After-life

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is the kind of stuff that I think cuts right to the heart of theistic belief. It ties in with another thread where the central question was something like 'why do some people believe rubbish?' First, I'd say a lot of theistic 'belief' is properly nothing like belief at all. Or at least, it's certainly nothing like the "cool assent" of the i ...[text shortened]... uld lie there thinking well, at least I'm not dead."

A very well presented post, it perfectly mirrors not only my own view on this particular subject, but also my opinion on the topic of the universe and its extent as discussed in the 'More Nothing' thread. Rec'd.

Originally posted by bbarr
It could mean any number of things (e.g., accepting the consequences, however seemingly unbearable, of doing what one ought), but I prefer to think that taking up the cross means to participate willingly in a process that will eventuate in your figurative death; in the dissolution of your ego. The key passage here, to my mind, is "whoever shall lose his life ...[text shortened]... g that which keeps one clinging to one's life and thereby gaining real freedom and peace.

stauros can also mean a stake or a pale, with or without any added cross-bar—and that was probably its original meaning. One rendering of the verse that I heard was “Pull up your stake (stauros) and follow me.” “Stake” symbolizing whatever we cling/clutch at; or, as “pale” whatever we erect to fence ourselves in.

Galatians 5:1 translates directly from the Greek as “For freedom us Christ freed; stand therefore, and not again by a yoke of slavery be held.” (It would not violate the grammar of the Greek to say “the Christ,” since that is a designation and not a name, and the definite article is often left implied.)

Now, the context is nomos, particularly Jewish halakha, but I think the context sets up Paul’s radical statement, which cannot then be de-radicalized by over con-textualization. Jesus often did the same thing—unless, of course, one believes that his response in Matthew 22:17-21 was really just about tax policy...

And in Galatians 2:20, Paul says: zo de ouketi ego, ze de en emoi [ho] Christos, wherein I think he gives the whole “Zen” game away... One must let go of the ego, the fabricated somebody-self, the small “i,” and live from the Christ within, which is the logos tou theou—the “Tao”—manifest as human-being.

Although I don’t want to syncretize too much, one can certainly imagine a Zen master using almost this language. And one can imagine, I think, a St. Gregory of Nyssa—or a Meister Eckhart—reading it pretty much this way. (Which is close to your reading as well.)

You’re right: these texts can generally be read any number of ways. I am not always convinced that the conventional readings are the original ones. But then, I tend to think that the authors of these texts had a much stronger sense of mythos and religious symbolism than we tend to have today...

Originally posted by LemonJello
This is the kind of stuff that I think cuts right to the heart of theistic belief. It ties in with another thread where the central question was something like 'why do some people believe rubbish?' First, I'd say a lot of theistic 'belief' is properly nothing like belief at all. Or at least, it's certainly nothing like the "cool assent" of the i ...[text shortened]... uld lie there thinking well, at least I'm not dead."

...typically passionate minds who shrink from the very confrontation that Camus thinks we ought to tackle directly.

And part of that confrontation is to realize that the cosmos does not disclose meaning/understanding, but facts, relationships, patterns. We compose meaning/understanding for ourselves out of that existential engagement. And one way to attempt to escape the dilemma is to make the leap toward believing, or convincing ourselves, that our hermeneutical composition was somehow given—whether in religious terms or otherwise.

“Bibliolatry”—taking the biblical texts as divinely given—is one form of this attempt to escape the Sisyphean situation (although it might be noteworthy that rabbinical hermeneutics has been an attempt to keep that from happening; the same might be said for some of the early Christian exegetes as well). Note that Camus felt no need to dismiss religious mythos—rather, he realized that such myths are an attempt to reflect, from differing points-of-view and hermeneutics, the existential situation.

I’m sure that you’re familiar with the Zen master who, asked what he did after satori (“enlightenment,” realization, metanoia), replied, “Chop wood, carry water.” The realization expressed by Camus’ Sisyphus does not remove the existential dilemma; but it does allow one to live a eudaimonic life in the midst of it.

In my own recent attempts to define my “spiritual” approach more clearly for myself in “Western” terms, I take Camusian absurdity as my first “axiom.” Nothing I ever say is an attempt to escape that, and I am misunderstood if one reads me otherwise...

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you mean vanity as egotism or as meaninglessness?

I meant it as meaningless. If you have all the money in the world and all the best sex in the world and you have the best freinds in the world but then die what good did all of that do you? You go from existing to nonexistence. When you die everything you had or currently have or ever will ever have is taken away. Then you are forgotten at some point.

Originally posted by Palynka
In a Camusian perspective, would euthanasia or suicide ever be justified?

