Pleasure vs. Truth

[Nick_A]

Jacob Neecdleman in his book: "Lost Christianity" raises the following question:

......Of course it had been stupid of me to express it in quite that way, but nevertheless the point was worth pondering: does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure? The history of religion in the west seems by and large to rest on the assumption that the answer is no. Therefore, externally induced emotions of egoistic fear (hellfire), anticipation of pleasure (heaven), vengeance, etc., have been marshaled to keep people in the faith.

The whole notion of sainthood, both in the East and in the West, has contributed to this notion. The saint is often presented as though he were a being with an unnaturally strong impulse towards truth. The picture of the saint's sacrifices and asceticism are so presented as to assure the rest of us that what he attained is impossible for us. This of course, easily supports human passivity and wishful thinking, for at the same time that one is endowing the saint with an unnaturally strong impulse toward truth one might as well endow him, in the bargain, with a miraculous power to help the seeker without the latter making any real efforts of inner questioning and search.

does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?

In these times of technology that serve to make us more comfortable, do they also deny us an objective search for truth? Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Do we deny this love of wisdom, the experience of this highest level of truth, in favor of pleasure. Is there any way that desires for truth and pleasure can simultaneously exist free of imagination?

What do you think?

[Nick_A]

Bernee is right in that I believe divine love permeates the universe and would continue if the earth were destroyed. Divine love is an aspect of grace that is the attractive power of evolution. It is the light that life evolves towards.

The "Prove Love Exists" thread is to raise questions.

"He who believes in nothing still needs a girl to believe in him."
Rosenstock-Huessy

This raises an interesting question about atheism and the denial of a higher reality than ours that seems to call so many. Does the demand for proof and its denials at times really also reflect a desire to believe?

When I read these startling quotes from Simone who was an atheist I said to myself: why not? It surely makes more sense than other nonsense I've read regarding atheism.

In order to obey God, one must receive his commands.
How did it happen that I received them in adolescence, while I was professing atheism?
To believe that the desire for good is always fulfilled--that is faith, and whoever has it is not an atheist.
- Simone Weil, First and last notebooks (last notebook 1942)
(Oxford University Press 1970) p 137

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

Actually I'd like to leave the source of these since the page includes some of her insights into atheism. For any students reading this thread and who will be doing papers regarding religion and atheism, she is a vital source. It is hard to find such depth and sincerity

http://www.darkfiber.com/atheisms/athei ... eweil.html

It dawned on me that we have come to accept intellectual quality. We know that there are great chess players and bad chess players. We know there are skilled mathematicians and those that are not. There is an accepted difference in quality. For some reason we don't appreciate emotional quality especially with the sacred emotions of faith hope, and love. We don't appreciate their relative quality as we do with the intellect. Love is just love, faith is just faith, and hope is just hope. We wouldn't say chess is just chess. There is a world of difference between me and kasparov.

I was curious if one of the atheists that defends the power of the intellect would introduce relative emotional intelligence to prove what is necessary to love: learn how to love before one can prove love. We don't know what this means. Yet I'm convinced that such practice opens a person to a quality of reality the intellect by itself is incapable of appreciating.

A lot of the resistance IMO to pondering greater truths is because of bad experiences with perverted degenerations of a greater reality. It is the corruption of eros.

QED remarks that it is naive to ponder truth that hasn't been defined. Yet tell that to the fourteen year old Simone. Where most fourteen year old girl now are concerned with image, U-tube, and MTV, Simone NEEDS the indefinable. Her concern for her brother was natural since as brilliant as the fourteen year old Simone was, her brother Andre, three years older was already a coolege graduate and his math professors admitted that he already understood more then they did. Andre became a peer of Einstein so for Simone to be a bit in awe is understandable.

Excerpts from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

She is proof that there are a minority capable of the need for truth that pleasure is easily sacrificed for. This is a partial answer to Prof. Needleman's question

Simone writes:

I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides.

What is this truth. Does science by itself lead to it? What must we do to experience it?

All this seems tied together. A lot of atheism isn't atheism and a lot of belief is blind belief not based on experierience but the result of needing to fit in, and become a part of the collective: The Great Beast..

But Prof. Needleman's question is very important IMO. Will the human capacity for emotional intelligence develop to compliment our intellect or will it be dulled? Will the hyper life natural for technology destroy emotional quality so the growing violence you read of will get worse?

A long time ago I worked with an exercise that suggested putting an insect I was uncomfortable with into an open jar it could escape from and find how close I could come to it before my emotions kick in. At that point, try to love it.. What happens? It is a learning experience and part of self knowledge.

The ability to love, for faith and hope are relative in quality just like the ability to play chess is relative in quality.

Denial plays its part but a person must learn how to be open to our connection with external life with our emotions as well. We have a certain respect for faith which is why people on that Love thread find the idea of abandoning love in favor of science objectionable. Yet the value of faith and hope of a certain quality are not as easily understood so easily rejected.

A sea of questions here but hey, why not? It beats MTV.

