DEAR RICHARD AND JUD:
Gary:
Can // God // be de-institutionalized? Yes. But outright denial of God's existence, aimed at de-institutionalizing // God //, has most often resulted in a reverse theology of dedicated and emotionally committed atheism. In other words, a theology as anti-theology.
Richard: previously
Gary, I respectfully disagree, to some extent. The atheist (the authentic atheist, of which I am one) does not erect his own institution of disbelief in contradistinction to a different belief . . .
GCM: How do you define // authentic atheist // ? Anytime you assert a positive methodology establishing authenticity, that is, there is no logical evidence there is a God, you assert a statement about a positive state of affairs, that is, reality, a reality that does not need God. But to talk about // reality // is to talk about a WHOLE and assumes a metaphysical outlook.
Richard:
You may be right – but then everything one opines might be considered metaphysical in some sense – right?
GCM: Both Kant and Heidegger say human beings, and I mean ALL human beings, metaphysicalize, that is, dream up a system to fits the meagre facts they know. There are two aspects to this. Both see it as a negative quality and as a positive quality. Positive as in a scientific-like theory that may experimentally account for future facts. Negatively, as such a structure is TOTALLY groundless. Heidegger sees it as a part of human nature, the complete projection of of all of a human's being structurally committed as a whole into the future.
Unfortunately, Heidegger abuses this as a positive affirmation, that is, as an undeniable structural part of human nature, it must say something necessarily true about . . . being, Sein. Kant does note the same points, though not at all emphasizing time, but he never looses sight of the fact that, though they can be useful, they are necessarily SUBJECT TO sense experience just like a scientific experiment -- and that, without all that, such metaphysical systems like Hegel's (however otherwise useful and Hegel's system is definitely useful . . . to a Karl Marx) are just dream castles, intellectual day dreaming, philosophical fantasyland, AND THEREFORE ANY PHILOSOPHY THAT SUBLIMINALLY PRESENTS INSELF IN OTHER TERMS THAT ARE STILL INHERENTLY METAPHYSICAL IS FRAUDULENT. James' remark that Kant's philosophy is "course" just has to be totally ironic!
Then what does that leave for a definition of philosophy that is legitimate? Actually . . . to be honest . . . nothing. If metaphysics is a child's daydreaming, then philosophy is merely a child's toy. There is no // whole // . There are only things. Abstractions, however useful as William James so excellently portrays them, still do not exist -- and, at least in THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE he yet does not deny this. The facts of the matter are . . . philosophy is bunk. Marx is perfectly right. You can find a logically consistent explanation of every aspect of human behavior in economics. But if anyone is going to dispute this, then they need to have a conceptually correct and self-consistent notion of what economics FUNDAMENTALLY is -- as Hegel himself would consider it! Now I need to go and get out Georg Lukacs THE YOUNG HEGEL and look at it again.
RICHARD: To me, the authentic atheist is simply one for whom any question regarding something called “God” is unanswerable and therefore should/must be ignored.
GCM: Then why do you need the lable? If it is a methodological process (possibly the best thing out of Heidegger), it is something you do, act with as a tool. After all, God could still one day reveal herself, and she is not at all what we thought she was. It is all part and parcel of the theological argument, Can you conceive of something greater than your own existence? Of course you can? And once more, you well know there are great things in the universe that you know absolutely nothing about. BUT WHAT IS THE KEY HERE? Experience. Real direct unquestionable experience. Talking about definitions and logic does not hold a candle to real experience. And I certainly have not experienced everything possible in the universe. Anything is possible, but to use that as a positive argument for the real existence of a specific object is really, really stupid. Possibility is nothing, absolutely nothing. This is something once again is fundamental in Heidegger but the Heideggerians have not at all confronted in its obvious plain sense, the only one it can have. Possibility is nothing, therefore it is nothing that we live for. Does that deny one should not pursue one's possibilities? Again, that is stupid if for no other reason it is part of human nature. But it must be faced up to what it literally means -- metaphysics, philosophy, theology, can offer one absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever. They are just dream castles in themselves and only have value IF THEY HAVE A USE VALUE!!!!!
RICHARD: Yes, certainly on the grounds of empirical evidence, since that’s all one has to make decisions about “reality.” And, by that I mean the real provable existence of something. But in taking this position, I see no reason to call it an institution of disbelief – certainly one that might be termed religious in its own right.
GCM: I would counter with the CPSU and Ayn Rand's Objectivists.
Richard: Why would an atheist wish to study religious experience? I suppose you could counter by asking why a doctor, who suffers no disease would be interested in studying diseases?
GCM: No, it is a real and convincing experience . . . but ONLY insofar as it actually happened. That is why James has SO much trouble trying to define // religious //. It is what it is attached to and justifies is what you really want to condemn. For instance, the Supreme Soviet member who, in 1936, had a revelation of Stalin's divine essence. Did she have an experience? Yes. Did it necessarily -- mean -- what she said it meant?
