/philosophy/ - Philosophy

I was pretty avid about Watts for a year and a half. I've listened to about 60 of his lectures. That said, while Watts was definitely hitting philosophical themes, he was not a Philosopher.

I think Watts has an immense appeal for those looking for a way out that isn't a way out. His characterization of Zen as what amounts to a no different but different way to view and live in the world is appealing, and the mystical experience of enlightenment is a titillating thing to desire after with no possibility of knowing if it will happen to you.

I gave up on Watts after I began reading Hegel. Hegel's critique of mysticism as a mere empty knowledge, a skepticism unwilling to face the world and tell us what it really is, merely what it isn't, made me drop Watts and mysticism hard. Frankly, Alan Watts own philosophical outlook was quietist to a ridiculous degree; an "I don't give a fuck either way, I'm fine with >my< life anyway" outlook. Being a leftist who cares about our concrete life, I can't accept that kind of outlook regardless of its philosophical rigor (which Watts has none of).

>>1645

Just loosely looked him up. He gets props from me for broadening the spectrum and, in a way, popularising eastern thought. He also gets props for apparently having lived more or less in accordance with what he says (though I did not inform myself of his entire biography).

Regarding philosophy, though, I share >>1649s opinion towards Zen. It is a way of coping that seems a little more substantial that flat-out fatalism or perhaps even absurdism, and a damn step up from nihilism. But it, in itself, has no substance. I won't knock it for its pragmatic value and potential, but I would be hesitant in calling it a philosophy.

>>1649

Nice to see Hegel still has an impact. Though his criticism is a bit harsh. It's still possible to come to the aid of mysticism when it makes the assertion that mystic experiences are part of actuality. However, it then has different and arguably greater problems to face.

By the bye,

>who cares about our concrete life

Do you mean in a societal sense? Or do you mean your own life, but regarding specific factors thereof as opposed to a mere attitude towards it? Off-topic, I know, but I'm curious.

>>1645

Sorry, still meant to ask you whether you can recommend an essay or a chapter (if you really think it worth the time perhaps even a book) from or about Alan Watts on his way of thinking? Since you clearly think highly of him, I don't want to dismiss him after a cursory glance.

Elaboration from your part in general would be nice too, if you think it may further discussion.

>>1651

Hegel's critique of mysticism cuts deep. Epistemologically it isn't even arguable, it is a highly naive empiricism of the most basic kind. It's metaphysical claims are all categorically empty.

I don't feel Hegel would deny the role of mysticism as an experience that can serve as a resolution to the problem of existential grounding for some people, but I think Hegel would also say that such grounding is a false grounding since it is something that is really just a dogmatic belief held onto by those who are swayed by the false feeling of knowing rather than actually knowing. I am very interested in the mystical experience and hope to have some measure of experience towards that some day, but I don't seek knowledge from it.

As for concrete life, I mean both social and personal life factors. Mysticism is a quietist position which is idealist at best. The mystic does not look upon the questions of the conditions that necessitate a world in which enlightenment is seen as necessary, nor does it even bother with the even simpler task of asking what actual conditions are responsible for the fact that most people are unable to reach enlightenment.

>>1654

There's a stark distinction to be drawn between spirituality, or mysticism, and religiosity.

While the former, to a degree, is empirical and measurable the latter is not and while religion is heavily informed by spiritual experiences it's a conclusion which ends up being dogmatic.

The subjective nature of spirituality ought not discount it as purely unscientific. The fact of consciousness is purely subjective but you would be hard pressed to say that it doesn't exist and is unscientific.

>>1655

In no way do my posts imply that consciousness is not real. What my posts deal with are the conclusions drawn from mystical experience. It is an appeal to intuition that cannot be justified and is dogmatic because of that. Mysticism cannot justify its claim to knowledge that there is the One universal mind, that there are "spirits" such as in shamanism, that there are other realms accessed through altered states. Many try to use mysticism as proof of the reception model of consciousness, yet they cannot explain how it is that it is this brain, in this world, that is the receiver. Mysticism is the esoteric active component of religion, religious experience itself. I don't knock the experience as serving a powerful purpose, I think it's scientifically obvious that on a neurological and subconscious level the experience has an immense positive aspect, but its conclusions I believe are not necessary to follow to see the role of such experience in humans.

>>1656

What I said is that something being subjective does not mean it isn't real. Like consciousness. I'm quite certain that what I meant was clear, please read more carefully.

There are scientific models of consciousness that posit it as a fundamental component of the universe. Like gravity. This does not mean there is a "universal mind" or that we are all literally "one" but being "one manifests through the shared consciousness of reality. Spirituality and consciousness are linked in intimate and empirical ways that do not allow you to dismiss wholly the notion without missing something very fundamental.

>>1658

>>>/pol/2282491

>>1658

>There are scientific models of consciousness that posit it as a fundamental component of the universe.

