New topic.  Open question for discussion:

What is the life of human flourishing without supernatural appeals? What is the good life if there are no gods to intervene to save or damn us? What is human Happiness, not the small passing happiness, but Eudaimonia?


Perhaps this is an improper question to ask as it might be difficult to people from a faith or religious perspective to participate (other than standing on the sidelines to cast aspersions and derisive comments.)
So perhaps it should be open to say "ok if you want to say what is human flourishing with supernatural appeals then say so," though I feel I really cannot do much with supernatural appeals.

I mean really I feel like may be this is an improper topic to start because for so many on this board there is no such thing as human flourishing without supernatural appeals. But this is what is on my mind and people keep asking me what I think so why not. Let's see where this goes and if it can be constructive.

So, what for you personally in your own personally philosophy of life, is human flourishing?

 How do you personally experience human flourishing in your life?

If you version of human flourishing includes supernatural appeals, are there any parts of the flourishing life for you that do not involve the supernatural? If not, then why not? Is human flourishing solely a supernatural matter or are there other factors that also contribute for you and if so, how?

What is the good life? What is human flourishing? What is happiness? What is eudemonia?

I have eudaimonia in my signature, but I don't think it's possible as Aristotle conceived of it anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataraxia

I'm very much inclined to believe that's the good life. Epicurus seemed like such a cool laid back guy.

I thought awhile before deciding to make this one quick comment.  But I found the quote above to have both of the characteristics for which it claims come from Christians.

The definition of aspersion (Merriam-Webster) is "a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation."  I am not aware of us trying to harm anyone's reputation, but to claim that that is all that people who believe in the supernatural can do seems harmful to their reputation.

The definition of derisive (Merriam-Webster) is "the use of ridicule or scorn to show contempt."  Once again I hope we have not treated anyone with contempt, but claiming that these types of comments are the only comments people who believe in the supernatural can make seems, to me, contemptuous.

I would make a further remark but it might be seen as an aspersion or derisive because it probably would be.    lol

Maybe by sharing experiences?

I believe (and I'm being serious here) that you value each person's spiritual journey for that person.  Would a Christian's personal experiences about what a flourishing life is be of some value?  I'm not talking about doctrine or dogma, but actual experience.

I know that compared to some I am quite amateurish in matters of philosophy, so please excuse me if my propositions are not fully worked out, but I am learning more everyday. I am trying to work out my position on the matter of what is the life of human flourishing. So here goes.....

 1) So meaning is a human endeavor. Humans or cognizant beings have meanings, plans, attitudes, goals.

2) Non-cognizant beings do not have meanings in the same way as humans. For example a statue cannot have plans, goals, hopes or dreams as humans do. Similarly, it is erroneous to call the universe meaningful or meaningless. Meaning is something that persons have.

3) Different people have different goals, dreams and plans that they feel make their life meaningful. Some live for their family, for the ones they love. Some live to advance a cause larger than themselves, such as winning a war, defending a country, fighting for freedom. Some live to make creative use of their abilities, using their intelligence to solve problems or advance science, using their empathy to help ease others suffering, and so on.

4) Though meaning is a human activity, so it is the actions and living of persons (or thinking beings) that creates meaning, there are specific boundaries and borders set to the range of human meanings. This range is set relatively by what we might call ?the human condition.? So although humans are the ones making meaning, human meaning will not just be anything. What humans will find meaningful is predicted by what might be called the human condition or perhaps human nature.

5) Therefore we can show a range of things that humans will find meaningful. These things when fulfilled might be called the ?final cause? or teleos of being human.

So  

A) humans are social creatures, so part of the human teleos or ?final cause? or meaning of being human is fulfilled by various human goals or activities in the social realm.

I. part of human teleos is fulfilled by our social felicity - making friends, building social networks, sharing joy and sorrows, but also by being part of a family, or falling in love, or raising children, caring for loved ones.

II. Part of human teleos is fulfilled by activities that only make sense given our tendency to form groups organizations, and political and social structures - working for a form of governance that achieves equality or a fair share of resources or some other goal to improve one?s social/political situation, this would be like advocating for democracy or equal rights, or fighting for one?s country, or contributing to charities that help someone?s situation. As humans ?we?re in this together? and  the wellbeing of individuals has many implications for the welfare of society as a whole.

B) We as humans have various capacities and abilities that fulfill our human teleos if we nurture them but depreciate from our lives if we do not utilize these potentials.