There is a Kashmiri Shaivist Monist philosopher by the name of Abhinavagupta (circa 1050 AD) who started out studying the accepted study of religion. Growing disatified, he changed over to straight philosophy. Growing disatisfied once again, he changed over to aesthetics, essentially the emotional impact of drama. He considered the ecstatic experience of the finest poetry of drama to be far superior to the greatest experience of Brahman by any Yogi whatsoever. I think he had his priorities straight.
Experience is what we are really wanting to study. If you begin really focusing on JUST that, disgarding all the attachments it is suppose to justify, you find experience to be a very mysterious thing indeed. David Hume certainly did as he described in A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE. He called himself a "philosophical theist" in spite of the fact that all his french philosoph atheistic friends laughed at him for that. But the term, in THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION, does two things. One, being philosophical, it utterly reduces the concept of God to total triviality as actually effective in human affairs. But, on the other hand, the human being trying to conceive God, like Kant and metaphysics, greatly enlarges the imaginative span of the human materialist mind.
RICHARD: The difference of course is that diseases do happen, while for the atheist, “religious experiences” are merely phantoms – personal phantoms, that do not relate to empirically establishable reality –
GCM: Actually, this puts the problem quite well. They happen, but, as experiences per se, they do not // relate // . After all, they are not ideas, not words (though maybe USING words as a medium), and therefore, AS EXPERIENCE per se, have nothing to // relate // with, and therefore, in themselves, have no real theological or philosophical connotation.
RICHARD: rather like flying saucers. I think this is why Michael Gazzinga, a neuroscientist, claims that psychology, as a science, is dead. There is no there there to study – only matter, energy etc. I know there is far more to this subject than I have indicated.
GCM: OK, you have my total and undivided attention -- Who is Michael Gazzinga?
JUD (member of the Committe of Public Safety):
If I might be allowed to elaborate slightly on my position regarding the
lack of belief in that which doesn't exist. There are so many historical and
current beliefs available that are on display in the "Marketplace of
Disbelieve," it is sometimes difficult to choose those to be singled out for serious
attention.
How does one make one's choice of things in which not to believe from
amongst such rich variety of putative non-existent objectifications of belief?
The modern nominalist is pampered and spoilt for choice in selecting:
"stupid beliefs not to be believed in" from amongst the stupidities of belief in
the non-existent nowadays. He finds himself rather like being in the position
of a consumer in a capitalist society faced with the task of choosing the
correct brand of toilet-brush NOT to buy.
GCM: "The purpose of philosophy is not to understand the world but to change it." THESES ON FEUERBACH
JUD (colleague of Robbespierre): For my own part the rule of thumb I employ is to single out those instances
of belief/faith which I consider to do the most damage to humanity and the
world it occupies and concentrate on those.
Virtually harmless beliefs such as: "If you put a penny in the oven the
night before an exam — you will pass it the next day," or "it is bad luck to walk
under a ladder," etc., whilst reflecting the more general tendency for the
uneducated to rely on certain rituals to be effective in the achievement of
human goals, are not to be classified as constituting a dangerous threat to
mankind. However, the belief that one set of the faithful in the non-existent
are infidels, and should be either converted to a variant faith in the
existence of that which doesn't exist — or killed, is highly hazardous for mankind.
Nor is the "walking under a ladder myth" as dangerous as the belief that
the President of the United States of America is an instrument of God, which
means that American foreign policy and the programme regarding the erosion of
welfare systems is the will of the Almighty, and therefore the Republican
Party is the truth incarnate.
I have decided that the most dangerous belief in something that doesn't
exist in the scale of these theological aberrations is the belief in the
existence of God together with its corollary the belief in the "existence of
existence," which in Heideggerian terms is known as the faith in the actuality
"Being." Both these beliefs are in my opinion the reason for most of humanity's
unhappiness, for the death of countless millions, for the delay in the
achievement of a human happiness based upon true brotherly love, for the failure of a
successful eradication of war, and for a fosterage of globally recognised
respect for human dignity in spite of race or social position.
Examined or approached this way, my original nominalistically inspired
rejections of Godism/Beingism have spilled over into the realm of politics, for if
the beliefs in the non-existents of "God" and 'Being" have such morbid and
highly effective deleterious political effects, then it stands to reason that
only political action can eliminate or mitigate these evils. What does this
Anti-Religion/Anti-Transcendentalist political action involve? I leave that
question open for discussion if anyone is interested in addressing it.
The establishment of the highly organised: "Brights Movement" in USA is
encouraging, although I have not taken a serious look at it yet, for although
there are undoubtedly large numbers of atheists around, [particualrly in the
United Kingdom] they have never organised themselves as a viable or effective
political grouping before. There have been [and still are] "Secular
Societies," and "Humanistic Societies", but they are more "talking shops" and mutual
"shoulder to cry on" societies rather than tight-knit political organisations
with electoral clout.
