Philosophy as counter-balance to instinct?

[Qoeleth]

It seems that there are a number of ‘doctrines’ common to most systems of philosophy:

1. that the desire for material wealth is wrong is wrong/erroneous/foolish- Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicurianism, etc.
2. that fear of death is an error- Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicurianism, etc.

Yet, in contrast to this apparently universal philosophical/religious agreement, desire for material wealth and fear of death each seems to be more or less universal cultural/human values. Is philosophy then always a counter-balance to what seems to be ‘human instinct’?

Can anyone think of a philosophy/religion which positively affirms the pursuit of material wealth and the attachment to mortal life? Would such a philosophy, insofar as it would seem merely to confirm instinctual tendencies, be redundant?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

It seems that there are a number of ‘doctrines’ common to most systems of philosophy:

1. that the desire for material wealth is wrong is wrong/erroneous/foolish- Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicurianism, etc.
2. that fear of death is an error- Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Platonism, Stoicism, Cynicism, Scepticism, Epicurianism, etc.

Yet, in contrast to this apparently universal philosophical/religious agreement, desire for material wealth and fear of death each seems to be more or less universal cultural/human values. Is philosophy then always a counter-balance to what seems to be ‘human instinct’?

Can anyone think of a philosophy/religion which positively affirms the pursuit of material wealth and the attachment to mortal life? Would such a philosophy, insofar as it would seem merely to confirm instinctual tendencies, be redundant?

All good questions.

First, the Church of Scientology does positively affirm the pursuit of material wealth.

Second, just the other day I came across this quote from a French writer of about 100 years ago:

“Love redeems us from instinct, it is a redemptive principle” (L’amour nous rachète de l’instinct, c’est un principe rédempteur)

From De Parsifal à Don Quichotte, by Péladan.

To me, the Christian faith (and maybe some versions of Judaism and Sufism) is unique in that it focuses on the divine love of God and neighbor. Philosophy does raise us above instinct, but Divine Love takes us much further. Buddhism, Stoicism, Platonism, and Islam really don’t have Divine Love in the same way or to the same extent as does the Christian faith, as far as I can see.

To me, this is why I always feel it is so sad and tragic when Christians take up Philosophy as the key, main or sole means to convert people to the Christian faith. Philosophy has its uses, but it can only take a soul so far. Apologetics can only take people so far.

In Dante’s epic The Divine Comedy, Dante’s main guide for about the first half of his journey is Virgil, who represents Reason and thus Philosophy. But his guide to the jump to Heaven is Beatrice, who represents Divine Love. After guiding Dante through Hell, and up the slopes of Mount Purgatory, the character Virgil explicitly says that, as a pagan, he cannot guide Dante any further, and disappears. Then Beatrice appears.

Thus, I agree with those who view Apologetics as a preparation for, and occasional aid to, Evangelization, but not a substitute for it. Apologetics by itself cannot get anyone into Heaven, just as Virgil could not guide Dante to Heaven. That’s how I see it any way. I see too much faith in the idea that we can argue people into faith in God, Jesus, and the Catholic Church.

The Bible says “God is love.” It never says “God is reason,” or “God is philosophy.”

Of course, I am oversimplifying all this, and so, forgive me.

Yet, I hope my comment provided something of use to you.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yet, in contrast to this apparently universal philosophical/religious agreement, desire for material wealth and fear of death each seems to be more or less universal cultural/human values. Is philosophy then always a counter-balance to what seems to be ‘human instinct’?

It’s less human instinct than material biological imperative. The purpose of biological life is production and reproduction. Survival is a very strong instinct. “Production” is a word that in human-speak would mean “wealth.” For a different life form it means space to live, place to live, food acquired.

That is, we have an almost overwhelming biological drive to acquire stuff. Which is why acquisition changes brain chemistry and releases feel good chemicals. We have a drive to sex, to procreate. All of that presupposes a drive to live, to get the stuff to make the place to have the babies we raise to carry on… our DNA. Biological life is just DNA’s way of making more DNA.

 

[DWGarvin]

Hedonism as a philosophical theory espouses the view that we ought to do that which causes us physical pleasure. It’s not quite materialistic, but it’s close.

 

[Qoeleth]

Hedonism as a philosophical theory espouses the view that we ought to do that which causes us physical pleasure. It’s not quite materialistic, but it’s close.

Epicurus himself (normally regarded as the starter of hedonism), says, though, that poverty is more conducive to happiness than wealth, or more exactly:
“Poverty, if measured by the natural purpose of life, is great wealth; but wealth, if not limited, is great poverty”.

Similarly, he says death is not to be feared, since, once dead, there are no sensations.
As I understand it, his definition of pleasure is simply the elimination of physical pain or suffering- any ‘pleasure’ in excess is actually a disturbance.

Which, to me, makes it seem like a genuine Epicurean lifestyle would not ‘look’ all that different from a Cynic, a Stoic or a Christian.

 

[Qoeleth]

It’s less human instinct than material biological imperative. The purpose of biological life is production and reproduction. Survival is a very strong instinct. “Production” is a word that in human-speak would mean “wealth.” For a different life form it means space to live, place to live, food acquired.

That is, we have an almost overwhelming biological drive to acquire stuff. Which is why acquisition changes brain chemistry and releases feel good chemicals. We have a drive to sex, to procreate. All of that presupposes a drive to live, to get the stuff to make the place to have the babies we raise to carry on… our DNA. Biological life is just DNA’s way of making more DNA.

So, all philosophy seems to counter-balance biological drives?

 

[Julia_Mae]

So, all philosophy seems to counter-balance biological drives?

Quite possibly, I don’t know enough about the various philosophies to say so. But from a faith perspective, a human is not a Homo sapien. A human is H.sap with a spirtual soul. What feeds the soul, what empowers the soul toward it’s ultimate purpose (unity with God) often, (mostly?) seems at odds with the biological imperative of all life on earth. The only way human life makes sense, is in terms of eternal life. Otherwise, where does the capacity to overcome our own biological imperative come from and what purpose would it serve?

 

[J_Peterson]

What was Ayn Rand’s philosophy? I can’t remember what you call it. That may be an example of one where gaining material wealth is a good thing. She was an atheist though.