Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Self and Soul
Prompted by the great Casey, I re-read Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind. First read it years ago, but I’m older now, and reading it again brings very different reactions.
One argument is that the modern world has done away with the Soul and has replaced it with the Self. That’s a quick way of describing a conviction I’ve held for a long time. A soul is an individual connected to God and the rest of the universe, striving to find harmony with all of it. A self has no such connection; it’s just a command center (with little control) over a sea of conflicting and confusing interior psychic currents. Or, as Bloom suggests, a soul is on the roof pondering the mysteries of the heavens, but a self is in the basement snooping around in the dark for Freudian rats.
Bloom describes the modern self who scorns religion and yet seeks salvation in psychology; but that’s a circle that can’t be squared. You can’t have both. I could understand an atheist who believes that life was a cosmic accident and has no meaning. On the other hand, I could understand a believer who believes that we were created, and therefore we have whatever purpose our creator intended (that’s my view). If you were created, it only seems logical that your purpose is anchored in the creator’s intention. What cannot square is being both an atheist and also seeking meaning to life. And yet, that would be a working description of a mere “self.”
Bloom portrays the American culture as being increasingly driven and shaped by an education system which is nihilist, relativist, functionally atheist, and therefore a disaster for the American soul. A soul, in the Christian understanding, is oriented to God and a higher purpose; if you dismiss that dimension of life, all you have remaining is an unremarkable and uninteresting self. Our educational system, and eventually our culture as a whole, is producing just such uninteresting “selves.”
Lately there has been some concern about what would happen if robots took over. Would soulless machines abandon any concern for humanity and pursue their own interests at the expense of human souls?
Well, hell, isn’t that what’s happening now?
Published in General, Religion & Philosophy
KC can correct me if I’m wrong, but I took him to be speaking of what can or cannot be squared once the seeking is over and conclusions have been drawn based on the findings. Besides that, if one is seeking and sincerely holds open the possibility that there is a creator and all that, then they’re not quite atheists. Otherwise, an atheist may long for meaning (we all do) and may even get to seeking meaning within materialism, but materialism has no transcendental meaning.
Still a different discussion. Difficulty in discerning your purpose is still different than wondering whether some objective purpose exists at all. Yes, some people get confused and are confused by powerful yet different factors, but they remain different things anyway.
I’m not trying to be facetious, but unless you create yourself (a logical impossibility), the creation can’t freely choose the reason why it was created.
In this case, it pays to dwell on the distinction between meaning and purpose. A creation’s purpose can’t come from itself. But I think we’re using the word ‘meaning” in an ambiguous way.
There’s a difference (and I think this is what Midge is trying to say) between a person “having meaning” and a person “finding some reason to go on living.” Even if the world was completely absurd, it’s entirely possible that a person may still want to go on living anyway. She just likes life, and even if the universe was an accident, she wants to keep living life despite its absurdity. But at that point, however, trying to come up with a justification would be nothing more than a convenient fiction. Why bother creating a fictional “purpose” when you’ve already conceded that life is absurd?
Do any atheists believe they have a purpose that is given rather than chosen? Do atheists believe that their own purpose is anything other than ultimately a utilitarian maximization of their own benefit? It’s not about privilege: if one doesn’t believe in the transcendental then any operating purpose must be subjective.
KC, thanks for this. It brings back fond memories. For a year, long, long ago, I was a student of Allan Bloom. In fact, I was in the class on Plato’s Republic at Cornell that he describes in The Closing of the American Mind (as was Alan Keyes).
I knew Bloom tolerably well — not as well as some, however. And I doubt very much that he believed in a personal god.
He may, however, have believed in something else that might suffice as an object for the longing that is natural to us. I have in mind the natural order. Bloom certainly believed that preeminent among the things we long for is understanding, and he believed that there is something to understand: to wit, what is our place in the natural order? What are we naturally oriented towards? How can we fulfill our nature?
