Those arch-theories already exist in the theories like Dialectical Materialism, or worse, Fascism, and with terrible consequences once they confronted reality.

The circumstantial perspective of (Liberal Western) Modernism & Postmodernism may have it's flaws, but it has offered more practical results in policymaking than not.

In fact, I think the lack of such an attempt to make a coherent story is what draws people to the over simplified ones in the first place.

Unless your position is a kind of Daoist quietism, I’m not sure what you are suggesting instead.

Maybe there aren’t any such that are risk free. So you have to evaluate both the potential upsides and downsides to see if it’s a net positive and worthwhile risk to take.

Isn't this exactly part of Hitler's story though? I think I'm misunderstanding what your concept of "story" means.

But without that it’s hard to see how such proposals have any merit at all, considering the historical track record.

If it helps, neither do they. Given that they are already suggesting Postmodernism provides a valuable philosophical and analytic view to understand the world, it's pretty clear that they've given up on any concept of defining a pathway, outcome, or objective.

In another comment thread, I wrote that a story is needed which combines accurate scientific information with a human purpose in the world. Those examples quite obviously didn’t have scientific views of the world.

Any extremist political '-ism' has thousands of murders in his belt.

The best goverments are the centered ones, the ones which gave both individual and social rights.

Sure. You would also be much happier taking drugs all day.

But I think the example is bad. If you actually experientially know you are whole with the world, I think it would push your limits and take care of others even better.

People don't tend to take care of others because of the idea of separation between you and me. It's the cause of all wars. People tend to do things good for themselves or who look like themselves.

I was more thinking about an exaggerated example, people who simply convince themselfs that they are happy (LSD-like happy), it will not advance others and also not themselves in the long run.

Maybe we just need to accept that our narrative is more James Joyce and Marcel Proust than it is Michael Crichton.

The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires

Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side.

I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".

That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place.

My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.

- I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc.

- Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.

A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.

that's what i go by. the goal is for each individual and for humanity as a whole to better themselves during their life on earth and how they will experience their eternal existence depends on how well they do on earth. plenty of motivation for me, and better than the idea that after i die there is nothing and therefore what i do in my life doesn't really matter.

That's a narrative from a certain perspective. Let's advocate for different perspectives, like the article does.

I'm perfectly fine with the Darwinistic idea that mankind has evolved from something very primitive rather than created for a purpose.

The declaration of basic human rights is a narrative that humans deem good. But they are still human inventions, no superior creator needs to be involved to have something deemed good for everyone.

We are here, that is a fact. Why or how is a mystery. You can build narratives around that but in fact they are not necessary. I would say, let's just make the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable.

well, that is the question. that narrative may not be necessary for you, but it is for me and for many others.

what do you think will be more successful/sustainable? convincing everyone that we don't need a narrative or adopt a narrative that is beneficial for all?

your idea of making the best of our existence by trying to not make other beings miserable is a good one. and it is compatible with advancing civilization. so why don't we focus on working together to achieve those goals (and other related goals like peace, elimination of poverty, justice, clean environment, etc) instead of arguing whether we need a narrative or not?

Being convinced that we need something is not the same as something being necessary for us. There are all sort of human endeavor out there whose main goal is to convince us we need something, be it some consumer commodity, some skill, or some divinity. Most often than not, people who conduct these propaganda campaigns are themselves convince that it's relevant to do it for some of their aspiration to become a reality, be it something they expose in what they communicate openly or some more or less hidden agenda.

The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to. If they lead to people wanting to give only love and respect to other as much as for themselves, that sounds great, and who would complain, really? If they lead to "we the camp of the good vs the heretics evil others that must be destroyed whatever the means", that's an entirely different concern.

When we think "advancing civilization", we are actually stashing the real issue that is that there is not "a single narrative about a single civilization".

It makes as much sense to ask whether we need narratives as to ask whether we need tools. Stories can glorify the gun holder or the people who learnt how and when to use first aid kits.

of course it isn't. all i am saying is that arguing about that difference is not helpful.

whose main goal is to convince us we need something

which is no different than trying to convince us that we don't need a narrative.

this is the problem i have with dominant religions today. to much focus on the narrative itself. not enough focus on using the narrative to solve actual problems. narratives are being treated as if they are the solutions in themselves, as if only believing the narrative will solve our problems automatically.

instead of pushing a narrative, what we really need is to adress the problems humanity is facing today. i'll use a narrative for those that need it, if it helps them to understand why certain problems need to be solved, but for those that don't need a narrative to do that, i won't. i don't care about people believing the narrative, i care about them solving problems.

The topic is not that much about are narratives a necessity, but what they lead to

true. the actual narrative needs to be carefully chosen. not all narratives are good, and bad narratives do need to be replaced. but again, it is easier to come up with a better narrative than to convince someone that the narrative is not needed.

The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?

I wonder whether it'd be possible to make the story more inspirational by telling it in more accessible ways.

But there also seems to be a real interest in “spiritual” needs, whatever that might mean in particular. And so a purely scientific approach may not be enough in the first place.

Personally I think it may be too much of a past-focused narrative to be very compelling. Most successful religions have a vision of the future, not merely the past.

One starting point might be what I wrote in a comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41358528

So a proposal might be: construct a narrative that defeats these two biases in a convincing way:

But there are two very human biases on display here: the idea that occupying large amounts of physical space is indicative of "importance"; and that things which exist for long durations of time are inherently more valuable. These are human biases and there any many examples in nature of the exact opposite being true.

are they getting in the way of finding a middle ground between being lost in space and being the center of the universe? do we need to find a middle ground?

in my opinion a compelling narrative primarily needs to address the problems humanity is facing today: poverty and wealth, climate change, gender equality, war and conflict, disagreement of religion, racism and prejudice, injustice...

i think to address these, it doesn't matter much whether we are lost in space or the center of the universe

Now, being made by a magic man who will welcome you to his magic wonderful home after this short, nasty, brutish life? There’s a comforting story.