Gary's claim that a dedicated and emotionally committed atheism results in a
"reverse theology," or in other words, a theology as anti-theology is wrong
on two counts.
(1)
An emotionally committed atheism is more of a political stance, in that the
opposition is not PRIMARILY against the belief in the existence of that which
does not exist, but THE SOCIAL and POLITICAL EFFECTS of such a belief in the
existence of that which doesn't exist. Therefore atheism can be
characterised as: "the political/social response motivated as a reaction to the
political/social effects of a belief in the existence of that which doesn't exist.
GEORGES JACQUES DANTON: As pure practical political action countering the deliterious effects of PUBLIC religion there is no need for a metaphysical structure to appeal to as // reality // in order to justify one's actions. One can see in practical everyday relations among ordinary human beings that giving power, authority, money, and land to an ENTHUSIASTIC (as people of Hume's time would use it) religious movement is dead set against basic human self-interest, in order words, it stupid. One points out the actual, practical effects of doing such a thing and, hopefully, the common person with common sense says, "Oh. That's not what I want at all!" The whole issue is dropped and forgotten. No enduring organization or philosophical system is needed to keep up the fight in the absence of a fight. This is what the CPSU (past tense) and Ayn Rand's Objectivists (present tense) did and still do. They have the philosophical and systematic political programs in place and active. I don't think that is what you mean. Bullying some poor old man because he prays, as I've seen happen, is not just pointless but cruel. However, I still think prayer is, at best, just an evasion of present problems which, however, that / poor old man / is physically and mentally unable to do anything about. This is a person who made his choices in the past and now has to pay the consequences, that is, the only /spiritual / reserves he has is prayer instead of anger. Prayer does not get other people to change things. Anger does.
I have often thought about, What was the real purpose of THE COMMUNIST MANEFESTO? As a philosophical statement, parts of it can be reduced to stupidity in short order and Marx was never stupid. What, then, does it do? It gets old men angry, and they start slapping around young men because all they do is sit on their dead asses and do nothing, even the tiniest actual thing, to change the world. They don't even care to understand it, as is obvious. It also made a microscopic political group of no political importance magnify immensely to theological importance in the eyes of institutionalized establishments. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY CREATED THE COMMUNIST PARTY! This is a wonderful example of Marx's manipulation of dialectical materialism. He makes a very stinky mole hill that // the better people // are thoroughly offended by and thereby make into a terrifying, exploding volcanic mountain. Marx was a real smart ass. Without their theology, and Hegel's philsophy, he could not have written DAS KAPITAL.
That is something I find more and more thoroughly amzing. Marx is not proposing a positive and original philosophy of his own. It is deliberately parasitic upon the realistic scientific explorations of his supposed opponents. He is not an opponent of laissez-faire capitalism in the slightest . . . historically. What he says is, Adam Smith and David Ricardo did not fully work out the actual practice and its real effects of the materialist economics they both thoroughly believed in. In other words, if all three had been alive and in one room, without political preconceptions, and simply talking about economics, none of them would have found anything fundamental to disagree about. Smith and Marx emphasize labor as the ground of all value whereas Ricardo emphasizes land. But none of the three would have denied that any of the others had a substantial point to make that must be logically dealt with. All three would have vehemately objected to the hypertheoretical money theory now dominating the world as Hume did when Walpole was Prime Minister. I still say Hume is the real key to all of these thinkers including Heidegger. Without understanding Hume thoroughly, chronologically, with all his publically presented subtlties, none of these people can really be understood.
On the point of religion, it is interesting to note the / believer / Adam Smith had as his best friend David Hume who, according to Boswell, said something like, "Scratch a religious person and you will find a scoundrel." But the ONLY objections Smith EVER made to Hume about what was for practical purposes atheism was that he not make his real religious views public (he objected to the publication of THE DIALOGUES ON RELIGION after Hume's death). That was the only problem they ever had between them, and obviously Hume did not think Smith was a scoundrel. Nor did Marx.
(2)
A dedicated and emotionally committed atheism cannot result in a reverse
theology, because "theology" is the rational and systematic study of religion
and its influences. The study of the nature of religion and notions of
religious truth is NOT a belief system in itself, [although the practising
theologian may or may not believe in a Godhead.] In a similar way, [and as a part
answer to Rene and Michael] a rejection of the notions of "Being" by an
nominalistic ontologist does not presuppose the establishment of a philosophy of
"Anti-Being," for as neither "God" or "Being" exist — there is nothing to be
against — there is only the malign social and political effects of such
beliefs to oppose, and these philosophical/political/social oppositions and
protests are manifested in the social and political domain rather than as purely a
Philosophy of Opposition.
"Dedicated and committed . . . but to nothing in particular'
Gary C. Moore
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---