[Catharsis]

>>>does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?<<<

What do you mean when you say 'pleasure'? What kind of pleasures specifically are you talking about?

[Negative Proof]

Are we even willing to distinguish truth in the face of a pleasant fantasy?

I think those unwilling to make such a distiction have no business claiming to be in pursuit of truth.

From personal example, my change in belief (I was raised a Church of Christ christian) was simultaneously a positive and negative experience. The negative aspects were my being suddenly at odds with people I loved and respected, the overwhelming feeling of "where do I go from here?", and, of course, the loss of those beliefs that I had grown up on. It's very much related to finding out later in life that one's parents are capable of doing wrong and being wrong. The positive aspects were that I felt like I was being as honest with myself as possible, was not shutting the door on anything as a possibility, and could objectively search for universal truth (or get as close as anyone can to such a thing).

I know you are an actor so do you agree or disagree with Simone's observation pertaining to literature? Has it ever been true for you?

I would say I believe it to be true for most people. Sure, what's good feels... good. However, "good" is possibly the most subjective idea that one could argue for or against. "Good" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. What is good for me may not be good for you. As such, the idea of whether or not something is "good" seems to have no place in a debate that makes any attempt at objectivity.

In regards to literature, sure, Simone makes a valid point. I tend to relate more to the Sith in the Jedi vs. Sith debate because the Sith seem more enigmatic, fun to examine, and lend themselves more to their emotions and personal perceptions than the Jedi do. It's a more fun position to take in fantasy than that of the stoic Jedi, who denies the existence of feeling and does what is percieved to be "good" based on what others tell him "good" is. I do not wish to start a Jedi - Sith debate, I'm merely using this contrast (as I see it) as an example of preferring the "evil" in fiction.

What point Simone is attempting to make is either beyond me or does not speak to the discussion, unless she is asserting that we all live in our own worlds of fiction and seek to join whatever "side" we see as the most fun. However, there is no reason to think that. I prefer to see reality as a collection of subjective experiences and perceptions that can be confirmed and contrasted by others with their own subjective experiences and perceptions to form an objective reality. Even typing that statement, I can see it needs further clarification. If I can find a better worded definition for the idea I'm getting at, I'll supply it later in a new post.

[rileystone]

This raises an interesting question about atheism and the denial of a higher reality than ours that seems to call so many. Does the demand for proof and its denials at times really also reflect a desire to believe?

I have often heard believers use such reasoning to imply that atheists who engage in discussion of such topics "really just want to believe."

Using that reasoning, however, the flip side might also be true---theists who feel the need to defend their faith and/or to engage non-theists in debate and/or discussion may just "really want to stop believing."

Personally, I don't think it's helpful, in this sort of discussion, to speculate about the motives of those who engage in such debate, regardless of the viewpoints they may represent.

[Negative Proof]

This raises an interesting question about atheism and the denial of a higher reality than ours that seems to call so many. Does the demand for proof and its denials at times really also reflect a desire to believe?

No, though this is a well-used theist claim. The only thing a demand for proof reflects is a desire for objective truth.

There are some athiests who claim that they "wish they could believe, but just can't". This inability to believe is not a denial, and should not be called such. Using the word "denial" implies knowledge and rejection of a truth. While god may be percieved as a truth for some, it clearly is not a truth for those who do not believe.

I'd like to digress a bit off topic here to address a related issue. This argument would lead many theists to argue that since their beliefs are their personal beliefs, they should be left alone by athiests. This could happen, if the inverse were possible. Religions constantly impose their beliefs on the public, whether or not everyone agrees with them. This happens not only in the form of law, but in adherence to social norms (from requiring one to "swear an oath" on the bible as a witness in court, to making abortions illegal, and even down to such things as printing "In God We Trust" on our currency). These things are fine for most theists (though inter-denominational arguments do occur), but are in stark contrast to the beliefs of an atheist. Hence the seemingly increasing number of outspoken atheists. Rather than reason this way, many on the religious side would argue that the world is becoming a more evil place, and that the end times are near. I do not think anything could be farther from the truth.

This is why no one challenges an admittedly subjective belief in a personal god who exists without a religious text. These ideas are not only inarguable, but harmless and unrestricting to society, since they make no claims of infallibility or demands for subjection to their ideals.

[rileystone]

This raises an interesting question about atheism and the denial of a higher reality than ours that seems to call so many.

I meant to add that atheists do not necessarily claim that a God or gods do not exist. The negative atheist is simply without a belief in the existence of a God or gods. Without evidence to the contrary, negative atheism is the default position.

The typical theistic statement that atheists "deny a higher reality" strikes me as a very unreasonable statement since it seems to assume that a higher reality does, in fact, exist.

Statements insisting that atheists "deny a higher reality" might be compared to statements, made by people who believe in elves, that "Christians and Muslims deny the reality of the existence of elves.

[rileystone]

The ability to love, for faith and hope are relative in quality just like the ability to play chess is relative in quality.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be implying that faith is a virtue. If you do not view faith as a virtue, you might just as well have stated that the ability to deceive, the ability to misunderstand, and the ability to dig one's head in the sand are relative in quality just like the ability to play chess is relative in quality.

