This very long article is at once both thought-provoking and rather confused, like reading the beginning of a hundred interesting conversations, each interrupting the last before they get anywhere. I'm not really sure what to take away from it, other than "if you want to finish the conversation, buy the books."
The title here gives a clue as to what someone else got out of it. "Against Cynicism: A philosopher's brilliant reasons for living." We might infer that this was about reasons for living, that they are brilliant, and that cynicism isn't part of those reasons. And yet, I'm not entirely sure that "reasons for living" are what Sloterdijk is even addressing. It seems more like he's addressing the concern of minimizing suffering in a culture that's largely given up God. He's an atheist who admits that religion in general and the belief in God in particular has utility, and he's exploring replacement therapies. An eminently reasonable thing to do. But this isn't a reason for living: for the vast majority of people, the "reason for living" is simply that the alternative, death, is petrifying.
"for the vast majority of people, the "reason for living" is simply that the alternative, death, is petrifying."
Perhaps I'm unusually happy, but my reason is to have the most fun, which pretty strongly implies helping those around me have fun, while being focused on long term. Some sociocultural rules from the other side of the planet three thousand years ago are interesting and all that, but don't float my boat or fit my needs.
Thanks for sharing this. I'm glad to see a secular author who
has a real appreciation of religion--he doesn't treat it as something that makes dimwitted people happy, but as a training regimen designed for self-improvement, a struggle to develop good mental hygiene and psychologically safe communities, etc. If I read the article right, he is saying we need to develop these practices in a nonreligious context.
I agree, but how can secular people and communities practice spirituality in a way that will cause these changes without sharing a common set of beliefs, practices and language?
It doesn't need to be called 'spirituality' - you hit it on the head before with 'self-improvement'
It's possible for secular people to practice self-improvement, but why would we not share a common set of beliefs/practices/language? I think many self-improvement groups do just that - obvious ones like churches, but also non-obvious ones (book clubs, running clubs, etc).
2) banal observations once you finally figure out WTF they are talking about. check.
3) lauded for being the smartest, greatest, most brilliant intellectual of their age. check.
4) books with inscrutable titles like Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology and Rage and Time. check. (LOL! How big do your balls have to be to give a book a title like that?)
5) constant name-dropping of fashionable intellectuals. check.
Must be European philosophy!
UPDATE: quote from Amazon description of Bubbles. Behold the enormity of Peter Sloterdijk's balls:
"reinterprets the history of Western metaphysics as an
inherently spatial and immunological project, from the
discovery of self (bubble) to the exploration of world
(globe) to the poetics of plurality (foam)."
There is a saying I really like: "I may not have hope, but I do have determination". I'm not sure who said it, but it's true (for some things).
People have faced many hopeless tasks and triumphed. They only seem inevitable after the fact. I'm sure it was difficult to expect the end of racism in South Africa, but it happened. It's not hard to think of many other examples.
It's worth it to start working on a cause you believe in, and other people will join.
Reminds me of watching the series "Lost", where the expectation was set from the beginning that there was a logical, rational explanation for the whole thing. In the end they producers basically lied, and it ended up being a big shaggy dog story.
If anyone can extract the "brilliant reasons for living" from that article, please post them here. I don't expect much of a list.
"[...] it is just one of the many provocative ideas that he develops and then drops in the course of the book, which reads less like a structured argument than a long prose poem. Sloterdijk’s strength and appeal come from the intuitive and metaphorical quality of his thought, his unconventional approaches to familiar problems, his willingness to scandalize."
This sums up Sloterdijk pretty well. I highly recommend reading him.
While I wasn't previously familiar with Sloterdijk, I find it interesting that he takes exactly the opposite value from Christianity as Slavoj Zizek, the other great popular atheist apologist for Christianity (cf. Zizek's The Fragile Absolute: Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting for).
"Sloterdijk’s ideal is not Pauline conversion but Trinitarian 'perichoresis,'"
Unfortunately, I don't think Sloterdijk has understood the theological context of perichoresis which he goes on to define:
"'Perichoresis means that the milieu of the persons is entirely the relationship itself,' he writes, envisioning love as a total mutual absorption."
Perichoresis is literally "mutual interpenetration" and refers to the greek choros and their dances around (peri) each other in interlocking rings in the theatre. In the theological appropriation of this imagery, this has more to do with the depth and interdependence of the relationship than with the "milieu" - though it's not clear what he means by that.
Call me cynical, but this exudes the intellectual aroma of Fuller's "Synergetics". In the words of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and remembering everything to which it referred): "Mostly harmless."
Though I heard the name so often I never read the man, I think have to rectify that.
We need to recover, and give to one another, the trust that we once gave our placentas.
Wow! It's so refreshing to hear something like that put so strongly. When discussing politics, people often say competition and struggle is normal and lets us have all the nice things, but I like this radically different outlook much more, man should not be predator to man. After all, we can also invent things because it makes ourselves and others happy, just as an expression of our creativity or intelligence... I would even say we can't avoid it. Competition is nice, sportsmanship and/or cooperation are nicer.
It's a lot less poetic if you consider that it wasn't "trust" that brought our placentas into being but a mutated retrovirus.