 I. one human capacity is intelligence and reasoning and cognition. We can develop these in a variety of ways.
One can use one?s intelligence to explore the world we live in through learning. One can use one?s intelligence to create things such as works of architecture or masterful painting or beautiful music. There are a million other examples I could use, but I think the idea is clear that by using our intelligence and reason we can develop various meaningful projects.

II There are a variety of human capacities that we have each of them when nurtured and exercised is rewarding and fulfils our human teleos. I could go on listing these with examples as the paragraph above but one could perhaps apply to a variety of areas such as those described in Gardener?s multiple intelligences theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

To give a specific example of this in my own life, I enjoy exercise and running in particular. When I use my capacity to say run 2 or 3 miles I feel great, both from the healthy feelings it creates and from the sense of accomplishment that I am using  my abilities and achieve some of my goals.

6) So therefore we as human beings make meaning as part of being a sentient and thinking being. Our meanings as thinking and sentient being are given specific instantiation (or concrete dimensions and form) by our specific existence as humans (homo sapiens sapiens) as opposed to some other existence as some other sort of thinking being.  Each person will have different plans, dreams, goals, ideas and meanings, but all of them will fit within the broader context of being a human on this earth in this universe with our specific history that has given us a specific type of life as described above.

7 It follows from #6 and #5 that when we use our various capacities and embrace our particular life as homo sapiens with it?s particular joys and downfalls that we experience a life of human flourishing or the good life or a meaningful life or the teleos of being human, or whatever term you like to describe what I am gesturing at.

8 ) As a consequence of #7 if we let our capacities atrophy  or if we do not appreciate or embrace our particular joys and sorrows of being human we will not experience a life of human flourishing.

There is a lot more that I want to work into this frame work, but this is my template start.


What is your philosophy of human flourishing? What makes the good life or the meaningful life for you?

Thank you.

-Let me see if I understand your point.  You agree that the meaningful life is in part made by "social" aspect and by a mental/ ability aspect. And would give examples like "doing good, having compassion for others, empathy, helping others to be better, helping yourself to be better all are part of this entity." However you feel that both aspects (1 social and 2 mental/ability) are under-girded or laid on "spiritual" foundations or "philosophical virtue foundations". These spiritual foundations consist in 1) loving God or some sort of connection to a higher power and 2) following the golden rule, love your neighbor as yourself. You call our "social" aspect and "mental/ability" aspect both "satisfaction factors" and add that one does not have to believe in the supernatural to experience these "satisfaction factors."

Is this paragraph a good paraphrase of your point of view of what the good life is?

I think the most constructive criticism here is perhaps:

Have I not address the spiritual? I suppose I see what one might call the "spiritual life" addressed in this general frame work, though perhaps not spelled out and given examples well enough.

1) One aspect of what I think you would agree with as the "spiritual life" is fulfilled as a consequence of the "social aspect." Part of being a social human is giving to others, loving your neighbor, supporting charities, giving of your time to make society better, and so on. Perhaps you would say part of the spiritual life is loving your neighbor and golden rule stuff. I think this is addressed in #5 part A, subpart II.

2) Another aspect of the spiritual life is asking where did we come from? Where did the universe come from? What is my life for? I think this is addressed though not very specifically in 5 part B subpart I.  This is the joy of using our mental capacities for philosophical inquiry or scientific investigation. Perhaps I need to spend a great deal more time giving more specific examples of #5 part B.

3) Another thing people might call spiritual are transcendent experiences like the feeling felt when singing (religious or non-religious) song, hearing a symphony or experiencing the beauty of nature. I would suggest that these are experiences that make sense in the context of our human teleos as described above. Part of our human nature is to be entranced by music, and especially by communal music. Some have suggested that our atunement to music evolved in part out of the social function it plays (I.E. communication, expression, social cohesion, etc.)

Second, as to the "spiritual" wonder of enjoying nature I think that this is a very clear that this makes best sense the context of our human teleos. Steven Pinker gives a great chapter in his book How The Mind Works (Hotheads especially from page 374 on.) Our wonder at nature makes perfect sense within the context of a naturalistic viewpoint. We depend on nature/the environment for our survival and existence. We find the beauty of the earth deeply enthralling as it's health makes for our flourishing and it's decline makes for our downfall. Is it any wonder that we find flourishing natural environments beautiful and environmental degradation ugly and disgusting. The one contributes to our health, the other to our possible destruction.

