I feel like Bernardo is getting carried away in a scary direction

[Eugene I.]

I jest greatly. And calling Kastrup a nihilist is as absurd as calling Rumi a nihilist.

Everyone who does not agree with Ash is a nihilist.

[AshvinP]

I jest greatly. And calling Kastrup a nihilist is as absurd as calling Rumi a nihilist.

Everyone who does not agree with Ash is a nihilist.

Are TB, Shalibei, and Hedge also brainwashed and seeing nihilism in everything they disagree with?

Dana, any bets on how long a gap between the next time Eugene self-righteously "quits" and comes back again? At this point I think the over/under is at 6 hours or so.

If reality is an hallucination, where is the place of the Franklian philosophy as a solution for the crisis of meaning? This particular set of ideas of BK begins to sound as nihilism to me.

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

I know I'm not the only one noticing this, but I feel like Bernardo's focus is slowly but surely shifting from a meaning-oriented yet rational philosophy towards something that's basically nihilism in anything but name. Tbh this worries me to some extent, because I think Bernardo is a man of great intellect, who helped me understand things that I couldn't piece together by myself. I find the notion that ultimately he seems like he's arriving at a nihilistic point of view alarming.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I jest greatly. And calling Kastrup a nihilist is as absurd as calling Rumi a nihilist.

Everyone who does not agree with Ash is a nihilist.

Are TB, Shalibei, and Hedge also brainwashed and seeing nihilism in everything they disagree with?

Dana, any bets on how long a gap between the next time Eugene self-righteously "quits" and comes back again? At this point I think the over/under is at 6 hours or so.

BK just seems to be one of those for whom every silver lining he sees a dark cloud around it, but that's not necessarily nihilism. I suspect there's some unresolved karmic shadow stuff factoring into it. But I also expect he'll work through it in time, and I'm not inclined to give up faith in anyone ... not even bitchy Eugene

[AshvinP]

Everyone who does not agree with Ash is a nihilist.

Are TB, Shalibei, and Hedge also brainwashed and seeing nihilism in everything they disagree with?

Dana, any bets on how long a gap between the next time Eugene self-righteously "quits" and comes back again? At this point I think the over/under is at 6 hours or so.

BK just seems to be one of those for whom every silver lining he sees a dark cloud around it, but that's not necessarily nihilism. I suspect there's some unresolved karmic shadow stuff factoring into it. But I also expect he'll work through it in time, and I'm not inclined to give up faith in anyone ... not even bitchy Eugene

I hope it's clear that my position here is not that BK, as a singular individual, has chosen to become nihilistic. The entire culture has become nihilistic. In so far as we are embedded within Western culture, we are nihilistic by default as well. We rarely perceive how often we engage in self-destructive behavior; how often we sabatoge our own opportunities for spiritual growth and evolution. We even sabatoge our opportunities for physical health in many ways. We procrastinate, idolize, rationalize bad habits, etc. out of pure instinct. The few times we stop to reflect and observe this self-sabatoge, we create ad hoc rational narratives to excuse the habits, often finding blame in other people or groups. The fact is, this ever-more abstracted and projective thinking must occur when it is detached from the wellspring of Reason and higher Imagination. And that abstracted thinking always leads to a wider chasm between human pursuits and Divine meaning. BK is not an exception to the rule here, but rather the inevitable consequence of this abstracting tendency. We feel that we are all rationally choosing our paths and philosophical worldviews, and then when I say, "BK's latest article is nihilistic", it is assumed I am attacking BK as an individual. I have seen this pattern of thinking too often now to know there is nothing individual about this. It's the exact opposite - the individual is possessed by archetypal forces of the modern Zeitgeist. These arguments are not original or new. Dostoevsky perceived this aspect of the human psyche 150 years ago and plenty of others have since then. Actually even Schopenhauer perceived it to a certain extent. It's really beyond dispute that this is how the rational intellect functions in the face of its own shortcomings. The question is whether we are going to hold this only as intellectual theory, i.e. abstract even more away from its reality, or start taking it more seriously as a concrete trend of modern life.


