The Profound Implications Of Lonelyness

Hi, boagie.

I think this is a worthy and a great topic because right now within the western democracies there seems to exist a kind of hyper-individualism based upon the rejection of classical value norms (we are losing our religion and respect for classic rationalism which sustained the older generations) which is leading the world to a great identity crises.

In locating current symptoms of our collective identity crises we might point to such things as: tatoos, and piercing and hyper-sexuality and drug use (as in Anna Nicole Smith?) and meaningless violence on the street.

As I see it, because we have become so atomized the people are desperately grabbing for a piece of identity to hang on to.

For example, I don't think that Chinese labourers, Mexican migrants, nor Muzlem fundamentalists are suffering from such a worldview.

It might be instructive to note how Nietzsche viewed the subject. Nietzsche saw that the world was suffering for a lack of meaning. He posited that such a lack of meaning would lead necessarily to violent warfare whereby those with the most primitive and the strongest "will to power" would win.

As Nietzsche said: "War is the great wisdom of the spirit which has grown too inward, too profound."

This is a topic with many facets. And we could focus upon not only the external and political but also upon the internal and the psychological.

--Pythagorean

Pythagorean,

Indeed often people are told by society that the conglomeration they find themselves in is community when the experience is not of a communal nature.Perhaps all these actions of a negative nature are distractions away from a painful reality.Your insight here is most valueable Pythagorean,this is indeed a more complex topic than was my original intention--------interesting!!

"As I see it, because we have become so atomized the people are desperately grabbing for a piece of identity to hang on to."

I think that is futile in a sense,things are changing to fast,adaptation involves the environment you are in,as in context defines,but if the context is in constant change there seems little hope.

"For example, I don't think that Chinese labourers, Mexican migrants, nor Muzlem fundamentalists are suffering from such a worldview."

Agreed,these people still have there traditional values in place, as ill founded as they may be in todays world.

"It might be instructive to note how Nietzsche viewed the subject. Nietzsche saw that the world was suffering for a lack of meaning. He posited that such a lack of meaning would lead necessarily to violent warfare whereby those with the most primitive and the strongest "will to power" would win."

Do you really believe the average person has come to or realises a nihilist world view.I do hope not,that would prove Nietzsche's forsight was 2020.

As Nietzsche said: "War is the great wisdom of the spirit which has grown too inward,too profound."

I am not sure of the meaning of this,is he saying the primal instinct has been turned within and will necessarily at critical mass strikeout?

This is a topic with many facets. And we could focus upon not only the external and political but also upon the internal and the psychological.

The collective lost and lonely,sad state of affairs.Yes you are correct many facets,it should prove interesting.Give us a heading Pythagorean,in the direction you would most like to see.



Consider what you will, consider what you might,consider it in isolation, and it is not!

This makes me wonder. Do you think there can be a human identity that can exist apart, without a 'cultural' context? For instance, can an individual sort of make his own culture within himself that can transcend his external context? Or are we totally dependent upon others and the context that others provide?

My position is that we can use historical examples in order to, at least, help build and create the formations of our emergent societal contexts. As I see it this is not a futile endevour as the contexts which emerge are made by humans and I am also human. I think that the solitary individual posesses such agency as to effect a substantive impact upon history; upon the historical development of his society.



I think that if the average westerner is dependent upon a societal context which itself is not grounded, whether in reason or faith, then he is totally and radically an independent being without grounds for his existence. That means he is the creator and the value esteemer on his own. And this does indeed imply a certain kind of nihilism. But perhaps enough therapy from sex and technology will alleviate his oppressive individualism!?



Yes, you have supplied a great interpretation of the Nietzsche quote! A 'critical mass' of empty profundity will lead to the 'wisdom' of war.

But there is a larger context to the quote. Since post-modern societies are divorced from faith and reason, then these societies will come to some form of war waging. Because since there is no reason and no rationalist tools, then there can be no constructive diplomacy to mediate between normative claims. Disagreements based upon irrational emotivism are irreconcilable. We are left then with merely relations of power.



From an internal psychological perspective it might be instructive to look at the writings of Franz Kafka, e.g. "The Metamorphosis".

Also any of the Existentialist critiques of 'mass society' would be an excellent procedure I think.

Here is Kierkegaard: On the Dedication to "That Single Individual",

And here, Dostoyevsky: Notes from the Underground.