That isn't science. Consciousness isn't a fundamental component of the universe. Look, the very concept of motion is easily put into a mental category as the consequence of the most primitive awareness of stuff. Nonetheless this doesn't in any way validate mystical claims of communion with other kinds of consciousness, nor of supernatural or natural teleology.

You and I are likely arguing past each other. Spirituality and consciousness are linked, in the same way that CPUs and silicon chips are linked. You cannot really make an empirically verifiable assertion, which is the kind that science makes, with mystical models or any other extravagant metaphysical theories that merely assert their premises without a justification that isn't intuition. People intuitively and subjectively experience a plethora of phenomenologically unrelated shit from ghosts that speak to them, astral projection, and drinking psychedelic brews to heal your depression.

My contention with mysticism, the problem beyond its philosophical emptiness, is that no subjective experience is proof of anything beyond that it is an experience. To experience something is in no way to actually have knowledge of what it is that your experience actually is.

You may experience what people call ghosts, universal mind, spirit allies, UFOs, demons, etc. In no way do you have any knowledge of what you actually experienced from your experience. This is the insight of science. Things aren't what you immediately are prone to believe they are no matter how much your are certain from experience that it is such.

>>1651

>>1652

Because I have no actual fundamental understanding of what he talks about I can't really pick a favourite part. I like all different parts for individual reasons

this quote helps me explain what I mean

Those who know do not speak;

Those who speak do not know.

>>1662

Watts fundamentally deals with the irrationality of reality. In mysticism the truth is that shit just happens, from nothing, to nobody, for no reason. It's all one happening without a subject or object. The real is ineffable, unspeakable, unthinkable. Watts sees mysticism as traditions that aim to break the habit of the human drive to conflate reality with thoughts about reality, hence those who "know it" know it not for they are still following thought as the mediator of knowledge, and those who do not "know it" do know it for they have realized that the truth is not in thought.

It's very appealing, until you realize that such a difference itself is a difference of thought.

>>1661

I think Integrated Information Theory is scientific enough, at the very least falsifiable although not with our present technology.

I'm not talking about "ghosts" or "demons" or a "unified mind" those are incredibly different from the common thread that runs through all spiritual experience which makes it empirical enough not to dismiss outright.

In fact, in order to accept it you don't not have to believe in any nonsense that cannot be observed by you directly.

You may think that consciousness isn't a fundamental part of the universe but, just like any other theory of truth, someone doesn't have to believe it in order for it to be so.

>>1654

I think you are right to read Hegel that way, my remark was more directed to the notion that one could defend mysticism in spite of that criticism, primarily by asserting that they aren't empty experiences, or by expanding what can fall under 'knowledge' (like, as you later state, intuition). It is harder than it seems to denounce this without at the same time asserting a metaphysical idea of one's own, i.e. the supremacy of empirical study over subjective experience. I think the prior model is way more coherent and useful than the latter, though, but there's no external argument that could necessitate that conclusion.

And while I'm really not all that interested in mysticism, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a single mystic out there who actively thinks/talks about conditions for 'enlightenment' in the universal sense.

>>1659

This is not an argument. You can hate humanity, but not hate a specific human. You can dismiss value, but still hang onto meanings. You can think life futile, but still not want to die. It's the gap between thought and reality, theoretical and pragmatic/existential stances.

>>1662

Quietist in the literal sense, eh? In all seriousness, that isn't a particularly useful quote and a very sweeping aphorism at best. I suppose it's meant to signify that knowledge needs no expression or externalisation?

i liked him before it was cool

>>2286

There isn't anything else to it. Nothing in Buddhism, Hinduism, Suffism, and Taoism changes in the fundamental "you're it" sense. The distinct mythological forms are interesting in a theologically sophisticated way (which is nothing to do with the religions they interpret).

The west has one genuinely unique form of mysticism which is different from eastern: Hermeticism. Instead of world denying asceticism and pleasure/thrill of life world affirmation like tantra, Hermeticism is far closer to the ideal of science and the deification of man as god's realization on earth. Hermeticism rests more on intellectual roots than intuitionist roots, and rather than "you're it" it's more like "This is It" and how and why it is, and how you can see yourself in its doing. Hermeticism is what brought around alchemy, one of the greatest plot devices for mystical tech.

>>2291

>...Alan reconfirmed my belief that the East-West balance had always existed within myself, as a personal growing experience. I recognized in Alan a rare and wonderful ability to be both Occidental and Oriental. When he allowed it, he could be both at once, easily bridging the gaps within his own learning and experience. Unlike so many Westerners who try to be Oriental by disinheriting their own culture, Alan could be simply himself. He knew that a blue-eyed, pink-skinned guru could be just as inscrutable as a slitty-eyed, yellow-skinned one. There was no reason for him to be foreign to either the West or the East...