Understanding is not an end we invent for ourselves. It is an end we discover in ourselves, and we have the pleasure and satisfaction of improving our understanding.
Think about it. There is no evidence suggesting that Aristotle believed in a personal god, but he was anything but a nihilist.
Quite the contrary … you say these things much better …
Again, others are making my point much better than I am. Maybe I should check with you guys first …
Much of the book is a lament that modern society applauded Nietzsche when he rebelled in the first place … but stopped listening before they took Nietzsche to his logical conclusion.
Some do.
To feel “born for” a particular vocation even when you’re an atheist is not at all weird. Many atheists with highly demanding vocations fall into this category.
Saint-Saëns, for example, felt “born for” the vocation of music even though he was an atheist. “I produce music as an apple tree produces apples,” he said. As if he could do no otherwise.
Yes, many do.
Now, many of those who view their purpose as something other than maximizing their own benefit are leftists emotionally attached to centralized schemes that conservatives would find unworkable. Nonetheless, you asked if such atheists exist, not whether their schemes were tenable. And they do, in fact, exist.
We’re not talking about vocation or even about how the laws of materialism might affect our desires and skills. That’s different too. And atheists can take poetic license just as well as anyone.
Why was I created? The answer (indeed, the very possibility of an answer) is dependent on the creator. If there was a creator with intent, then our answer derives from that. If there was no creator or no intent, then our answer follows pretty clearly from that too.
No wonder non-believers turn away from that; no wonder eugenics was so popular. Is there a natural order? Is our place in it fixed? Is my nature fixed? If so, why shouldn’t I pursue it despite the protestations of others?
I am less sure this is what I’m trying to say than you are ;-)
So you’re saying “the universe is an accident” = “life is absurd”? This seems to leave very little space for the Christian absurdist.
It is possible, after all, to believe in the Nicene Creed, and still put little stock in humans’ ability to tease out nearly as much meaning as they hope to find in life. “I believe life has meaning but our attempts to find it risk absurdity” doesn’t seem self-contradictory to me. After all, here and now, we see in the mirror but dimly.
Because it is in your nature to long for such a purpose, whether life is absurd or not?
Whatever philosophical victory one might gain from suppressing a longing that’s perceived as hopeless, sometimes it’s simply not worth the effort to suppress it.
I think he’s arguing that modern society co-opted Nietzsche and ran logically from there and that Nietzsche properly understood would lead somewhere else.
Or is this essentially what you are saying?
Pretty much.
But here again, longing is neither seeking nor creating. An atheist can perceive the longing without denying his belief that such a longing cannot be sated because there is nothing outside of himself capable of sating it. That is not to say that an atheist can’t employ different strategies which maximize his living benefit – even strategies which overlap with strategies employed by believers. An atheist can certainly double down on natural inclinations and “gifts” as central to achieving what he wants from life. If you’re seeking some outside entity that can possibly sate the longing then I’m not so sure you’re an atheist.
OK, getting back to Owen and Z then…
Bloom originally intended to title his book Souls Without Longing. Throughout history our souls have longed for something. That something had always been God. Nietzsche says that God is now dead and we need to replace him. With what? TBD
That then turned into:
Or:
Nietzsche wanted to answer the question “With what?” We don’t much care.
So, it sounds like the meaning of “meaning” you’re using is “the meaning for someone besides the subject”, in your case the creator of the subject, maybe Aristotle’s final cause.
So what? Longing often leads to seeking and creating.
When you say “meaning,” what do you … um, no way around saying it … mean?
So if you’re truly seeking outside of materialism then you’re not really an atheist. So if you’re creating your own purpose then you’re maximizing your personal benefit (meant broadly to mean what you care about most – which makes provision for deferred gain).
So an atheist can’t seek transcendental meaning/purpose and still be an atheist.
This might be of interest:
KC Mulville: #38 “Much of the book is a lament that modern society applauded Nietzsche when he rebelled in the first place … but stopped listening before they took Nietzsche to his logical conclusion.”