On one hand, the answer is no, absolutely not; on the other hand, I'm not sure we can draw a full conclusion about your question. What I mean is the following. In what he has called his one book of ideas – The Myth of Sisyphus – Camus writes directly about the subjects of (i) what he calls "philosophical suicide" and (ii) the physical act of suicide. But it is important to note what exactly constitutes the focus of his essay:

"This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity…there is a direct connection between this feeling and the longing for death. The subject of this essay is precisely this relationship between the absurd and suicide, the exact degree to which suicide [here, he means to include both philosophical and physical suicide] is a solution to the absurd."

So, Camus' essay doesn't speak in blanket form about suicide, but only speaks to the question of whether or not suicide (whether philosophical or physical) is a solution in the face of absurdity. And here, I think we could take absurdity to be something like a properly formulated notion of existential boredom. It is not a state of apathy; it is not a state of having nothing to do; it is not just a state in which the world comes to the agent in meaningless form; rather it is inherently a state of struggle marked by the frustration of desires for personal meaning. An interpretation of my own (which I think fits somewhat with his description of 'divorce' between man/life, actor/setting) is that it is like a state of extreme hunger for a being who finds himself on land that simply doesn't provide, ground that cannot easily be tilled or worked. To this question (whether or not suicide is justified in the face of absurdity), Camus' answer is a categorical no. He concludes:

"It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will."

But that doesn't really answer your question fully because there are cases of suicide that I think Camus just doesn't address. Especially regarding the subject of euthanasia, we could imagine instances of suicide that don't fit the focus of his essay. There, the question would be whether or not suicide is justified in the face of something other than absurdity (maybe in the face of incurable physiological pain, or something like that). I would say Camus doesn't address such issues.

EDIT: Here, I've just approached your question by considering directly the writings of Camus. On the other hand, I consider my perspective to be a "Camusian perspective" of some sort. I certainly consider some instances of euthanasia/suicide to be justified.

Originally posted by Starrman
A very well presented post, it perfectly mirrors not only my own view on this particular subject, but also my opinion on the topic of the universe and its extent as discussed in the 'More Nothing' thread. Rec'd.

Thanks!

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...typically passionate minds who shrink from the very confrontation that Camus thinks we ought to tackle directly.

And part of that confrontation is to realize that the cosmos does not disclose meaning/understanding, but facts, relationships, patterns. We compose meaning/understanding for ourselves out of that existential engagement. And one way ...[text shortened]... ing I ever say is an attempt to escape that, and I am misunderstood if one reads me otherwise...[/b]

And part of that confrontation is to realize that the cosmos does not disclose meaning/understanding, but facts, relationships, patterns. We compose meaning/understanding for ourselves out of that existential engagement.

Right, well put. And I'm not sure one would be much of a normative agent if he didn't desire to so compose – we cannot help but desire composition in that lack of disclosure, just as we cannot help but hunger in the lack of food.

The realization expressed by Camus' Sisyphus does not remove the existential dilemma; but it does allow one to live a eudaimonic life in the midst of it.

Right, under Camus' prescription, the dilemma is left intact. Do you mean 'eudaimonic' here in the Aristotelian sense of the word?

In my own recent attempts to define my “spiritual” approach more clearly for myself in “Western” terms, I take Camusian absurdity as my first “axiom.” Nothing I ever say is an attempt to escape that, and I am misunderstood if one reads me otherwise...

With regards to his spirit of delivery (fighting words, as they were), I'm Camusian to the bone, especially regarding his thoughts on 'philosophical suicide'.

Originally posted by LemonJello

[b]Vistesd: The realization expressed by Camus' Sisyphus does not remove the existential dilemma; but it does allow one to live a eudaimonic life in the midst of it.

Right, under Camus' prescription, the dilemma is left intact. Do you mean 'eudaimonic' here in the Aristotelian sense of the word? [/b]

Thanks for answering my previous post. I still have some doubts about embracing such a perspective myself.

It may allow one to live a eudaimonic life in the midst of it, but such a perspective cannot justify such a choice, can it?

Sometimes I've the feeling that with Camus everything boils down to 'anything is better than death'. It just seems short as a justification for embracing life, although I see how that can provide meaning to survival.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]And part of that confrontation is to realize that the cosmos does not disclose meaning/understanding, but facts, relationships, patterns. We compose meaning/understanding for ourselves out of that existential engagement.

Right, well put. And I'm not sure one would be much of a normative agent if he didn't desire to so compose – we cannot help b ...[text shortened]... I'm Camusian to the bone, especially regarding his thoughts on 'philosophical suicide'.[/b]

Do you mean 'eudaimonic' here in the Aristotelian sense of the word?

