RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, February 29 - 5:16am

Link

Edit

I always enjoy reading Mortimer Adler even when I disagree with him.

In this case, however, I agree completely.

I think this notion of herding without meaningful conversation sheds some light on compulsory government education, a system in which helpless children get "herded" with their age mates regardless of the absence of common values or venues in which to converse meaningfully.

Thanks for posting this, Ed.

Post 1

Friday, February 29 - 8:45am

Link

Edit

Sentimental twaddle.

Bob Kolker

Post 2

Friday, February 29 - 11:15am

Link

Edit

Thanks for the overt recognition of value, Luke. And I agree with your point about public education.

Ed

Post 3

Friday, February 29 - 11:01am

Link

Edit

It's worse than twaddle. Adler hardly knows what he's talking about. The first sentence alone is a hoot on the face of it. He once wrote a book about how to read a book, but not one on how to read his how to read a book book. Thank God he didn't write a book about how to ride a bike or fly an airplane or build a nuclear plant.

--Brant

Post 4

Friday, February 29 - 11:59am

Link

Edit

IF one takes in context that love is a response to values, then can agree with this - but wonder how much Adler held to that view rather than the view that love is an emotional tie to the herding.... remember, animals that herd are in general insecure, and it is that security sense which is attributed to altruisticness in its survival wanting - which, in humans, gives rise to the view of it as an ethical system and the tribalistic as the inherent human condition.....

Note, too, this craving to 'getting out of ourselves' - in other words the so-called 'need' to seek 'something greater than ourselves', namely the group.... a sentiment which is very anti-individualistic...

Further, animals are inherently 'shut off from others' because they are not self aware, as are humans, and it is thus the security of the herd which alleviates the insecurity, nothing more....

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/29, 12:06pm)

Post 5

Friday, February 29 - 1:19pm

Link

Edit

I think the passage resonates with the Objectivist concept of psychological visibility, i.e. experiencing oneself as an entity through the senses and feedback of another and thus gaining a more thorough understanding of oneself.

Post 6

Friday, February 29 - 2:33pm

Link

Edit

I agree with you, Luke. Detractors here are shown to be lazy ones -- as a cursory investigation reveals that the linked page provides all of their answers ...

================
Adler: No, no, no. That would be going too far. Love can be unselfish, in the sense of being benevolent and generous, without being selfless. Moreover, it is perfectly proper for the lover to wish something good for himself, as well as for his beloved. These two wishes go together; they are quite compatible.

Let me explain. Proper self-love is inseparable from the true love of another. In fact, it is its basis and measure. It is the second precept of charity. The mutuality of love arises from loving in ourselves the same excellence we love in others. Without amour-propre or proper self-respect, true love would be impossible.

Weismann: Then when we love another person, we wish them well, we wish something good for them. Hence the question: when, in loving another, we also love ourselves, what do we wish for ourselves -- what good do we seek for ourselves?

Adler: We wish to be loved, and with that we wish the joy of love -- the joy of companionship, of being in the presence or company of the other, ultimately, we wish the joy of perfect union with the person we love.

Let me summarize the three wishes of love for you. They are: 1) to benefit the other; 2) to be loved in return; and 3) to enjoy the closest union with the beloved.

Weismann: That word "union" troubles me. I cannot help asking -- which world are we in -- the world with sex or without it?

Adler: Let me clarify what union means in this sense, quite apart from sex. Hence, please move into the imaginary world with me.

Eliminating physical contacts of all sorts, what sort of union do we mean when we say that love wishes the joy of perfect union? The answer is spiritual union: through cornpassion and sympathy, through sharing and liking the same things, through living a common life, through knowing and understanding each other.

The reference to knowledge helps us to understand this point. We can possess things in two ways, physically and spiritually; by consuming them and by beholding them, by using them and by knowing them. Love possesses its object in the manner of knowledge. Love is like knowledge, only better than all forms of purely intellectual knowledge.
=================

It appears that a quote from Herbert Spencer is quid pro quo here:

=================
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance � that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
=================

"[C]ontempt prior to investigation", that sums up Bob and Brant's reaction in this thread.

;-)

Ed

Post 7

Saturday, March 1 - 4:20am

Link

Edit

That is certainly an interesting quote, Ed, and your additional citations are worth noting. Looking at communication and conversation as a uniquely human form of social love is a useful Aristotelian perspective. But Adler has some things to say about love elsewhere that are considerably less appealing, at least to me.

How To Think About The Great Ideas

From Chapter 13, Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself

"�And I think the answer to that question is very illuminating about the nature of love. The answer is that in loving, we give without getting in return. We are not asking for a fair exchange. We give what is not owed, what is not due to the other person�."(p. 120)

"Question: Are we to understand that true love is entirely benevolent, entirely selfless, entirely unselfish, that the lover does not require anything for himself?