Personally, I don't understand the commonly held Christian notion that faith is, in fact, a virtue. Look at Andrea Yates, for example. By biblical standards, was she mentally ill or was she simply a woman of great faith?

Mrs. Yates had faith that God spoke to her. Her faith was so "great" that she was willing to commit a horrific crime in order to demonstrate her obedience to what she believed was God's command.

In modern times, most people call that kind of "faith" insanity. However, in the Greek New Testament, Abraham was counted among those whose faith was great. Why? Because he was willing to kill his son when God asked him to do so.

If in fact we are going to characterize some people as being very qualified in their ability to "have faith" and then compare that to people who are very qualified in their ability to play chess, I think it will become necessary to look at the results of being "skilled at chess" and compare those results to being "skilled in having faith."

If the results of a specific behavior (or mindset) are not in fact, desirable, then perhaps seeking to improve the quality of that behavior (or mindset) should not be pursued, sought after, or viewed as in any way commendable.

[Nick_A]

Rileystone

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be implying that faith is a virtue. If you do not view faith as a virtue, you might just as well have stated that the ability to deceive, the ability to misunderstand, and the ability to dig one's head in the sand are relative in quality just like the ability to play chess is relative in quality.

Actually I'm being more basic. I am asserting we don't know what faith is. Before the question of virtue we must know what it is and we cannot do this without an awareness of its relative quality.

This is what the prove love thread is about. Without appreciation of love as a relative quality, we don't really know what it is.but rather are guided by preconceptions related to our experiences. It is easier to feel the value of love since it is part of our animal nature so people are not so quick to reject it.

If the results of a specific behavior (or mindset) are not in fact, desirable, then perhaps seeking to improve the quality of that behavior (or mindset) should not be pursued, sought after, or viewed as in any way commendable.

Who defines what is desirable? Simone Weil's mind was the antithesis of group think and why she was so sensitive to its debilitating nature as the "Great Beast" on human "being." Naturally, as brilliant an individual as she was, she was hated by the universities she studied in which functioned by group think. For example upon graduation, the Director of Career Placement, Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote:

"We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again"

She was a pain in the ass. Her older brother Andre who was himself a genius, appreciated his sister's brilliance and wrote with affection:

It will now be I think 23 years that you made your entry into the phenomenal world to create the greatest pain in the ass for rectors and school directors

Yet Albert Camus came to regard her as "the only great mind of our times."

Which definition of desirable do we accept?

[Nick_A]

N P

No, though this is a well-used theist claim. The only thing a demand for proof reflects is a desire for objective truth.

Here I must disagree. The demand for scientific proof in relation to the study of "being" denies the nature of proof which is experiential. Objective truth is experiential. it is not acquired through intellect alone that separates one from the experience through theory. Where theory can provide questions, objective truth in relation to theory can only come through the awakened experience of the heart as it stimulates consciousness. Only the integrated experience of mind, body, and spirit, can allow for the experience of objective truth. Accepting the artificially stunted growth of our hearts and sensory experiences assures the dominance of imagination regardless of theory.

"In God We Trust"

I believe that a free society can only be maintained when people as a whole within the society accept it as a valuable truth and be a little open to the experience of grace such an openness can provide.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

This is a psychological truth that I've discovered secularism including secularized religion does not want to be open to. Our egos do not allow us to admit how limited we are and why we are so vulnerable to contradiction and hypocrisy so as to end up doing the opposite of what we preach.

[Negative Proof]

For me to completely understand your previous post, I would have to ask your definition of grace.

Again, I think I just personally disagree with Simone's ideals. To me, it's someone who, while admittedly very intelligent and insightful, makes the mistake of taking their own experiences and applying them to everyone else as a philosophy. I personally see no need for grace in pursuit of justice, liberty, and equality, or in the appreciation of beauty. It works just fine without adding grace to the equation. One who claims to have grace on their side may claim a better understanding or appreciation for these ideals. Claims like these are often tied to belief in a god, which I obviously have no proof, need, or use for.

I say this in all seriousness: However, if such a belief serves to make one's life easier to get through or more enjoyable, then I would have no argument with it whatsoever. As I've stated elsewhere, it is simply when these values and beliefs are applied as truth to the society of which I am a part and am subjected to that I become opposed to such a position.

Still, I would like your definition of grace, so that I do not misinterpret you. Depending on your definition, this entire post could be irrelevant.

Well, except for this part:

I believe that a free society can only be maintained when people as a whole within the society accept it as a valuable truth and be a little open to the experience of grace such an openness can provide.

Again, the key words, in bold. I have no doubt that this is your belief. It is, however, not my belief. I am not the only person for which this is not a belief. The only purpose this serves on our currency is to make those who do believe feel good about their country, and to alienate those who do not believe. From a simply legal standpoint, this is also unconstitutional. Our government shall not endorse a diety or religion... yet it clearly does.