Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stegiel's avatar

I think here arises the metaphysical difference between Stoic and Christian. https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-christianity-history/

Expand full comment
Steve Martin's avatar

Hi Steigel

Just thought I'd share a couple of thoughts with you while sipping a late morning coffee here in Japan.

I had also read a few translations of Nietzsche back in undergrad days, and admit that his prose has had an impact on me. But as a biology undergrad gravitating towards philosophy my gateway to Nietzsche was Schopenhauer's take on the teleological argument for evolution. I still remember reading his "The World as Will", but more recently, have interpreted that take on the basis of morality as true, but mostly for the sociopathic predators among us.

But the linguist in me, and influenced by the likes of Taoism, animism, zen, Jung and his disciples, etc. — particularly Joseph Campbell — tends to see "god" as a metaphor for nature-in-its-entirety. Maybe a "spiritual naturalist" is as close to a good label as I've see coined.

But very different from the likes of Harai, a combination of personal experience and a temperament (or empathy) for accepting and trying to acknowledge and integrate the understanding and experiences of a wide variety of others does not allow me the temperament to presume to reduce that 'god' or "nature-in-its-entirety' to knowable, predictable, mechanical structures.

Some theories from other domains seem to support my view ... for example, emergence theory and related fractal theory, and chaos theory. I think those YouTube mandelbrot sets are a great dynamic metaphor for recurring patterns within the infinite ... from the repeating change of seasons, to the birth-growth-death of man, to the rise-and-inevitable-fall of empires. Alas, sociopaths, in addition to not having the capacity or willingness to feel empathy, also appear to lack the wonder, awe, humility, and particular sense of aesthetics closely associated empathy.

While reading a quote you cited ... "Classical civilization, in short, lacked the concept of human dignity.” And though there is lots of wiggle room for defining "classical' as well as "dignity" ... I immediately thought of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

Recently on the news, a young student posed a question to current LDP head and Prime Minister of Japan Kishida, why he wanted to become Prime Minister. I, and most Japanese, more or less expected him to parrot the lines of "to serve his country" ... but he was unexpectedly blunt for a Japanese. Not for a sociopath. He answered (with an acceptable translation), "So I could impose my will. (have my choices)." It is just as well I had not recognized such a creatures among my students while teaching ... as I would have been sorely tempted to impose my will on the beast.

If one such as Marcus Aurelius with so much social currency while alive was able to resist the temptation to "the world as will" ... I can't help but to speculate that there must have been love, respect, and dignity ... especially among those without such high social currency ... since long before even the bronze age, not to mention classical civilization. And when looking at current Japan and its "leadership" can't help but to think moral progress is an illusion at best.

And the mandelbrot set continues to spin round and round.

Two coffees finished.

Time to hit the exercise bike in my vain attempt to postpone the inevitable.

Take care Steigel.

Keep up the good fight for the latent dignity within us all.

steve

Expand full comment

No posts