Existentialism and the End of ‘Society’

[ussusimiel]

I suppose part of what I was trying to get at with this thread is that at some point 'society' and 'meaning' become interwoven (maybe, as I have said upthread, with the rise of consciousness through language). I brought up religion because I conceive of religion as the guardian of 'meaning' and so, also 'society'.

My question then was that when 'meaning' is removed from the picture (by Existentialism, for example), what is left? Can we call it society anymore? Or would a term like 'post-social' (I think I just made that up ) be more appropriate.

u.

[aliantha]

Totally missed this thread on the first go-round.

I think you're giving religion far too much credit, u. I see society as a framework -- a web, if you will -- and religion as one of the things humans have hung upon that web.

As I understand it, religion began to develop when the first person asked why something was so. It began as a way to describe the things humans couldn't understand, and it only turned into a monster when the people in charge realized they could leverage it to control others.

I am leery of going so far as to proclaim that science and technology are the only things capable of supplanting religion, in terms of giving life meaning. Spirituality still has its place, and will still have its place, even after we've defined and described everything in our world in scientific terms.

So no, society won't dissolve, if and when when religion ever disappears. In my perfect world (when I am Queen! ), what will disappear is organized religion. That's what causes all the conflict, imho. Spirituality, however, will remain.

[ussusimiel]

ali, part of my thinking on this comes from mulling over the idea of 'society' itself. As in the phrases, 'we must protect society', 'the breakdown of society' and so on. If rus was around (can we get him to come back?! ) I think that he would grok what I'm aiming for. (I'll admit that my OP was a bit slack in its focus, but hey this is the Close and not the 'Tank )

A while back I read a suggestion that the big 'progressive'/ideological movements of the 20th Century (Communism, Fascism, Socialism) were driven by this notion of 'society', which in the absence of religion, comes to be felt as something above the individual, something almost semi-divine. This really struck me, as it seemed to explain a lot about the differences between socialism and more individualist ideologies (we can save the pros and cons of that for the 'Tank ).

It is this tension between 'society' experienced as a palpable, valuable entity, and what we are headed towards, as our society become more individualised (atomised/anomie) that I am trying to get a handle on. I am interested in what such a society (basically only connected by loose economic bonds) might look like, and whether it is something to be welcomed or, if possible, avoided.

u.

[aliantha]

If rus was around (can we get him to come back?! )

NO.

Literature and the Gods looks like an interesting read.

I think I get what you mean about society being almost semi-divine. But is it because we've enshrined it, in a "that's the way we've always done it" sense -- only writ much larger than your usual office politics? I think maybe we have, and we've included religion as part of it because we've always done that, too.

I still think, though, that you're giving religion too much credit. I gather that what you're worried about is that society without religion will fragment and anarchy will result. Yes/no? But morality isn't dependent on religion -- it's a thing apart. Just because we've designated religion as the watchdog of society's mores, it doesn't mean those mores don't, or can't, exist when the watchdog's gone.

Does that make sense? I think my train of thought derailed somewhere in the middle.... In my defense, it's early here yet, and I probably ought not to attempt any philosophical discussions before coffee.

[ussusimiel]

I still think, though, that you're giving religion too much credit. I gather that what you're worried about is that society without religion will fragment and anarchy will result. Yes/no? But morality isn't dependent on religion -- it's a thing apart. Just because we've designated religion as the watchdog of society's mores, it doesn't mean those mores don't, or can't, exist when the watchdog's gone.

It's not so much that society will fragment and degenerate into anarchy, it's more that the bonds between people will become so attenuated that 'society' as thing no longer really exists. This is why I use the phrase, 'post-social world'. Religion/ideology was/is a kind of glue that binds people tightly together (e.g. Durkheim's Suicide). It does this by providing a 'meaning' for society, or by implying that society is 'meaning'.

My thoughts are related to what a 'society' without any overt 'meaning' (beyond a loose economic one) associated with it would look like. Will it become a loose association of communities, will it revert to tribalism (unfortunately what seems to be happening), will it result in a deep form of narcissism etc?