While we might not have free will in an absolute, metaphysical sense, we can self-reflect, practice self-control, shape our environment, and even change our nature. What will we do with this power?

There is no eternal afterlife to go to, but we now understand what actual life is - and it's no longer so nasty and brutish. Perhaps soon it won't be so short either. We are certainly capable of extending it in principle, we just need to get our shit together.

Comforting stories are cozy, but we are growing up. We've become smart enough to cause a whole lot of trouble for ourselves, and are not yet wise enough to fix it. We're confused, can't make sense of things and constantly whine about it. But that's how growth works. Humanity might just be in its awkward emo teenage phase.

i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not contradict each other. if there is an apparent contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the scientific findings need further research or even both.

> We might never fully escape the narratives that surround us, but we can learn to change the perspectives behind them. And so, we are never bound by stories, only by our ability to understand how our beliefs and values shape the way we perceive and engage with the world. We don’t need better narratives; we need to expand and refine our perspectives.

Religion, at its most fundamental core, is about providing a set of guidelines and contexts with which to make sense of life and the world around us so we can spend less time bickering and worrying about things that we ultimately can't do anything about.

I feel the mad rush to reject and remove religion from society in the 20th century onwards has caused significant damage that we should address. It's not like religion is gone either, we've simply found impromptu replacements that are inferior and repeat a lot of problems religion dealt with already (eg: politics, "science", fanboyism, etc.).

a modern religion must be inclusive to all others, not just the abrahamic religions. at least all those who expect a return of their prophet which is the case not only for all abrahamic religions but at least also for buddhism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, and even native american religions. (there may be others, but i am not familiar with those)

The point isn't to hand-wave anything. Freeing yourself from narratives is a lot of work. The person who probably took this idea most seriously was Stirner, often pointing out that people who leave religious faith just sacralize human nature. ("leaving Man with a capital M intact"), making the oppression even worse.

To be free when rejecting narrative is also to be on the lookout to not chase freedom in a naive way, but it is an achievable process, and it is exactly that. You're obviously never done if you take the idea seriously.

But it is probably the most single liberating thing a human being can do. Personally speaking I come from a blue collar household, I had drilled into me that I must learn a vocation. I didn't, I went to uni and got a CS degree because I loved computers. Some choice as simple as this many people don't make because of how strong the narrative is that their parents tell them about who they are supposed to be. And there's millions of decisions like this. A lot of people think they must buy a house in the suburbs, just because everyone else says so. They actually despair if they don't. The extent to which people imitate desires of others in societies that are supposed to be free is incredible.

Indeed, and I am quite amazed by that seeing that behavior in others. Although maybe/probably I am biased by other narratives in similar ways while not being aware. I feel it would be liberating to understand those narratives and see them for the mere stories they are.

The unique and its property is and will always be my favorite book. There really isn’t any other proper defense of radical individualism philosophically.

Stirners worldview is so unique and fresh. It’s sad to see how little impact it’s had on the world, except within anarchism of all places.

I think stirners thought is 100% compatible with liberalism (I’m liberal because it’s in my interests to be liberal). We still have about zero stirnerist liberal scholars. John Rawls sucked the air out of the room far too early!

This is like saying that atheism is just another religion because it's the belief in nothing. In a a hairsplitting way it may arguably be true but atheism does not provide a consistent(-ish) narrative about the world like religions do and therefore is fundamentally different.

It's largely an intellectual distinction, because in practice everyone still acts and exists in the world. Identity itself is probably impossible without having some sort of story about who you are.

I know someone who does not believe in gods because he think aliens are playing with us (fake flags etc. Basically the Stargate mythos, except he never saw the show). Less anecdotal, Chalmers is definitely Atheist, but i sure don't have his belief system, and i'm sure no functionalist does.

Also, in general, philosophy of mind is imho the best way to test you belief systems. Or maybe it's the philosophy field i'm the most comfortable in and thus the one where i pushed my beliefs the furthest :/

In other words, the definitional concept of atheist doesn’t imply a specific belief set (except in the choice of using such a word to define oneself), but the sociological definition definitely does. If we looked at various communities calling themselves atheists, they certainly have beliefs in common.

It definitely does not.

> If we looked at various communities calling themselves atheists, they certainly have beliefs in common.

The lack of belief in gods. There are types of Hinduism that have always been atheistic.

Believing in god is like having blue eyes. There's nothing necessarily shared amongst people who don't have blue eyes other than a lack of blue eyes.

That’s a narrative in and of itself. The Opium of the masses.

And judging by the length of the comment thread, it’s really difficult to change someone’s mind once they have settled on a narrative, like trying to kick a habit.

Deleuze and Guattari, Jacques Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Freud, Jung, and most of their disciples are at best fashionable nonsense, always charlatans, and there’s even evidence that some of the success of post-structuralism was a psyop from your local spymasters to keep Ivy League intellectuals from doing subversive shit in the USA like May of 68/situationalist internationale.

For all the problems that existentialism, Sartre, Camus, De Bouiver, and the other existentialists had, they tended to write (more) coherently and they descend (slightly less) into the pit of academic wankery.

Seriously, Deleuze and Guattari destroyed continental philosophy. Anti-oedipus is full of shit. Freud is full of shit. The oedipus and Electra complex and mirror stage and object petit an are all psudo science. Reject their work in every instance or continue the further debasement of academic philosophy.

I disagree. Religion has fulfilled that role for millennia and all it gets you is people being abused. Fascism has also fulfilled that role with the same results. Look at communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union. Everyone blindly sharing the same narrative is dangerous