More power to this guy if he helps people feel better about themselves and the world but he should refrain from entering public debates about "genetic engineering and economics" while presenting himself as somebody enlightened, knowledgeable or even adequately informed.
It is unfair to judge him solely from this article without having read his books but what can be gathered from it and a cursory search suggests that his interest in modern science consists exclusively of surfing the current zeitgeist without actually being interested in science, or even the philosophy of science.
If he indeed is "at the forefront of European intellectual life" it would be a pretty sad testament to the dismal state of contemporary philosophy.
[+] [-] javajosh|12 years ago|reply
The title here gives a clue as to what someone else got out of it. "Against Cynicism: A philosopher's brilliant reasons for living." We might infer that this was about reasons for living, that they are brilliant, and that cynicism isn't part of those reasons. And yet, I'm not entirely sure that "reasons for living" are what Sloterdijk is even addressing. It seems more like he's addressing the concern of minimizing suffering in a culture that's largely given up God. He's an atheist who admits that religion in general and the belief in God in particular has utility, and he's exploring replacement therapies. An eminently reasonable thing to do. But this isn't a reason for living: for the vast majority of people, the "reason for living" is simply that the alternative, death, is petrifying.
[+] [-] VLM|12 years ago|reply
Perhaps I'm unusually happy, but my reason is to have the most fun, which pretty strongly implies helping those around me have fun, while being focused on long term. Some sociocultural rules from the other side of the planet three thousand years ago are interesting and all that, but don't float my boat or fit my needs.
[+] [-] dsego|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregw134|12 years ago|reply
I agree, but how can secular people and communities practice spirituality in a way that will cause these changes without sharing a common set of beliefs, practices and language?
[+] [-] mgkimsal|12 years ago|reply
It's possible for secular people to practice self-improvement, but why would we not share a common set of beliefs/practices/language? I think many self-improvement groups do just that - obvious ones like churches, but also non-obvious ones (book clubs, running clubs, etc).
[+] [-] VLM|12 years ago|reply
Sounds like a "modern" K12 educational system.
[+] [-] colinm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MaysonL|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n1ghtm4n|12 years ago|reply
2) banal observations once you finally figure out WTF they are talking about. check.
3) lauded for being the smartest, greatest, most brilliant intellectual of their age. check.
4) books with inscrutable titles like Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology and Rage and Time. check. (LOL! How big do your balls have to be to give a book a title like that?)
5) constant name-dropping of fashionable intellectuals. check.
Must be European philosophy!
UPDATE: quote from Amazon description of Bubbles. Behold the enormity of Peter Sloterdijk's balls:
http://www.amazon.com/Bubbles-Spheres-Microspherology-Semiot...[+] [-] jivatmanx|12 years ago|reply
Cicero is immortal as both the greatest and last defender of the Roman Republic.
[+] [-] webnrrd2k|12 years ago|reply
People have faced many hopeless tasks and triumphed. They only seem inevitable after the fact. I'm sure it was difficult to expect the end of racism in South Africa, but it happened. It's not hard to think of many other examples.
It's worth it to start working on a cause you believe in, and other people will join.
[+] [-] milesf|12 years ago|reply
Reminds me of watching the series "Lost", where the expectation was set from the beginning that there was a logical, rational explanation for the whole thing. In the end they producers basically lied, and it ended up being a big shaggy dog story.
If anyone can extract the "brilliant reasons for living" from that article, please post them here. I don't expect much of a list.
[+] [-] danbmil99|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 9h1d9j809s|12 years ago|reply
This sums up Sloterdijk pretty well. I highly recommend reading him.
[+] [-] jdmitch|12 years ago|reply
"Sloterdijk’s ideal is not Pauline conversion but Trinitarian 'perichoresis,'"
Unfortunately, I don't think Sloterdijk has understood the theological context of perichoresis which he goes on to define:
"'Perichoresis means that the milieu of the persons is entirely the relationship itself,' he writes, envisioning love as a total mutual absorption."
Perichoresis is literally "mutual interpenetration" and refers to the greek choros and their dances around (peri) each other in interlocking rings in the theatre. In the theological appropriation of this imagery, this has more to do with the depth and interdependence of the relationship than with the "milieu" - though it's not clear what he means by that.
[+] [-] MWil|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thyrsus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cousin_it|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louwrentius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|12 years ago|reply
We need to recover, and give to one another, the trust that we once gave our placentas.
Wow! It's so refreshing to hear something like that put so strongly. When discussing politics, people often say competition and struggle is normal and lets us have all the nice things, but I like this radically different outlook much more, man should not be predator to man. After all, we can also invent things because it makes ourselves and others happy, just as an expression of our creativity or intelligence... I would even say we can't avoid it. Competition is nice, sportsmanship and/or cooperation are nicer.
[+] [-] zepolud|12 years ago|reply
More power to this guy if he helps people feel better about themselves and the world but he should refrain from entering public debates about "genetic engineering and economics" while presenting himself as somebody enlightened, knowledgeable or even adequately informed.
It is unfair to judge him solely from this article without having read his books but what can be gathered from it and a cursory search suggests that his interest in modern science consists exclusively of surfing the current zeitgeist without actually being interested in science, or even the philosophy of science.
If he indeed is "at the forefront of European intellectual life" it would be a pretty sad testament to the dismal state of contemporary philosophy.