And in this, I am not necessarily seeing the demise of society as a bad thing. As I said in my OP:

One of the things that I have noticed about the artists and poets that I know is that there is a constant tension between their creative work and society. It's as if their efforts to see reality as clearly as possible leads them to perceive the layers of power and control that society imposes on us at all times.

As I see it, since society imposes restrictions on us at all times, what would a societyless humanity look like? (I have my own ideas/intuitions and I'd like to see if others' ideas chime with those or are at odds with them before I talk about them.)

u.

[aliantha]

It's not so much that society will fragment and degenerate into anarchy, it's more that the bonds between people will become so attenuated that 'society' as thing no longer really exists.

I think we're already there, to some extent. Did you ever read Bowling Alone? Sometime between the Greatest Generation and today, not just voting, but other forms of civic participation have dropped markedly in America. That book is 14 years old now, and things have degenerated since then -- to the point where civic engagement today, for a lot of people, amounts to "liking" a political statement on Facebook and/or electronically signing a petition at Change.org.

That said, I think Putnam's view is somewhat skewed. He didn't give much credence to electronic communities and online connections, preferring face-to-face interactions over the garden gate. I agree that face-to-face interaction can be a richer experience; after all, I go to E'fest to hang out in person with my online friends. But thanks to the Watch, those friends come from all over the world. (You and I are having this conversation from opposite sides of the Atlantic, after all.) And maybe what we're doing here, and other forums like it, will play a role in the transition to a global society.

And in this, I am not necessarily seeing the demise of society as a bad thing. As I said in my OP:

One of the things that I have noticed about the artists and poets that I know is that there is a constant tension between their creative work and society. It's as if their efforts to see reality as clearly as possible leads them to perceive the layers of power and control that society imposes on us at all times.

As I see it, since society imposes restrictions on us at all times, what would a societyless humanity look like? (I have my own ideas/intuitions and I'd like to see if others' ideas chime with those or are at odds with them before I talk about them.)

u.

I'd be thrilled to death if we could view artistic endeavors on their merits, without somebody getting outraged over some perceived insult to their religion. This goes back to the thing I said about getting rid of organized religion because of all the trouble it causes....

But great freedom -- because what you're talking about, I think, is the freedom to create -- also carries great responsibility. And I think the responsibility would include taking care that one's art isn't just shocking in order to pander to the masses. I'm thinking in terms of producers who put depictions of violent acts on TV to gin up the ratings, and protest that it's "artistic expression" when viewers complain. I'm concerned that even if we jettison "society", this sort of thing will still be a problem.

[peter]

Way too late joining this thread; haven't read anything other than the starting post and just wanted to say immediately that many people [not least of which, Mrs Thatcher] have denied the existance of society at all, prefering to see 'the family unit' as the basis upon which all human grouping rests. Which [if so] being the case would negate the connection at once. But assuming that society does have existance [meaningfull or otherwise]..... I'll go back and read the thread proper

[Avatar]

Whoa...where did this thread come from?

--A

[peter]

In the early days of mankind, society, would have be defined by the largest number of individuals [extended family groupings with occasional but limited influx of new members when safety or circumstances demanded/allowed for it] that could be supported within the strictures imposed by an itinerant existance following the migration of animals. Safety in numbers and the need to breed balanced against the provision of sufficiant foodstuffs and the increasing unweildiness of larger groupings.

As in any group of individuals [even to this day] there will be those who can dominate, by strength of personality [resulting from or generating of itself?] and force of conviction. The personality cult that would arise about an individual or individuals who could convince the groupings that they could supply the answers to the perenial questions of life, death and how to survive would be the forerunner of what today manifests as 'religion' in our societies. Seen in these [granted simplistic] terms religion, while an early product of social groupings, would not of itself effect the dynamic described above.

