I'm somewhat familiar with Marcel, and have read Ellul's The Technological Society. I've been meaning to get around to Maritain for a while.
To the extent that I can understand myself, I think I have something of a dual loyalty, or two primary competing views of human life. One is based on a transhistorical individual soul given to each of us, something of possibly divine origin, with certain aims and interests that must be protected and fleshed out. And then there's the contingent, materialist side of life, where we are animals in thrall to environmental and technological influences that demand thoroughgoing analysis.
I appreciate your view, I understand, it certainly has christian influences. This is why I recommended Personalism, which had some christians around. I haven't explored entirely, but by the little I've read of it, it looked beautiful.
They opposed all the paradigmatic ideologies of their time -the 30s- “enlightenment rationalism, pantheism, Hegelian absolute idealism, individualism as well as collectivism in politics, and materialist, psychological, and evolutionary determinism.” Because for them, as the name implies, the person or individual has become devalued, however, this didn't mean a turn to a cheap liberal individualism, they viewed that an individual also need others.
Religiously speaking I'm skeptical and with strong disagreements pertaining organized and institutionalized religion... because of my own experiences and circumstances. But I'm no obnoxious Voltairian or "reddit atheist". I aknowledge the importance of religions as expressions of the universal human condition, as in art etc, such universalism you gestured to. I also aknowledge that a secularized society such as ours only lead to chaos, but even then people try to invent or seek a religion for them, what is available, though, is only horseshit. (Backed by the ideas of Mircea Eliade and The Invisible Religion by Thomas Luckmann)
I'd like to add that Ecclesiastes is without a doubt a poetic, refreshing and powerful set of advices, which has some close lines with what you pointed out about Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer is a master in writing, a real friend, perfectly clear and without any pretension or turgid-ness. Rare in philosophy!
Ecclesiastes is without a doubt my favorite book in the Bible. I've long appreciated its poetry and power, especially in the King James Version. My outlook is spontaneously pretty ecclesiastical, though I do have moments that come a little closer to New Testament hopes.
I also think that the real tricky thing is articulating the value and importance of the individual without lapsing into individualism as an ideology of consumption, masturbation and groundless self-assertion, which is what we see now. The temptation is to lose sight of the reality of the individual soul, subsuming it under one system or another.
Also agree that a society can't be secular in any cohesive fashion for long. Voltarian and reddit atheism leaves much to be desired and leads, though not by itself, to all sorts of aberrations and disheartening developments.
Schopenhauer is genuinely a pleasure to read, maybe the best writer of philosophy. Even if we disagree with his thoughts, we could all benefit from studying his style. I think he's superior to Nietzsche, who, while entertaining, is a little bombastic and silly in a way I don't always enjoy.
Personalism is another interesting philosophy of life, Caleb.
You know? That french milieu of G. Marcel, J. Maritain, E. Mounier, P. Maurin, even Ellul, in its first years. And many others, of course. I recommend.
I'm somewhat familiar with Marcel, and have read Ellul's The Technological Society. I've been meaning to get around to Maritain for a while.
To the extent that I can understand myself, I think I have something of a dual loyalty, or two primary competing views of human life. One is based on a transhistorical individual soul given to each of us, something of possibly divine origin, with certain aims and interests that must be protected and fleshed out. And then there's the contingent, materialist side of life, where we are animals in thrall to environmental and technological influences that demand thoroughgoing analysis.
Damn, I wasn't notified!
I appreciate your view, I understand, it certainly has christian influences. This is why I recommended Personalism, which had some christians around. I haven't explored entirely, but by the little I've read of it, it looked beautiful.
They opposed all the paradigmatic ideologies of their time -the 30s- “enlightenment rationalism, pantheism, Hegelian absolute idealism, individualism as well as collectivism in politics, and materialist, psychological, and evolutionary determinism.” Because for them, as the name implies, the person or individual has become devalued, however, this didn't mean a turn to a cheap liberal individualism, they viewed that an individual also need others.
I won't extend much on here to not get exhaustive. This link is a good source: https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/personalism/
Religiously speaking I'm skeptical and with strong disagreements pertaining organized and institutionalized religion... because of my own experiences and circumstances. But I'm no obnoxious Voltairian or "reddit atheist". I aknowledge the importance of religions as expressions of the universal human condition, as in art etc, such universalism you gestured to. I also aknowledge that a secularized society such as ours only lead to chaos, but even then people try to invent or seek a religion for them, what is available, though, is only horseshit. (Backed by the ideas of Mircea Eliade and The Invisible Religion by Thomas Luckmann)
I'd like to add that Ecclesiastes is without a doubt a poetic, refreshing and powerful set of advices, which has some close lines with what you pointed out about Schopenhauer.
Schopenhauer is a master in writing, a real friend, perfectly clear and without any pretension or turgid-ness. Rare in philosophy!
Ecclesiastes is without a doubt my favorite book in the Bible. I've long appreciated its poetry and power, especially in the King James Version. My outlook is spontaneously pretty ecclesiastical, though I do have moments that come a little closer to New Testament hopes.
I also think that the real tricky thing is articulating the value and importance of the individual without lapsing into individualism as an ideology of consumption, masturbation and groundless self-assertion, which is what we see now. The temptation is to lose sight of the reality of the individual soul, subsuming it under one system or another.
Also agree that a society can't be secular in any cohesive fashion for long. Voltarian and reddit atheism leaves much to be desired and leads, though not by itself, to all sorts of aberrations and disheartening developments.
Schopenhauer is genuinely a pleasure to read, maybe the best writer of philosophy. Even if we disagree with his thoughts, we could all benefit from studying his style. I think he's superior to Nietzsche, who, while entertaining, is a little bombastic and silly in a way I don't always enjoy.
Personalism is another interesting philosophy of life, Caleb.
You know? That french milieu of G. Marcel, J. Maritain, E. Mounier, P. Maurin, even Ellul, in its first years. And many others, of course. I recommend.