From an external perspective, we should look to the post-modern critiques of the moral chaos of our commercial mass societies. I'm thinking here of writers such as: Leo Strauss, Eric Voeglin, Alasdair MacIntyre (who I am currently reading by the way!), and Charles Taylor.

Here is a link to a rewarding essay on Alasdair MacIntyre: "The Achievement of Alasdair MacIntyre"

It would also be good if we can continue to place the writings of Nietzsche in context from our post-modern perspective.

I hope I haven't been too tedious here. Thank you for great discussion! The development of this topic is rewarding from a philosophical and academic as well as a practical perspective.

--Pythagorean

Pythagorean,

Marvelous post,you will have to give me a little time to digest and do some reading.It sounds like a delightful journey.You have a way of opening things up Pythagorean.I hope too our fellow associates will be intriged enough to join in,but perhaps,after its well in flight.I shall post something a little later today but it will be limited.I shall have to get into some of this material.As the man said,I'LL BE BACK!

There's a lot of information here. I'm not sure if it's possible for a person to define themselves culturally, entirely independent of society. Any attempt to do so would be a response to the culture he is in, either directly, such as opposing a particular social construct like faith or a rule of law, or less directly by using the words of the culture he is in and thinking in terms of the meanings of those words. Even adjusting the meaning or interpretations would be in reaction to whatever society had previously established by consensus. Unless it's possible to think without language. If it were possible for a person to do so than they would be identical whether the grew up in a void or in any given culture. The same person may find themselves lonely in either case.

Dexter_78,

You say that it is not "possible for a person to define themselves culturally, entirely independent of society."

That is true. Nothing is entirely independent. Or, to put it another way, things are obviously related.

If it is not possible for an educated or 'enlightened' individual human being to define themselves outside of the greater societal context then how is it that society goes forward at all? In order for society to change something new must be added. The something new that must be added from time to time will arise from persons who while acting in society sees things from a different perspective. Therefore an original thinker will cause society to change.

There must exist a point where society is in want of something, whether they be starving for that old time religion, or that new fangled rock 'n roll. And there must exist an individual who interprets the same society in a different way than what was previously done. That is an original individual thinker.

So the question is changed around: Instead of asking "how can an individual exist apart from society?", we now ask "how can society go forward without being supplied the kind of differences, the kind of original motor of an independent mind?"

And so I have to ask a question: Where does your true self lie? Does it lie within? Or does it lie without?

If some one today interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ, or Nietzsche in a profoundly influential manner, then we say that his interpretation is original. That is to say he interprets with an eye to the current concerns, the current mind-set of current society but he does so from a radically different perspective. But it doesn't make any difference whether the interpretation is that of Christ, Nietzsche, or nature or the stars, what matters is that the new is from without not within. Without, in this case meaning from within the individual and without society.

I'm saying this becuase today "societal concerns" are, like God, everywhere. Even as the individual gets more and more isolated, demoralized and desperate. That which is today most necessary - in an environment which sees only its 'self-environment' - is a position, a standpoint, a perspective and a worldview, which can release the individual and free him from the diarrhea of subjectivity.

------------------------------------------

My God, Mr. Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation!--Robert Clive

Pythagorean-Dexter78,


" Nothing is entirely independent. Or, to put it another way, things are obviously related."

It might help in some of our thoughts to think in terms of the new science of general systems theory,or wholistic thinking,certainly neither society nor man is a closed system.

"If it is not possible for an educated or 'enlightened' individual human being to define themselves outside of the greater societal context then how is it that society goes forward at all? In order for society to change something new must be added. The something new that must be added from time to time will arise from persons who while acting in society sees things from a different perspective. Therefore an original thinker will cause society to change."

Actually Pythagorean I think what you are talking about has always been a reality,often called,the hero's journey,perhaps a mutant to the norm.As stated above, society is not a closed system, that I believe is its strength.

"There must exist a point where society is in want of something, whether they be starving for that old time religion, or that new fangled rock 'n roll. And there must exist an individual who interprets the same society in a different way than what was previously done. That is an original individual thinker."

Again this thinker is on his hero's journey or the hero cycle,it can be detected in all great literature through time,he leaves,faces great dangers, has the aid perhaps of a majical wiseman,conquers the beast, and brings home the boon to his society.One possiable outcome is that upon his return he holds the gold out to the people and it turns to sand in their hands.Google-Joseph Campbell and the hero cycle.