But the grouping together of individuals/families/extended families in ever large groupings has reach. New features develop and thrive once the problem of settlement is overcome via agricultural development; division of labour, organised commerecem, power hierachies and organised religion - things that are often [but not unanimously] unrelated to the simple facts of numerical safety and the choice of potential mates. While religion has indeed been a form of 'societal glue' since these early days [and has often enjoyed power and wealth {still present in this day} thereby], since the enlightenment the erosion of it's place as the central scource of advice and the final arbiter of truth has done much to 'unpick' it's structural role within the societies it occupies [in the western world at least]. Existentialism, had it occured pre-enlightenment [if such a thing were possible] might have had sufficient reach to undermine 'society' to it's death - but in the 'post-modern' world of 'famous for fifteen minutes' and cosumer-culture, the New Gods of materealism and Celebrity Worship have dumbed the masses way beyond the point where the individuals postion re personal responsibility as a free-agent in a deterministic and seemingly meaningless Universe will be of the slightest significance to them. We the unwashed masses [of which I proudly proclaim myself to be a paid up member] will, as ever, do exactly what is required of us in the manner and at the time required, by those who pull the [subliminal and not-so subliminal] strings by which our knee-jerk reactions are guided.

[Do I believe that; in the immortal word of Big Brother {Endomol's not Orwell's} - you decide! ]

[U. - I've read The Ruin of Kasch and The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony by Callaso. I love that guy! The above link has set my teeth chattering!]

[Zarathustra]

It seems that the question presupposes that there is no meaning without religion. That's demonstrably false.

None of my values or relationships have anything whatsoever to do with religion, and yet I still have all the relationships that everyone else has: friends, family, associates. I still have many of the same values as everyone else, too.

I think people who don't experience life without religion might have a more difficult time imagining life without it, but it's pretty much the same, except I sleep in on Sundays. For me, I don't even see religion in society. It's like it's not even there. It has no effect on my involvement with others. It's a nonissue.

[Ananda]

If religion didn't exist in the forms it does now, it doesn't mean that there would be no society. It simply means there would be a different one. In that alternate reality leimusussu is asking if we could have society and culture without the glass bead game or whatever else they had there as a collectivism agent.

If we deconstruct 'meaning' derived from religion out of our consciousness, the 'meaning' will still be there, but in another form. Too bad we won't live long enough to see Z's immortal android body future. Would be amazing to see. But, maybe we can just read Zelazny's Lord of Light and see enough.

[ussusimiel]

It seems that the question presupposes that there is no meaning without religion. That's demonstrably false.

This may be due to the looseness of my initial speculations in the OP. When I am talking about 'meaning' I am talking about externally provided meaning. (On an SRD site we know about internally created meaning, as highlighted by your sig.) Both religion and 'society' I am suggesting have been (and still are) sources of externally generated 'meaning'. My thrust is that Existentialism has undermined that source and replaced it with another, internal one. However, a huge number of people still look outside themselves for 'meaning'.

The aim of my thinking on the issue is what will 'society' look like when it is no longer shaped by 'meaning' provided by itself or religion?

Thinking a bit further on it, I have started asking myself the question,'are human beings (as we are constituted now) suitable for living in 'society' at all?' If, in the absence of an external source of meaning, we generate meaning individually, then family, friends, community and tribe seem the much more natural resulting modes of association than 'society'. And mass 'society' starts to become something that is much more suitable to economic and commercial interactions than social ones. It is this change that I am interested in tracking and investigating.

u.

[peter]

re 'society without meaning', I think there are meanings in store for us beyond that which we can currently concieve. We are quite possibly on the cusp of a stage in our development where the meanings we search and find would not even be utterable in our limited lexicon of today.

Have we reason to believe that the loss of 'meaning' provided by religion [what was that? - Life after Life or something?] will result in imorality or amorality holding sway. Will I need or interact with my brother less because I do not underpin my existence with the belief in or obedience to a supernatural entity.