"Adler: No, no. I�m not going that far. But I am saying this, that love can be unselfish, that love can be benevolent without being entirely selfless�Let me explain how they go together. In the first place, let me point out that proper self-love is really inseparable from true love of another person�[The second precept of charity] says �Love thy neighbor as thyself. The emphasis is on �as thyself.��."(p. 123-124)

From Chapter 15, The Morality of Love

"Adler: And when we understand the precepts of charity, we understand in terms of those precepts the difference between good love and bad love�For example, consider the love of money, the love of all worldly goods. That, according to Christian teaching, is the root of all evil�"

"Let me name for you the three bad loves. There is the one I�ve already mentioned: the love of money. And then there are two others: pride and romantic love�.This explains psychologically what is wrong with romantic love, why it is adolescent rather than adult. I think it explains it in terms that have a striking resemblance to the theological criticism of romantic love as the overestimation or idealization of a human being as if that human being were divine, something to be worshipped�.And I think I can show you that these three bad loves of which Freud speaks are bad as loves because each in its own way defeats the love that enriches human life�Good love is defeated by bad love. For the love of money distorts and impedes the love of persons. And pride or narcissism more seriously prevents our loving another human being or being loved by another human being. And so such self-love usually ends in loneliness and utter lovelessness�."(p. 138 and 141)

So in one place Adler says love entails self-love, then a few pages later he condemns pride and speaks contemptuously about romantic love as the idealization of another human being. The guy was definitely a mixed bag, so to speak. Well, what can you expect of a pagan philosopher who turned Roman Catholic at the age of 68?

Post 8

Saturday, March 1 - 10:22am

Link

Edit

Dennis, good points.

We have to remember that, when Adler used terms like "selfish" and "pride," he was using the popular connotations: 'sociopathological narcissism' and 'haughty arrogance'.

His contempt for that sense of the word "pride" isn't necessarily contradictory. Though his contempt for romantic love appears to be unfounded and potentially contradictory. Romantic love is not contradictory to -- and therefore can co-existence with -- genuine (human) love**.

I'll be submitting a short essay on Mortimer soon and, in it, I'll briefly deal with his late-life, Episcopalian baptism.

**genuine love is impossible without what psychologists refer to as active listening. It is primarily an act-focused phenomenon rather than a sentiment-focused one.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/01, 10:23am)

Post 9

Saturday, March 1 - 12:32pm

Link

Edit

Thank you Dennis - I remember that from the days when had a set of The Great Books, which no longer is the case and thus did not let me make those sources - tho was sure his view of 'love' was not anything like 'response to values'.... certainly not in the way of viable values...

Post 10

Saturday, March 1 - 6:29pm

Link

Edit

"Adler: In the first place, let me point out that proper self-love is really inseparable from true love of another person�[The second precept of charity] says �Love thy neighbor as thyself. The emphasis is on �as thyself.��."(p. 123-124)

As Thyself!
I've been telling people this for years. Thanks Dennis, I really like how he put that. It's great to know that I'm not the first to note this possible (and far preferable) interpretation of that scripture. If read with that emphasis, the scripture can be interpreted in a way that is aligned with rational love.

Notice that the static slogan "love thy neighbor" looses its strength, even without the added emphasis. With the emphasis it reads like words to the wise. It seems to beg the question: in what manner should I love myself? For reasons? For the good in me? For my virtues? It necessitates integration, judgement and responsibility. It then opens the question: what is the proper emotional response to lack of virtue, or vice? Indifference and even hate find their way to the table. The strength of the emotion becomes grounded into the strength of the evaluation.

You may think I'm reading too much into this. Likely so. I don't care to squeeze the bible into my worldview or to make the bible seem profound. Yet I've found this is an effective way to get christians to think about this subject openly -- rationally. If they toss in the slogan "judge not lest ye be judged" you can first correct them (it's "Judge not that ye be not judged") and then counter with a few examples of where the bible promotes "righteous judging."

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things..." 1 Cor 2:15; "Thou hast rightly judged" Luke 7:43. There are plenty more.

Post 11

Saturday, March 1 - 8:25pm

Link

Edit

Ed, Robert, Doug�Glad you found the additional quotes informative and useful. The fact that Adler, a devoted and obviously brilliant Aristotelian thinker, also embraced Christianity, helps to temper my instinctive antagonism for religion. That�s a good thing, because I tend to view all religion and superstition in such a profoundly negative light.

Post 12

Monday, March 3 - 6:06am

Link

Edit

reply to post #11

There are religions which are not superstitions, i.e. those based on some kind of moral or philosophical principle.

For example Tao, Buddhism or Confucianism. Or Scientology. Or even the teachings of Pythagoras. Transcendental Meditation is regarded by some as a religion. Some has defined religion as any system of principles according to which one might structure his everyday life. Belief in deities or another world/life is not a defining characteristic, as the previous examples show.

You might disagree with the principles for a variety of reasons, but they are not superstitious or other-worldly.

