rephrase Engels's insight in terms of realms, zones or levels and the mystery disappears - "we know that there are no higher levels occupied by powers capable of determining human existence, there is only human action and material available to it".
@Phil "I'm sure the Greeks did think in terms of a division between the gods' realm and humanity's - if they hadn't it would make little sense to think of the gods as gods"
Actually, three things are being confused here. 1.Non-Material souls. 2. Abstract entities, especially lines and numbers. 3. Unobservable physical entities like atoms. Thanks Jack. I meant to mention Plotinus but forgot. I don't know the history well enough. I hear that Plotinus was a major influence on the first Christian thinkers.
I may write a fuller response later, but I just wanted to make a few quick comments, especially since Plato has been brought up, and the discussion seems to be drifting towards the Greeks, instead of staying within the context of Nineteenth Century German philosophy, which is where the real answers will probably be found.
What J.R. said.
JR's "why people suddenly took to the notions of the immortal soul and monotheism. I am puzzled by that one myself,"
Thanks everyone, for fleshing things out. All I know about those cults is that they are said to have influenced Plato on the soul. That is why I used the word "codified," which is pretty non-specific.
George - the only reason I mentioned abstractions and not-directly-observable entities was to head off possible quibbles about what was included in 'the material, sensuously perceptible world'. However we account for these, they are definitely part of the reality 'to which we ourselves belong'. I agree Ken. Although I mentioned Plato I was never a Platonist in philosophy. I've been telling people for years that we cannot have any decent epistemology without a correct account of mathematical knowledge. And we cannot get that without figuring out why maths are so good at describing the world. Sure, in some sense these abstractions must be in the world. But that world ought not to have a duplicate in some Platonic purely abstract world. By my lights then, one must go deeper, and describe how the one world can have a mathematical structure, with no recourse to Platonism. As I understand the present state-of-play, nobody has a decent answer although (thank goodness) very few are Platonists.
PS. Along with one's epistemology one ought (see above) to have a decent ontology of matter, one that accounts for the applicability of maths in a naturalistic fashion. Historically, the West studied three paths (after rightfully dismissing two-world Platonism). 1. There's Scotus' idea that "forms" are somehow "in things" but can be studied as if they were separate. One then gets geometry and measurement. 2. One can find Scotism incomprehensible and simply deny the existence of abstractions. That's Ockham and others' nominalism, a theory that only concreta exist and that terms for abstractions are at best descriptive aids. 3. There's irrationalism, where one shrugs one's shoulders and claims that only God has insight into such things. and of course for a Platonist romp of a platonic romance one would suggest Neal Stephenson's Anathem
George, Not to dumb down a great conversation, but just wanted to ask if you had seen Inception Ken and that is where this is what promted this post? Good catch. I saw Inception on 2 August. I was already pondering Engels's point but seeing the film may have prompted the post.
Re Snell:
@Jack Thanks for telling me that Plotinus had a great influence on other religions than Christianity, and that his influence on Christian thought was greater than I had thought.
well, I read Anathem more as a parody of Plato than a defense...
I have not yet read Snell, though he has been on my reading list for awhile.
3- Multiverianism
J.R. - Thanks for that interesting classification. I do think this idea goes back much further than Plato. The Raven's comment on dreams is a huge part of it. Also the idea of the possession is another part of it. There is an argument to be made that the oldest type of Gods were disembodied spirits that acted by possessing people, animals, storms and so on. (different from animism that the stones always had intelligence.) Certain religions such as Voudoun, Voodoo, Santeria and so forth believe this today. But a lot of Greek stories about "so and so being the son of a god who coupled with his mother in disguise as her husband" sounds suspiciously like possession. A lot of the mystery cults may have just been hearkening back to that old time religion! Their adherents certainly thought so, though new religions almost always do claim to be revivals rather than inventions. At any rate, possession requires disembodied spirits. That in turn implies (though does not require) another realm outside the ordinary world. So though Ken is just making a point about weirdness, the question of how it came about has a certain interest. While Raven's point about dreams may be the key one, I suspect the link to the very old idea of possession should not be ignored either. It's very plausible that the first notion of a soul separate from the body comes from dreams. (Engels thought so and says so in this essay.) The notion of possession is also based on real experiences of dissociation brought about by dancing, hyperventilation, drugs, naturally occurring psychoses etc. But I don't think these notions require belief in another reality, just in some usually invisible components of the world. Combine all that with an over-sensitive agent-detection capacity of the human mind and you have that old time religion up and running.
Possession does not provide, in itself, for the idea of a supernatural world.
Re: Snell - you might consider as an alternative, currently in print, Eric Havelock's _Preface to Plato_. Note also that *individual* passages from _the Odyssey_ may not prove much about pre-Homeric thought, as the editorial homogeneity of that text is in some dispute.
Meika: You have successfully convinced me to move Snell a few notches up on my reading list. I also second Laufeysson's recommendation of Havelock.
What are "possible worlds" and models based on them if not an example of the kind of absurd unreality that Ken was wondering how people ever got comfortable with the idea of? Using them without caveats in this context could almost be considered begging the question.
Possible worlds are harmless, so long as they remain just that--possible. People think counterfactually, and I tend to view possible worlds talk as just a picturesque way of bringing out certain features of that ability.
Laufeysson: I should probably mention that my digression on possible worlds was me just trying (and failing) to make sense of your talk about something being logically necessary in one world, not an attempt to further complicate the discussion needlessly.
Gentlefolk, this might be less relevant than it appeared to me, but...
Also, It should be pointed out, from conversations I've had with Jehovah Witnesses at the front door, that not all Christians believe in a supernatural world, and that's why they don't like blood transfusions or cremations where there are no bones to physically resurrect.
J. R. asks: I am wondering would count as belief in another world as far as you are concerned. After all, one person's “other world” is another person's “region of this world.”
I think the distinction is rooted in the same sort of tactic as 'pie in the sky' and the 'God of the gaps'. That is, religions that originally claimed to improve one's life in the only real world got to be in the position of this being patently false. As for Judaism, which I know better, we got by for awhile with 'bad things happen in this world to the extent that we have not lived up to the Covenant, and the Nations have power over us to that extent as instruments of the Higher Will', but even we eventually succumbed to the idea of there being a different world that worked according to the Rules. It seems to me that the distinction comes as soon as people realised that the ephemeral spirits were not in fact real but of their own creation. Then as now most could not face reality and created whatever dogma they felt necessary to justify their denial.
|
I suggest this classic be read closely and the impetus to hive off the supernatural from reality will make more sense, (how it then takes off generating its own cultural life, and dare one say, alternate reality.)
I suspect its a compromise generated intersubjectively by a culture admiring Greek thought while religiously ignoring a lot of it's implications, (cognitive dissonance?) and so the spirit world is proposed and accepted in a reserve system, at first like a celtic twilight and later like an inquisitor's dungeon. Plato's cave recreated as a cultural artifact like Eurodisney or that creationist museum.
Snell, Bruno 1953 The Discovery of the Mind in Greek Philosophy and Literature, New York: Dover.
I blogged on the once-off about this book in an Australian context at Dancing with customary law.
All weirdness comes from culture.
By meika, at Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:56:00 pm