I don’t know what distinctions an Aristotelian sense might have that might narrow the broad sense of “joyful flourishing or thriving” in which I use it. I got it from bbarr, who defined it as “flourishing;” sometimes it is translated as happiness. I don’t know if A. has any prescriptions that I might or might not reject (have read very little of Aristotle; read a commentary that discussed eudaimonia sometime back, as the highest good, I believe; but I can’t recall any of it right now)

Maybe I can use it in a Sisyphean sense...?.

Originally posted by vistesd
I do not think there is—nor do I have any “hope” for—an individual after-life, whether that entails reincarnation, resurrection or some kind of immortality of the “soul.” My chosen religious expression(s) was not determined by that fact, however, but by how I understand my existence in the cosmos, and what makes sense to me.

I am curious about how a beli ...[text shortened]... bology would need reinterpretation from the conventional view. I only offer it as an example...

I don't believe that there is an afterlife either. But somehow, I can't help hoping, or at least wishing, for one; and not just for myself, but for people I care about too.

Also, I can't help noticing that many here who believe in an afterlife generally think it's desirable, whereas many who don't generally don't think that it is (or even think that it isn't). That is, where the afterlife is afterlife, people's beliefs and desires tend to be concordant, whereas mine are oddly discordant. [I wonder: are there any mirror-image discordants out there, who think that the afterlife is a bad thin, but who nonetheless believe in it? Somehow I doubt it: doesn't every Calvinist regard themselves as one of the elect?]

I must have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I do not think there is—nor do I have any “hope” for—an individual after-life, whether that entails reincarnation, resurrection or some kind of immortality of the “soul.” My chosen religious expression(s) was not determined by that fact, however, but by how I understand my existence in the cosmos, and what makes sense to me.

I am curious about how a beli ...[text shortened]... bology would need reinterpretation from the conventional view. I only offer it as an example...

I would dispute the assertion that Christianity is as easily re-interpretable as you say. Christianity isn't simply a set of sound-bites ("Love your neighbour", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ) wrapped in eschatological paper. You don't need Christianity to tell you how to be good in life; and Christian religious expression would be meaningless ("soulless" 😉) without the a fortiori condition of the Resurrection.

Originally posted by no1marauder
NOYFB. But consider this from the Introduction to the Upanishads, p. 96:

The rishis of the Upanishads were not impressed by the theory of eternal retribution in heaven or hell. That theory shows a total disproportion between cause and effect. Life on earth is short, exposed to error and bristling with temptations. Many of our wrong actions a ...[text shortened]... nd you fear his retribution if you stray from a narrow path. That is no way for a Man to live.

What edition?

Of course, the rishis of the Upanishads came up with the idea of eternal reincarnation according to karma instead - so if you're born into a lowly caste and doomed to a life of servitude and inequality, that's your own fault from a previous life.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I would dispute the assertion that Christianity is as easily re-interpretable as you say. Christianity isn't simply a set of sound-bites ("Love your neighbour", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ) wrapped in eschatological paper. You don't need Christianity to tell you how to be good in life; and Christian religious expression would ...[text shortened]... meaningless ("soulless" 😉) without the a fortiori condition of the Resurrection.

(1) You ought to know me better than to think that I view Christianity as a religion of “sound bites” (or Buddhism, or Taoism or...). Okay, not that easily, but the symbolism is not that inflexible (and there are those who don’t think that such things as resurrection of the soma were intended literally to begin with).

(2) The basic question is—without an individual after-life, are you saying that Christianity as a religious expression would be meaningless, compared to other religious expressions? (I understand your point about morality, “the good life”—and I agree with it.) Are there no other features of Christianity that you would find more compelling than other religions (e.g., incarnation, the basilea tou theou that is within?)

The question remains: Without belief in an individual eternal afterlife, would you quit being a Christian? Is that the only way in which Christianity is expressed that differentiates it from, say, Zen Buddhism? If I say that your original nature is ho Christos, am I saying exactly the same thing as that you have “Buddha-nature?”

Personally, I don’t think so. (Although I do think that metanoia, for example, is very close to satori.)

BTW: I don't I entirely disagree with your concept of "soul"--just that it is individually eternal. Which brings another question: Do you think your individual ego-somebody-self also has an eternal life?

EDIT: This is some of the stuff that I mentioned I am currently working on, so don't expect a cohesive outline from me just yet... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) You ought to know me better than to think that I view Christianity as a religion of “sound bites” (or Buddhism, or Taoism or...). Okay, not that easily, but the symbolism is not that inflexible (and there are those who don’t think that such things as resurrection of the soma were intended literally to begin with).

