The English philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) describes the outlook of the mature intellectual -- from his point of view, an atheist, staring into the void -- as "heroic fatalism." The void, so described, is not the Buddhist Void (sunyata), but the void created by the intellectual knowledge humanity has acquired through empirical observation of ourselves, the world around us and ultimately the cosmos stretching into infinity both as macrocosm and microcosm.
Why heroic fatalism? Because our knowledge of ourselves and the world, measured and established by the standards of analytic philosophy, not religious belief, has done little to substantiate alternative realities, metaphysical planes, an altered consciousness or a host of varieties on the theme of a substratum of "God" at work in the universe.
Instead, measured by empirical standards, we face what seems only the bleakest of ends. Our sun is destined to die and with it the earth will freeze and life will cease to exist. Not a particularly optimistic stance for our future!
If we attribute any significance to human existence, significance in the "larger scheme of things," then surely any thoughtful person will consider for a moment that all accomplishments of humankind are destined to cease to exist by the simple physical reality of the evolving nature of the cosmos. This perspective is analytic philosophy in company with an empirical world view.
So why heroic fatalism? For Russell it is an act of human courage to face such odds with certain knowledge of the demise of all we know. Yet we get up each morning, we read the newspaper, have our coffee and go about our lives. To Russell, such actions are not simply courageous, but heroic!
And what would Confucius say?
I asked this very issue of Okada Takehiko, scholar of Confucianism, in my interviews with him some years ago, recorded in my book, "The Confucian Way of Contemplation, Okada Takehiko and the Tradition of Quiet-Sitting" (1988). His answer has not left me in the intervening years.
Okada responded by quoting Confucius when asked about death. Confucius said that we do not know life, how can we know death (Analects XI:11) That Okada took this particular passage from the Confucian Analects as his response to my question about a radical atheist construction of the meaning of the world and humanity in the 20th century is a fascinating exegetical interpretation and adaptation to a contemporary concern.
The meaning that Okada sought from Confucius suggests the capacity of the Confucian tradition to address issues of modernity, not unlike every other major religious tradition. As old as are the roots of religious traditions, there is a voice that resonates to our most pressing contemporary concerns!
Some will say such a voice is irrelevant today, that religion only ever sought to answer questions not yet addressed by the "certain knowledge" of empiricism. As such, so some will argue, the time of religion is passed. But religious traditions will respond by suggesting that whatever the issue, there is a response in the foundation of the tradition, because the tradition represents something that is in itself without temporal or spatial limitations.
Thus, to the heroic fatalism of Bertrand Russell, there is not a religious tradition that does not have a response to the radical atheism it represents. And even with all their differences in theology and ontology, there is still the sense in which a religious tradition, be it Christian, Buddhist or Confucian, will come back and challenge Russell's most basic assumption that the universe is meaningless.
As the great Hegel scholar W. T. Stace (1886-1967) said, a religion can deal with any theology, any cosmology, any biology, any geology -- what it cannot deal with is a world and a universe without meaning and purpose.
The challenge of a Russell is met then by an argument almost universally held by all religious traditions for purpose in life and in the world and universe we know. Teleology, even Confucian teleology, takes the place of meaninglessness, of a world conceived through random and capricious acts and catalysts.
And to Okada's response: Why is Confucius' statement of the importance of life over the question of death an answer to Russell's heroic fatalism?
Confucius suggests that we do not yet know the meaning of life, and thus we hold open the possibility of greater knowledge, of limitless if not infinite knowledge. We do not yet know enough to say that the world is without purpose, that it is merely random and capricious. The only thing that is random and capricious is a conclusion suggesting such a state!
Foundational to Okada's argument is the opening passage of the Analects where Confucius says, "To learn and at due times to repeat what one has learned," reminding ourselves that, for Confucius, learning must never cease.
While some religious traditions draw closure upon truth claims from closure upon learning, with Confucius there remains an openness that discourages the absolute claims of a religious fundamentalism. Ironically, Russell's challenge of heroic fatalism is met by Confucius' emphasis upon the continuous and open nature of learning. Could this Confucian perspective on learning be the reason for Russell's great admiration of Chinese thought after his visit to China in the early 20th century?
Confucianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.
maybe that selfish gene of mine just had a laugh also. :-)
we humans are an interesting species to say the least.
ALBERT EINSTEIN:
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle".
---
Sorry, there's a host of info coming out the work of theoretical physics that suggests there may well be alternate universes, some sort of super-consciousness in the universe, etc.
Russell's "heroic fatalism", reprised these days by Pope Dawkins and others is really more of a delusion than anything else.
And I didn't thank you, either.
But this blugger, a Dawkinite at heart, apparently thinks that the idea of alternate universes is about as useful as the idea of Muhammed riding up to heaven on a horse.
My point is that the Dawkinites tendency to discount everything that doesn't fit into the paradigm of things quantifiable by our current low level gross instrumentation is a foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds.
It is, in fact, the same foolish consistency we see in the creationists, who choose to violate Occam's razor in order to explain away the geological data that doesn't fit their creationism models.
It is right here where reasonable atheism transmutes, like gold into lead, into militant atheism, a religion with dogma just like any other.
You're welcome, once again.
I especially like the equating of Christianity with Buddhism and Confucianism. Normally, Christianity wouldn’t be caught dead in the same sentence with Buddhism or Confucianism, but if it is to be recast as a free and easy quest for the meaning of life, its usual cohorts of Judaism and Islam don’t help.
Bertrand Russell was right. Living with religious certainty, with dubious answers and knowledge is an easy path to finding meaning. Creating meaning for ourselves with a clear-eyed perspective on reality takes guts.
The "void" isn't a modern concept as Russell seems to suggest. It was discovered when 'Eve' first asked "Why am I?" and gave birth to humanity. 'Adam' responded and gave birth to religious/philosophical reactions to the void. I call the first "Why am I?" the last why because it will remain unanswered. Our existence since 'Adam' and 'Eve' is a history of our reactions to the void.
Today our reactions to the void blend complementary amounts of the "ideal" and either the "absolutely restrictive" or the "absolutely permissive". With the "absolutely restrictive reaction" we try to fill the void. The "absolutely permissive reaction" is giving up. The "ideal" is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God" which if I understand your introduction to him, might be similar to the thought of Confucius. http://www.thelastwhy.ca/poem/ http://www.thelastwhy.ca/poems/2006/9/26/god.html
Imagine if Richard Dawkins ever posted here. The joint would be up for grabs.
Research with questions can reveal much to the seeker but there is a catch. The seeker must be a sincere seeker. This requires observing one’s own intellect from a distance. Few do it; is just too painful to view our ego intellect as an objective observer.
It almost always takes a significant emotional event to observe this egotistical mode of being in the world. And a religious conversion is about more beliefs not sincere seeking and this conversion fails to observe our fragile egos.
To do research as a materialist or with a religious paradigm even as a philosopher is not research; it is seeking confirmation of our existing beliefs and paradigms. Philosophers have an agenda. Personalism.
Neither the philosopher nor the materialist including the religious can understand this aspect of sincere seeking. Each one believes that they are indeed truth seekers; their ego knows better, but is not about to reveal that aspect of their personality to them.
Until we are able somehow someway to go back to almost zero knowledge, we live in a kind of delusional state.
Now let the personal attacks begin. I.e. ego thing; as it a common defensive mode of being in the world.
But the few methods philosophers did reflect contributed a great deal to the advancement in society, such as logic, abstractions, dialectics...
---
I'm pretty sure it's Bertrund Mussel.
As regards the meaning of life and death, meaning is to be found in living, as any good existentialist will tell you. And death, in that it entails the cessation of life, is devoid of meaning.* That is I think the true sense in which the quote "未知生 焉知死? should be taken. A moral being set adrift in an amoral universe is a truly an heroic figure and must be a fatalist to boot, as was Confucius.
* The act of death, however, that is, how one dies, can be replete with meaning, not for those who died but for those who continue to live afterwards