I never bothered with Schopenhauer because Nietzsche seemed to dismiss him after being heavily influenced. Perhaps I should have been more diligent. In the quotation with which you finished I see Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. I am a life long atheist which state might be a greater burden than it appears. My reason for making my observation about atheism being a burden is the same as the implication that frightened Nietzsche. He understood the consequence of stripping away the conventional deity of the monotheists was nihilism. The lynchpin of legal systems, at least in the monotheistic world, was the notion of the singular god. It is what made Islam so successful because it caused the individuals who feared judgment to be instinctively moral or ethical in their conduct.
The failing of the legal system operated now, at least in the common law countries, is due to the lack of a transcendent binding force. The result is an ever increasing need for more and more law of one form or another. Ultimately, the project becomes impossible as the ways and means to rort the law are infinite whilst the capacity for creating laws is finite. Our societies become intensely inhibited by the thicket of regulation trying to cover every continency.
Nietzsche's solution to the problem was to find a deity within ourselves. That is the function of the concept of the eternal recurrence of the same. We become eternal judges of ourselves. It relies on immanence rather than transcendence. Does it work? It might if everybody had the wit to understand the eternal circle. But even in societies long used to the notion of endless cycles it doesn't.
The question of immanence and transcendence is interesting in this case. For the Vedanta (and in fact, Buddhism) as well as Schopenhauer, the God of the monotheists was in a sense immanent in the 'world' in that if God was regarded as an objective entity, then he was a relative entity, he was at least an object for a subject and so could never be absolute. Whereas, with the notion of maya, the veil of illusion, transcendence means understanding relativity and all it's phenomena (including the phenomena of the creator as object and the created self as subject) to be ultimately 'unreal', though relatively real. The 'atman' is in a sense, transcendent (just like the platonic One) in that it transcends even the distinction between subject and object and is beyond what can be grasped with the objectively orientated senses (including the thinking mind). At the same time, it is also immanent in that it is the only real being of which everything else, including ourselves, is a mere appearance or illusion in the play of relativity the atman projects as it's creative play. The deities or the deity of theism are also in this scheme mere appearances, albeit closer to the pure being, and of vastly more power, within the relative realm as phenomenon (or in the case of the platonic One, an emanation) of atman, the real 'Self'. As to the God/s acting as a binding force for law, within maya, certainly the Gods or God are authorities with the power to reward or punish.
Great read about the layers of truth in philosophy and spirituality. The real wisdom often hides behind the rituals and stories we think we understand. I appreciated how you connected ancient traditions to the quest for inner experience. This definitely got me thinking about what’s exoteric versus esoteric in my own beliefs.
Understanding different religious and philosophical conceptions of God is a topic that suits you perfectly. I found this very interesting, Ross.
Thank you very much, Martin!
Me too Martin
Fascinating read, as always!
Thank you, Allegra!
I never bothered with Schopenhauer because Nietzsche seemed to dismiss him after being heavily influenced. Perhaps I should have been more diligent. In the quotation with which you finished I see Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. I am a life long atheist which state might be a greater burden than it appears. My reason for making my observation about atheism being a burden is the same as the implication that frightened Nietzsche. He understood the consequence of stripping away the conventional deity of the monotheists was nihilism. The lynchpin of legal systems, at least in the monotheistic world, was the notion of the singular god. It is what made Islam so successful because it caused the individuals who feared judgment to be instinctively moral or ethical in their conduct.
The failing of the legal system operated now, at least in the common law countries, is due to the lack of a transcendent binding force. The result is an ever increasing need for more and more law of one form or another. Ultimately, the project becomes impossible as the ways and means to rort the law are infinite whilst the capacity for creating laws is finite. Our societies become intensely inhibited by the thicket of regulation trying to cover every continency.
Nietzsche's solution to the problem was to find a deity within ourselves. That is the function of the concept of the eternal recurrence of the same. We become eternal judges of ourselves. It relies on immanence rather than transcendence. Does it work? It might if everybody had the wit to understand the eternal circle. But even in societies long used to the notion of endless cycles it doesn't.
The question of immanence and transcendence is interesting in this case. For the Vedanta (and in fact, Buddhism) as well as Schopenhauer, the God of the monotheists was in a sense immanent in the 'world' in that if God was regarded as an objective entity, then he was a relative entity, he was at least an object for a subject and so could never be absolute. Whereas, with the notion of maya, the veil of illusion, transcendence means understanding relativity and all it's phenomena (including the phenomena of the creator as object and the created self as subject) to be ultimately 'unreal', though relatively real. The 'atman' is in a sense, transcendent (just like the platonic One) in that it transcends even the distinction between subject and object and is beyond what can be grasped with the objectively orientated senses (including the thinking mind). At the same time, it is also immanent in that it is the only real being of which everything else, including ourselves, is a mere appearance or illusion in the play of relativity the atman projects as it's creative play. The deities or the deity of theism are also in this scheme mere appearances, albeit closer to the pure being, and of vastly more power, within the relative realm as phenomenon (or in the case of the platonic One, an emanation) of atman, the real 'Self'. As to the God/s acting as a binding force for law, within maya, certainly the Gods or God are authorities with the power to reward or punish.
He was and is a guess and she is not 💋
Great read about the layers of truth in philosophy and spirituality. The real wisdom often hides behind the rituals and stories we think we understand. I appreciated how you connected ancient traditions to the quest for inner experience. This definitely got me thinking about what’s exoteric versus esoteric in my own beliefs.
Thank you very much! 🙏
Did someone say the universe is female
The Platonist philosopher Plutarch interpreted the myth of Isis and Osiris as the world-soul being Isis
Thank you Ross. I very much appreciate and enjoy your body of work.
Thank you! 🙏🙏💚
Her womb, boom, her womb, the harbor, where boom 💥cocreation fires up ☀️+ 🌗= 🚼 in her harbor
Perhaps, that’s my guess🤣