(2) The basic question is—w ntioned I am currently working on, so don't expect a cohesive outline from me just yet... 🙂

I'm not even sure what an individual ego-somebody-self is in the context you're using it in.

But, to return to the main points:

1. I know you don't consciously view Christianity as a religion of "sound bites" but when you start stripping out core doctrines, that's effectively what you turn it into.

(Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAICS it was precisely meant to be taken literally - c.f. Apostle's Creed. Unless, of course, you were a Gnostic.)

2. Without the resurrection of the body and the life thereafter, Christ's own Passion and Resurrection become meaningless (especially the latter). Without these, the Incarnation becomes rather pointless. Without the Incarnation, basilea tou theo ("Kingdom of God" ) is just a sound-bite.

(I'm a little short of sleep today, so I apologise if any of that is coming across harshly.)

Of course, the resurrection of the body is hardly the key Christian doctrine -- but they're all inter-related.

3. Without belief in an individual eternal afterlife, I would see no reason to remain Christian.

And the afterlife isn't the only way in which Christianity is expressed that differentiates it from Zen. But it is integrally linked to all the ways that are.

I suppose one could think of Christ as another "enlightened soul"; but then I'd say one has to be honest about it - one is Buddhist, not Christian.

(Re: metanoia and satori -- I think they're about as close as the two sides of the Force.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not even sure what an individual ego-somebody-self is in the context you're using it in.

But, to return to the main points:

1. I know you don't consciously view Christianity as a religion of "sound bites" but when you start stripping out core doctrines, that's effectively what you turn it into.

(Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAIC ...[text shortened]... satori -- I think they're about as close as the two sides of the Force.)

I'm not even sure what an individual ego-somebody-self is in the context you're using it in.

I mean the psychological ego-self constructed of our thoughts, memories, etc.—the “makings of the mind,” rather than what(ever) lies behind them. (Can you find an “I” there that is not another thought? Not posit, but find? That question is the basis for several Zen koans.) I also think it is the ego St. Paul speaks of in Galatians 2:20.

(Re: resurrection of the soma - AFAICS it was precisely meant to be taken literally - c.f. Apostle's Creed. Unless, of course, you were a Gnostic.)

The word “gnostic” covers a lot of territory—a lot of what is called gnosticism seems to me to be profoundly dualistic, for example, and I’m a non-dualist. So I don’t know exactly how you’re using it here.

I don’t see that people who recite the Apostle’s creed, taking it as (non-trivial!) symbology ought be considered non-Christian.

(I'm a little short of sleep today, so I apologise if any of that is coming across harshly.)

Not to worry, my friend. You know I do too sometimes.

Without these, the Incarnation becomes rather pointless.

This I flatly disagree with—and have strong support from at least the Eastern fathers. I think incarnation of the logos tou theou is the central point (whether resurrection refers to an after-life or a quality of spiritual existence in this life—or, perhaps, and I’m reaching here beyond any well-defined thoughts of my own, at least yet, return of the soma to the whole soma from whence it arose; I don’t think soma is strictly a physical/material term, in the same sense as sarx anyway).

The whole difference between the soteriology of the East and that of the West hinges on this. The non-juridical soterias (whose root meaning is cure, rather than pardon) of theosis is drawn from incarnation.

I suppose one could think of Christ as another "enlightened soul"; but then I'd say one has to be honest about it - one is Buddhist, not Christian.

Depends partly on how one views incarnation. To quote, as I so often have, St. Gregory of Nyssa (without pretending he would agree with everything I am saying, of course):

“That God should have clothed himself in our nature is a fact that should not seem strange or extravagant to minds that do not form too paltry an idea of reality...that God is all in all; that he clothes himself with the universe, and at the same time contains it and dwells in it.

“If then all is in him and he is in all, why blush for the faith that teaches us that one day God was born in the human condition, God who still today exists in humanity?

“Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then, we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us today no less than he was then.” (My emphasis.)

I think that one who finds the perennial philosophy best expressed in Christic symbolism (and trintarian symbolism), and who expresses him/herself as such, can rightfully claim the name. Others, of course, might claim that she is not a “true” Christian (TM). For my part, whether someone thinks that I am a “true” anything in that sense does not particularly bother me. They can, of course, exclude me from their particular congregation.

(Re: metanoia and satori -- I think they're about as close as the two sides of the Force.)

Are you saying that satori is an evil experience? I doubt that you take metanoia as either (a) simply a change in what one thinks, or (b) contrition...