Bob Kolker

Post 13

Monday, March 3 - 8:24am

Link

Edit

There are religions which are not superstitions, i.e. those based on some kind of moral or philosophical principle.

No - those are philosophies, not religions... religion, by its nature, has mysticism involved, as it is a primitive form of philosophy, however developed as a religious system [eg, like the Catholic Church with all its strappings], and indeed all religions ARE philosophies, as they all deal with moral and other philosophical notions - they just happen to be philosophies with mysticism in them...

Post 14

Monday, March 3 - 12:52pm

Link

Edit

Rob Zombie says,

There are religions which are not superstitions, i.e. those based on some kind of moral or philosophical principle�.Belief in deities or another world/life is not a defining characteristic, as the previous examples show. �.You might disagree with the principles for a variety of reasons, but they are not superstitious or other-worldly.

Superstition is defined as belief based on something other than reason. There is nothing in that definition that would restrict its application to belief in a deity or other worlds.

I agree with Robert M. that the terms superstition and mysticism are basically interchangeable. Debating whether a particular belief system should be classified as a religion or philosophy seems kind of pointless to me. It is the defiance of reason that I find abhorrent, in whatever form. People who self-righteously embrace brazen contradictions are clearly superstitious, whether they admit it or not. Like �believers� who claim they can rationally defend the existence of an invalid concept (i.e., God).

Or �reductionists� who offer opinions while denying that they have a mind.

Post 15

Monday, March 3 - 2:04pm

Link

Edit

Post 14.

Insults are not required. Why don't you watch your mouth/keyboard and behave yourself?

I am alive and as organic as you are. My consciousness is run purely by my brain and glands. What's in yer wallet?

Bob Kolker

Post 16

Monday, March 3 - 2:32pm

Link

Edit

Bob K.,

My consciousness is run purely by my brain and glands.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: con�scious�ness Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

Thank you. Your consciousness is your mind. Regardless of where you claim it originates from. End of issue.

Insults are not required.

The zombie reference was made on another thread, and you appeared to appreciate the humor. Where is the insult? I apologize if anything I said came across as offensive. I am just trying to achieve some clarification, and I think we have finally done that.

Post 17

Monday, March 3 - 2:46pm

Link

Edit

My consciousness-ing is one of the things my brain -does-.

Brains do processes. Processes are not objects. They are sequences of events in the spacetime continuum.

Objects are things that just sit there. Like rocks and bricks. What is going on in the brain are happenings. Unfortunately our language uses nouns for both processes and inert objects. Which introduces an element of ambiguity into discourse.

In any case there is no evidence of a non-material non-physical cause for my brains consciousness-ing. I have verified this by using the best technology available. There is no evidence for ghosts in my attic.

A rational person does not believe in a non-material/non-physical God without evidences (and there is none). Likewise a rational person does ought not believe in a non-material/non-material mind without evidence (and there is none). For some reason you want to call the causes of your being conscious by a name more properly applied to a non-material entity (there is no evidence that any such exists, by the way). I on the other hand have no problem with being material and physical. I have been that way all my life.

So I put it to you. Who is being closer to the "facts of reality" (to use an Objectivist catch phrase). I or Thee?

Bob Kolker

Post 18

Monday, March 3 - 3:59pm

Link

Edit

Bob K.,

You acknowledged you have a consciousness, i.e., what everyone else calls a mind. You want to endow that second term with mystical connotations without any basis for doing so. Fine. You can try to withdraw that reference (�consciousness�) in post #15, but no amount of tap dancing (i.e., absurdly claiming we can have actions or �processes� without entities that act) is going to alter the significance of your prior statement. You say consciousness. I say mind. Big deal. We�re referring to the same thing.

Further discussion about causes is irrelevant. I don�t claim to know the underlying scientific source of human consciousness. (BTW, you can�t be a consistent reductionist if you admit that there is such an activity as �consciousness-ing.�)

My work here is done.

Post 19

Monday, March 3 - 4:48pm

Link

Edit

reply to post 18

Hardin writes:

You acknowledged you have a consciousness, i.e., what everyone else calls a mind. You want to endow that second term with mystical connotations without any basis for doing so. Fine. You can try to withdraw that reference (�consciousness�) in post #15, but no amount of tap dancing (i.e., absurdly claiming we can have actions or �processes� without entities that act) is going to alter the significance of your prior statement. You say consciousness. I say mind. Big deal. We�re referring to the same thing.

I respond: There are 100 billion entities doing my consciousness. They are called neurons. All connected by dendrites and axons with the signal relayed by chemicals in the synaptic junctions. Are those enough entities for you?

And I am referring to PHYSICAL PROCESSES and OBJECTS. What are you referring to? Everything I refer to derives from events in the spacetime manifold describable (at least in principle) by quantitative physical laws.

What sort of stuff are YOU talking about.

I am concerning with with and hypotheses that are empircally testable. What are you concerned with?

I am doing neurophysics and neurophysiology What are you doing?

Bob Kolker