"And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), maybe by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point!"

- Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from the Underground

[Lou Gold]

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

The key for me, given my activist nature, is that whether meaning is discovered or created, to realize it one must participate.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Who is the one that now knows Who I am, as opposed to the very same one that was once otherwise under the spell of not knowing? Dispel this spell dear Ones. Who else will?

[Shaibei]

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

The key for me, given my activist nature, is that whether meaning is discovered or created, to realize it one must participate.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to participate, especially when the discussions are so long. I pop in here from time to time to read.

As you know my position does not quite meet the definition of idealism. That is, I tend to identify with the notion about the existence of ideas or the central role of the will. But in my opinion without God there is no scale for truth. The idealist is lost within his own consciousness. To complete what reason cannot prove one needs faith. Faith is always there. Philosophically it's there. To believe that others have an inner life, the idealist uses an analogy, and that is not absolute proof. Some call it intuition. When it comes to metaphysics, faith and intuition are present. Even if you refuse to recognize them.

[Shaibei]

Frankl's position is that meaning imposes responsibility by requiring man to transcend himself. It is difficult for an idealist of a certain kind to do this because he believes he is creating meanings. For his consciousness is the greatest development to which reality has reached. Frankl's thinking was therefore successful among believers, by virtue of the responsibility imposed by faith. Not the faith in the multiplicity of spiritual beings, but of one God, the source of reality.

[AshvinP]

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

The key for me, given my activist nature, is that whether meaning is discovered or created, to realize it one must participate.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to participate, especially when the discussions are so long. I pop in here from time to time to read.

As you know my position does not quite meet the definition of idealism. That is, I tend to identify with the notion about the existence of ideas or the central role of the will. But in my opinion without God there is no scale for truth. The idealist is lost within his own consciousness. To complete what reason cannot prove one needs faith. Faith is always there. Philosophically it's there. To believe that others have an inner life, the idealist uses an analogy, and that is not absolute proof. Some call it intuition. When it comes to metaphysics, faith and intuition are present. Even if you refuse to recognize them.

Shaibei,

Can there also be a faith that God has the capacity to reveal higher truth to us, beyond feelings of connection with him or sporadic visions of higher worlds?

It seems to me, when I observe the vast and beautiful order of Cosmos and Nature, with its hierarchical depth structure, contemplating this instills a faith that this order also lives within me and can be revealed through me. To reject this capacity with only abstract philosophical or theological propositions, I think, is to impose a limitation on God which is not in keeping with His nature, as revealed in the books of scripture and nature, the meaning of which is discerned by my own Reason.

[Lou Gold]

Frankl believed a space of meaning and values exists. When I listen to Bernardo I hear Nietzsche. Frankl likes to quote Nietzsche's "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how", But that's exactly where the difference between the two lies. Nietzsche believes he creates values, whereas Frankl's faith is you discover them.

The key for me, given my activist nature, is that whether meaning is discovered or created, to realize it one must participate.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to participate, especially when the discussions are so long. I pop in here from time to time to read.

As you know my position does not quite meet the definition of idealism. That is, I tend to identify with the notion about the existence of ideas or the central role of the will. But in my opinion without God there is no scale for truth. The idealist is lost within his own consciousness. To complete what reason cannot prove one needs faith. Faith is always there. Philosophically it's there. To believe that others have an inner life, the idealist uses an analogy, and that is not absolute proof. Some call it intuition. When it comes to metaphysics, faith and intuition are present. Even if you refuse to recognize them.

Shaibei,

Thanks for the elaboration. I very much agree about the necessity of faith and intuition, which is definitely how reason has worked for me personally. I suspect that, in my way, I experience the lacking of faith and intuition in idealism as the absence of a compelling story. I guess I stress participation because it's what led me both to God and to compelling story.