Interesting U. that in the o.p. you used the term 'some forms of existentialism' rather than 'existentialism' full stop. Is this possible to render down into laymans terms. Existentialism is a hard one to grasp in it's basic form and I hadn't even realised there were different forms of it [though in hindsight name me one philosophical belief system that doesn't have 100 interpretations.

[Zarathustra]

It seems that the question presupposes that there is no meaning without religion. That's demonstrably false.

This may be due to the looseness of my initial speculations in the OP. When I am talking about 'meaning' I am talking about externally provided meaning. (On an SRD site we know about internally created meaning, as highlighted by your sig.) Both religion and 'society' I am suggesting have been (and still are) sources of externally generated 'meaning'. My thrust is that Existentialism has undermined that source and replaced it with another, internal one. However, a huge number of people still look outside themselves for 'meaning'.

The aim of my thinking on the issue is what will 'society' look like when it is no longer shaped by 'meaning' provided by itself or religion?

Thinking a bit further on it, I have started asking myself the question,'are human beings (as we are constituted now) suitable for living in 'society' at all?' If, in the absence of an external source of meaning, we generate meaning individually, then family, friends, community and tribe seem the much more natural resulting modes of association than 'society'. And mass 'society' starts to become something that is much more suitable to economic and commercial interactions than social ones. It is this change that I am interested in tracking and investigating.

u.

I would describe meaning exactly opposite as you've described it here. Since humans invent religion, any meaning of a religion is entirely internal, not relating to anything real in the world, especially to the extent that it purportedly derives its meaning in things beyond this reality. It is the existential turn that causes us to abandon internal fictions and start basing meaning on external, objective (or at least inter-subjective) truths, such as our plight on this earth, in this body. This is what it means to bring one's virtue back to the earth, as my sig suggests.

Religion is only "external" if you assume it's real.

[Vraith]

used the term 'some forms of existentialism' rather than 'existentialism' full stop. Is this possible to render down into laymans terms.

The wiki on existentialism is pretty good, particularly on the over-all features/concepts. Though like "post-modern" there really isn't much of a hard, definite, center. Not really an "essence." That's kinda the point. [and it's also, in ways, not quite true and/or is paradoxical.]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism

[ussusimiel]

Interesting U. that in the o.p. you used the term 'some forms of existentialism' rather than 'existentialism' full stop. Is this possible to render down into laymans terms. Existentialism is a hard one to grasp in it's basic form and I hadn't even realised there were different forms of it [though in hindsight name me one philosophical belief system that doesn't have 100 interpretations.

I'm no expert on Existentialism, peter, and it was more a bit of CMA (covering my a*&e) than any real analysis of the differences (turns out I was right. A general avoidance of generalisation generally works for me (though not all the time ))

I would describe meaning exactly opposite as you've described it here. Since humans invent religion, any meaning of a religion is entirely internal, not relating to anything real in the world, especially to the extent that it purportedly derives its meaning in things beyond this reality. It is the existential turn that causes us to abandon internal fictions and start basing meaning on external, objective (or at least inter-subjective) truths, such as our plight on this earth, in this body. This is what it means to bring one's virtue back to the earth, as my sig suggests.

Religion is only "external" if you assume it's real.

'Meaning' may be being created internally, Z, but it is being projected out onto something intuited or imagined, and so is perceived and experienced as externally produced.

The existential 'meaning' that you are describing is closer to 'facts' and description than 'meaning' as it is generally taken. The 'Meaning of Life' as against the 'Facts of life' and this is what a huge number of people have immense difficulty accepting. The facts of life are very stark and uncomfortable: we're born, we live, we die; no eternal soul, no spirit that lives on (as the poet Philip Larkin says, 'nothing to love or link with'). For me, it is here that existential angst and despair have their origin.