I believe when GK Chesterton noted this issue, he recognized that because Nietzsche’s heart was hardened, it was Neitzsche’s mind that went soft.
Ed G: #45 “But here again, longing is neither seeking nor creating. An atheist can perceive the longing without denying his belief that such a longing cannot be sated because there is nothing outside of himself capable of sating it.”
Nothing inside of the atheist is capable of sating this particular longing for meaning. One might become a narcissist but eventually even that will wear thin.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: #21 “A theist is also called to “manufacture” purpose, since being made in the image of God, the Creator, calls us to be creative, productive beings ourselves.”
I think “manufacture” is the wrong word. While I cannot speak for all theists, I have understood my purpose is to attempt to imitate our Lord. Expressions of love such as feeding the hungry, etc., would permit me to do what He told me to do. Recognizing the dignity of the persons made in His image and likeness would permit me to do what He told me to do. Faith acted out. A purpose.
Is there a rule that all atheists must be materialists?
As far as I can tell, an atheist needn’t have cast-iron certainty that there is no God (indeed, such a certainty is impossible), but rather answers the question, “Is there a God?” with “Probably not.” A more definite answer than the “I don’t know” of the agnostic, but not necessarily by much.
You posit the rule: “If you seek transcendent meaning, you can’t be an atheist,” which is equivalent to, “If you are an atheist, you can’t seek transcendent meaning.” But has a person who answers the question, “Is there a God?” with “Probably not” foreclosed all avenues for seeking transcendent meaning? It isn’t obvious to me that he has.
There is no certainty when we’re talking of belief. However, to answer the question “Is there a God” with “probably not” puts you on the weak end of atheism if you qualify at all. To me that puts you in the agnostic camp, as would a “probably” on the other side of the spectrum.
If you truly hold that the transcendent is possible, so possible that you actually seek it (as opposed to merely longing for it), then however you verbally answer the question you are decidedly in the “maybe” camp in actuality. If not “maybe”, then why seek? If you’re seeking exclusively within the material, then 1) you will be frustrated in the effort, and 2) whatever you come up with will amount to maximization of your own perceived benefit or 3) an even greater self-abnegation as you subject yourself to the random material processes like evolution.
Ed G: #41 “No wonder non-believers turn away from that; no wonder eugenics was so popular. Is there a natural order? Is our place in it fixed? Is my nature fixed? If so, why shouldn’t I pursue it despite the protestations of others?”
Eugenics is purposed to dispose of unwanted kinds of people in actual practice. The Germans of National Socialism did not want mentally or physically deformed people, so they disposed of them. They also did not have any regard for mongrel races, and disposed of them.
Margaret Sanger wanted eugenics used for ridding the planet of mongrel races, and of unwelcome children. Since we’ve killed 55,000,000 in the US and it is estimated that abortions are in the billions worldwide, this implies a lack of regard for human life. It is practical atheism, which is nihilistic in nature.
With regard to the natural law, it was recognized in different civilizations at different times and held to the same standards across the board. It might be noted that we are guilty of breaking the moral law, as in murder and theft and adultery and on and on.
One might suggest that even now, in this country, we attempt to adhere to the moral law, and when it is broken, as with murder or theft, we attempt to correct the crime and punish the guilty. Ergo, we recognize the moral law whether we own up to that fact or not.
If you’re not a deist and not a materialist, then what remains?
One of the points I was trying to make is that KC seemed to have sharply divided humanity into two groups – theists and atheists. Furthermore, coming as he does from a Christian perspective the theist side is very biased toward monotheism. By doing this he leaves out of the whole discussion most eastern theology, pre-Christian peagan philosophy, and irreligious persons. I am particularly tired of this last group getting thrown in with the atheists. I would never describe myself as an atheist.
My governing philosophy is that there isn’t anyway to finally answer the “meaning of life, the universe, and everything” so why worry about it. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one, or that there has to be one. To me atheists are very concerned with finding an answer to this question, or at least proving the theists wrong.