"And so I have to ask a question: Where does your true self lie? Does it lie within? Or does it lie without?"

The Upanishads state,the self in one,is the self in all.After much thought on this I am inclined to agree.The self is immutable,only personality,ego ect are subjected to the conditioning of context or environment,part of that environment is the society which contains you.


"I'm saying this becuase today "societal concerns" are, like God, everywhere. Even as the individual gets more and more isolated, demoralized and desperate. That which is today most necessary - in an environment which sees only its 'self-environment' - is a position, a standpoint, a perspective and a worldview, which can release the individual and free him from the diarrhea of subjectivity."

Pythagorean,I don't think the problem comes to subjectivity or objectivity,the answer is in expanding that subjectivity until the concept of self includes ones environment,the natural inclination of selfinterest will ensure sucess from there.

I guess my main point is this:

That there are basically three different paths that individuals and society in general have available.

This first path and perhaps the oldest path is the path of, for lack of better terms, the path of religious faith or faith in supernatural causation of things. That is ancient gods or also Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The second path is the path of reason as understood in the sense of classical rationalism. This is the path of philosophy which usually finds itself in some kind of conflict with religious authority.

The third path, as I see it, is the path of Existentialism wherein the individual has to rely only upon his self for meaning. This path is closely related to the concept of nihilism and its political manifestation in the French Revolution, the Bolshevic Revolution and the Nazi, or the German revolution.

Having said that, the path that seems most durable to me is the path of religion however irrational religion must seem to some. I think that religion will outlast classical philosophical rationalism and will also outlast the revolutionary existential nihilism.

I would also add that our current society has come to the existential point of nihilistic being, as I see it.

I know that's a little off topic boagie, but I just wanted to get that out there. Thanks.

--Pythagorean

Pythagorean

Off topic I shouldn't think so,it was my feeling that we have been looking for a sense of direction,and this seems like a good begining point.I think we might all agree,we are in a state of free fall reguarding a new mythology.The fact that there is no return to that old time religion/mythology,we have indeed, inherited the wind.

I believe though post modernism is given far to much status.Traditional philosophy before post modernism looked like R, sometime after post modernism,it will look like R.The fact that it is troublesome is so only in a negative way,much like a virus introduced into your computer.The intent of its introduction might to be of a similar mean spirited nature.

Nihilism as I have stated before,offers up something to which might prove to be the building blocks of a powerful new philosophy,perhaps even developing in time into a world mythology.The new approach to science is indicative of this,that of "General Systems Theory",a wholistic approach which like nihilism,underlines the significants of a relational world view.

Together with the unfolding discovers of science,this relational world view will only prove itself more vital to a healthy world.The on going discovers of science will only underline the absurdity of traditional western religions.An existential position is indeed where we find ourselves,but think what that means,starting to experience apparent reality for what it really seems to be,not disected,not separate,not independently existent, but relational.Until this reality is the common experience of the collective we remain in trouble.It seem to me the function of this post modernism is to direct us in the opposite direction,one of separateness,disected individualism,this I believe is the recipe for the wasteland.

You may be right about religion,in particular Christianity out liveing most anything,but that is hardly the highroad,after all,what does it really require,where thinking is taboo.



Part To Part,Part To The Whole And The Whole,To Each Of Its Parts.

It seems that, in this society anyway, it is a growing view that to be independent it is a requirement that one be alone, and this person is viewed as strong, courageous, etc. When people start searching for a new way to not be like anyone else simply for the reason of not being like anyone else, then people can view their resulting lonleyness as a sign that they've succeded in this venture. As long as people attempt to define themselves as a cutout from society instead of incorperating their indisputable relation to it, lonelyness will continue to grow.

I agree that Christianity, or religion in general, may outlive other forms of thought since it takes very good care of itself. It addresses many fears and questions that most people share on some level and it's inherent irrationality may add to its appeal.

Dexter,


An excellent insight! I have been trying to push a relational world view in a number of posts lately,this quite nicely underlines that happyness does not come of separateness.

I am afraid that I think the irrationality is what is most attractive to believers,people to lazy to think for themselves.People who can be made to believe in absurdities can just as easily be made to commit atrocities,the orders just have to be coming from the right source/an unquestionable source.