I am going to hazard, that, at the basic level, we are going to agree on this, Z, because I have been coming to a conclusion that the resolution of the transformation of society we are talking about will depend mostly on an idea close to your heart: freedom. What I have been experiencing recently (especially among the poets and artists I know) is that greater individual/personal freedom leads to greater connection/intimacy between people. Maybe, paradoxically, greater freedom brings people closer together.

The difficulty with this though, is that there is an immense amount of self-discipline and self-examination involved in achieving the type of personal freedom that I am talking about. Ironically, it is not free; there is a steep personal price that has to be paid to achieve it. Doubly ironically is the fact that, in my experience, a significant amount of that price is paid in reduced capacity to earn money. If you put a large amount of time and effort into self-examination you cannot at the same time be putting it into earning money.

It creates a fascinating tension that I am now seeing all around me in my life.

u.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Pardon me as I titter at the notion that man invented religion. Did he also invent his need to fuck?

[Zarathustra]

Mong, are you saying that religion evolved naturally as an essential process for replicating genes? I don't get the comparison.

Religion is a collection of memes. Humans invent memes. Fucking involves genes. Humans don't invent genes*. What's there to titter about?





*(Well, not until recently, through the skillful invention of the right kinds of memes.)

[Vraith]

The existential 'meaning' that you are describing is closer to 'facts' and description than 'meaning' as it is generally taken. The 'Meaning of Life' as against the 'Facts of life' and this is what a huge number of people have immense difficulty accepting. The facts of life are very stark and uncomfortable: we're born, we live, we die; no eternal soul, no spirit that lives on (as the poet Philip Larkin says, 'nothing to love or link with'). For me, it is here that existential angst and despair have their origin.

I sorta agree on the distinction you're drawing between facts and meaning as folk commonly think of it. Close enough for now, anyway.
And they're stark, certainly, or at least strict. [so far, until we fix it].
And those are the major roots of the angst and despair...and that is the problem. Why angst and despair?
Why, exactly, is it that in almost any endeavor you can think of at any/every stage of life, if you MAKE something, you CELEBRATE it, enjoy it, relish it. It literally doesn't matter WHAT it is, from a child's first crayon stick-mommy on up...creating is a glory.
Unless it is meaning. Then, suddenly, the ability to create...to do it yourself...is either a wailing emptiness, contrary to some Meta-being's will, or both.
When I get tired, frustrated, and snippy I just put it down to the fact that people aren't despairing and angsting over the fact that there is no meaning [or wanting a deity to show there is]...they're despairing and angsting about their personal inability to create anything meaningful.
[[there is, I think, SOME sliver of truth in that...but just a taste. Cuz a large proportion of the best/greatest meaning-makers are also very despairy/angsty]]


EDITED to ADD: Z, I'm not sure that's how Mong means what he said. I suspect [as I was pointing at in another thread] he's not talking about religion-the-structures, he's talking more about the human conditions that require [or seem to, so far] such things, and maybe the state-of-consciousness that is the religious-feeling-intuition. We didn't invent those.

[ussusimiel]

...people aren't despairing and angsting over the fact that there is no meaning [or wanting a deity to show there is]...they're despairing and angsting about their personal inability to create anything meaningful.

I agree with this, and part of the reason for this is (as I said in the post) the very large amount of energy, time and effort that is required to create meaning. People are often lazy and so will plump for the easy option (religion or ideology) or, rather than do the work required, they will sink into and indulge in despair. (Part of the problem (as we spoke about in the Automation thread) maybe how we educate people, what skills we give them and what personal characteristics and qualities we value.)

[[there is, I think, SOME sliver of truth in that...but just a taste. Cuz a large proportion of the best/greatest meaning-makers are also very despairy/angsty]]

I think that, although this is related to creativity, it is a different thing. Gerorge Steiner's book, Real Presences addresses this and names it as the intense need to be a primary creator. If God exists, it is the primary creator. Steiner sees the angst of certain artists arising from the sense that they are secondary, that everything they create is made with the material they has been created already. From this angst comes the intense (sometimes insane) drive to create something primary and so, in a sense, become God-like.

u.