Steven Pinker notes " Some natural happenings are deeply evocative, like sunsets, thunder, gathering clouds, and fire. Orians and Heerwagen note that the tell of any imminent and consequential change, darkness, a storm, a blaze. The emotions evoked are arresting, forcing one to stop, take notice and prepare for what?s to come."

I could go on, with a lot of necessary caveats, qualifications. But for now I will refer you to Steven Pinker's excellent book.

4) Another activity that many would consider spiritual is meditation. As religious as it might seem, I don't actually have any problem with meditation and would recommend it. It might surprize you that I also see this "spiritual" activity as fitting into my outline framework of naturalistic human flourishing. I think of meditation as simply using our human capacity to calm and focus the mind. Much of how our body reacts to situations depends on how we decide to cognitively frame our situation. If we choose to view our situation as negative and distressing, the body can only follow how our mind choose to view our situation, thus releasing stress hormones, and making us feel anxious. However if we take time to calm the mind and reassess our situation we can achieve a greater level of calm. In psychology there are some scientifically supported methods that focus on forcing us to re-evaluate our situation in terms of the facts and reason, in other words cognitive restructuring. (For example to a depressed person who says "Everyone hates me." The therapist might ask this person to evaluate their situation factually. Really? Does everyone hate you? What about this person? Don?t they like you? What about this fact and that fact. Forcing the person to re-evaluate their situation in a new way.) Anyways I digress? But, I think that naturalism does not in any way preclude one from meditation, focusing the mind and using our human mental capacities to re-evaluate our situation and live a life of greater focus, calm and clarity.


5) Perhaps what you mean but not addressing the spiritual is that my view does not include God or a higher power. I suppose this is true that as a "naturalistic" philosophy it does not include God or higher power, or is completely agnostic about it (I.E. If there is a God I can't find him, sorry.) So I suppose I should make clear again from the outset that my viewpoint is that of metaphysical naturalism. We have debate at length if there could be a God, and I can't seem to believe there is one. So in that sense, yes, I don?t feel that I can include the spiritual literally speaking, since I don?t believe we have good reason to say such things exist. If you include the supernatural in your theory of human flourishing, that's fine. I guess I am curious to hear honest reason why people get up in the morning. (I suspect that when you really lay out the reasons that both believers and non-believers would give as to "why they get up in the morning"  I think you would find that the reasons are not much different, whether believer or not. I mean sure a lot of people will want to give pious reasons for why they get up in the morning, such as "I get up in the morning only to live for Christ." But I think if you really investigate this, you will find that such a person gets up for much the same reason as anyone else (as I have outline) for friends, for family, for projects that matter to them, for ideas that matter to them, etc etc.)


Anyway, I think you have pointed out an area where I can add a lot to my theory/framework of human flourishing. It might seem strange to you but I almost feel as if I could go through the classic book "Celebration of discipline" and show how most of the chapters and the experiences  they describe fit into a naturalistic framework. But that is a much longer project. Perhaps I will work on a revision, that includes a clearer elaboration of where I disagree with existentialism as usually formulated, and showing how the atheist lives a life of human flourishing  that defines in greater detail it's relation to what is commonly called by many "spiritual experiences" or the "spiritual."

There is so much I could say. But for the moment I will say this. I have stopped reading books on the historical jesus or on apolegetics or christian history or whatever for now. The last book I made myself read was From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White. It was good, but I am glad I am done reading it. I have spend so much of my time trying to read whatever and to listen to various religious rationalizations or explainations or excuses or whatever.

My point is this, the secular life without religious rationalizations is so nice. I just live my life and let reality be what it is and not try to make reality into something it is not. I have had some really good experiences helping people at work, but I don't need God to enjoy helping people.

It has been so nice, not trying to wrestle with various strange religious explainations. Life is what it is, and that is beautiful. I don't have to pretend all 100 billion galaxies were created with me in mind to enjoy that. Not trying to wrestle with religion or try to justify God or whatever has been like a huge weight off my back and I wish I would have made the decision long ago to do that.

Anyway, wanted to say hi to everyone, since someone brought up the historical Jesus thing to me and I was like whatever, I have nothing to say, you could read the LQ threads. I have already said everything.


Life is not without stress, but I wish I had long ago removed the stress from my life of trying to hard to wrestle with religious logic. Maybe I will post something more on this thread later. But I don't have anything else new to say. Except the secular life without gods or spirits is nice. You should try it.