I agree, this does sound based as fuck.

>>1668

lel same

>>2470

It's a true description. Mysticism is negative philosophy that just abstracts from all determinate difference. Everything is a nothing since there is nothing to be said of it in these philosophies.

In my opinion alan watts is the only philosopher that gave me something to improve my way of seeing and living life. All other philosophy iv'e read feels more like it is just trying to show that they KNOW, this is how it is, and spends alot of energy in convincing you that it is totaly rationaö and make you wanna go inte a fedoratipoing killing spree and argue whit everyone about how your philosophy is correct. Alan watts however seems more like he wants to open you up to make yoj experience the world, the now, fully, and thats maybe the reason people think he gets boring after a while. Because he is not really the kind of guywho gives talks where you can sit and lilw masturbate over the fact that he is disprooving other philosophies or ways of thinking ala thunderf00t or amazing atheist (not at all saying they are philosophers in any way, but i rememeber how i used to feel many years ago when i myself was a fedoratipper and listened to their videos and being right "YES THIS IS IT.oh yeaaah tell me how correct you are even more").

Alan watts really has that "get the message hang up the phone" quality as someone else posted, and both parts of this can be hard to swallow. Getting the point can be hard, because most people are so bad at actually listening and trying to take in what other people are trying to tell you, and start going defensive and make assumptions right of the bat to defend their own forest. And hanging up the phone is hard, because then you really have to trust yourself that you "got it". You cant follow alan watts around and constanly craving more and more lectures from him, then youre doing exactly the opposite. I

>>2975

The entire western philosophical tradition is concerned with the good life. The only time this ends is in modernity where epistemology becomes primary over ontology.

Tell me, what have you learned from mysticism, eastern or western, that does not reduce to: I'm not free, but at least I'm free in my mind?

Hegel criticizes all of these as cowardice, skeptical because it is afraid of truth, inwardly focused because it does not accept that it must actually act and even fight to make the world conform to its mind.

>>2996

What do you mean "im not free", what makes you make draw that conclusion? Because i dont see anything at all of that in Alan Watts talks. It has completely changed my view of reality and life, and has whitout doubt made me find more peace within myself, and ive gotten more aware of what drives people socially. Its insane how easily i can see right through people now compared to before. Im also more able to act like my true self, no facade, and ive learnt to truly listen to people. I could go on lile forever with all this, but in short, compared to otger philosophies who argue that one should live in the present, alan watts and other zen philosophers actually made me.able to do it, instead of just explaining in theory that it is the right way to live. It is impossible for me to explain it to you in text on 8chan like this, but i was like you before i suddenly just got what Alan was trying to say. I thought all Zen related philosophy was just bullshit fpr people not willing to face reality, and i was a bit into hegel as well. But in my opinion, hegel is just another theory driven philosopher, who is afriad of the unknown and cant embrase anything outside his own sphere of logic because his philosopht does not base on "feeling" and "listening", as much as "knowing that youre not knowing, but still treating your knowledge as the truth and therefore ruling out your own feelings and intuition on the basis of it". Sorry if i didnt male myself clear, im not a native english speaker and i cant really explain all this whit such limited amount of space.

>>3052

Intended for

>>2975

Drop Watts and listen to hippy music.

>>3050

You don't understand what I mean.

I'm well aware of Watts' message. My claim is that the whole of mysticism is running away from your place in this world as an agent and maker of the future. To just drop out and 'just exist in bliss whatever comes' is the absolute denial of real life. Watts' is a true hedonist and solipsist who sees reality as a mere show.

He doesn't engage in the real social sphere, he wants to be out of it and deny that he's part of the entire problematic world and that if he >really< cared he couldn't sit back and just go "oh well, that's life".

Do you think the people who sacrificed themselves to give most of us the real gains of this world, political rights, economic rights, were people who just went "oh well, that's life, it's ok I'm neutral towards the world"? No. These people actually LOVED the world and were active in it, despaired of its state and did all they could in the hope of changing it.

Watts told people not to take life seriously, and fuck that. Taking the world seriously is what those who actually made your life of comfort and knowledge possible. You can't go back to the stone ages, you can't escape the fact that your very worldview rests on the history that made it possible.

Mysticism tells you to give up the quest for knowledge, to give up science, to give up >real< freedom for the freedom of your thoughts by giving up the struggle to change the world and leave a legacy in society for >others< to benefit from and finish. You have a worldview that allows you to be comfortable with a shitty life and releases you from responsibility and the pain that comes from >really< knowing it is you, the individual you, not some universal mind, that is responsible for every thing you fail to do that should be done in order to make this world better.

Holy shit a fellow Alan Watts fan. I've literally never met one before.

I absolutely love his views. Truly a great man, and unlike most philosophers, his ideas make sense in daily life and teach you how to be happy and successful.