I think I'd like to bow out gracefully, for once. With a hearty “Well said!” to all major parties, I depart once more for the ethereal corners. But before I go, just a few stray thoughts of no controversy...
Those of you who are agitating for topic locks, or are getting upset at the acrimony or the disagreements, are missing entirely the point of constructive discussion. Even my exchange with Krispin is not a waste of time, because, if nothing else, it is useful for me. And if anybody else finds it useful, then so much the better.
The religion ITSELF is not what's wrong, it's the PEOPLE in it who do the dispicable stuff.
I covered this in my last post. You have done well to account for people whose actions cannot be justified by religious credo. You have not yet accounted for people whose actions follows directly from the same. It is as simple as that. Don't mistake that as me “bashing you down to nothing.” Take it as constructive criticism. It is nothing to you before you think it something. Think something useful of it, then.
This thread will never end until one of the mods lock it. All this is going to do is start a pointless hating of people.
Oh, how I disagree with you there...
All that we have control over is our own thoughts and actions. How can anything outside of that be deemed good or evil as it befalls me? Everything outside of my control is only natural, and I am indifferent to it. Thus, there is only good and evil in the choices that we make as individuals. Freed by the faculty of reason from the earthly passions of animals, we are given the choice to live a virtuous life, and if that should not be possible, to give up life.
Why concern yourself with the man who robbed you? What difference does it make that you feel wronged and full of contempt? This changes nothing. Be at ease with yourself and move on.
Every day you will meet people who know nothing of virtue, but why should you be the same?
That is how I feel and understand things, and that is why I see my role as fulfilling the greatest possibility that I can, according to my own talents and abilities, and the condition of my birth.
In that way, I don't see this as resigning myself to anything. Instead, this sort of mindset demands that I live up to the greatest possibilities in the most virtuous manner, changing the world as I am most fit to do so. If I had been born a peasant or slave, but still intelligent and capable, I would have seen it as my duty to destroy the very system that enslaved me and my fellow man and bring about a free society. Yet, had I been born a slave capable of nothing, I would have simply lived with grace as a slave, indifferent to a condition I could not change and yet living life with complete virtue.
I am reading a strong individualism here. Is that closer to your meaning? If so, I commend you and have only one criticism: As I understand it, what you are offering is a worldview that relies upon the assumption that the power required for self-determination is freely available. In other words, you seem to assume that you, Ramsus, would still have been Ramsus, even had you been born into another body, in another time or circumstance, and thus, as Ramsus, would have been able to recognize possibilities from which you might strive to best change the world according to your abilities.
I'm here to say that it is not so. If you had been born a slave, ideology and philosophy would almost certainly not have been in your life. The knowledge and formal intellectual discipline required to even have the kinds of thoughts that lead to the recognition of possibilities from which the world might be changed for the better, was not available to slaves. It isn't even available today, in our supposedly free world, because most people have not got the means to ask the questions or even make the observations that set the whole ball of self-actualization in motion.
I sympathize with your individualist streak. I feel the same way myself. Where we differ is that I perceive an onus upon those who are able to see and to ask. It isn't enough to horde what modest wisdom we have all to ourselves. To me, virtuous living requires giving others the opportunity to think for themselves, and determine their own course in life. That's why I support causes like feminism and public education, and that's why I oppose troubles like Christian fundamentalism. You see, Ramsus, the fact of the matter is this: No matter how ambitious you are...no matter how honorable you may be, or how able to learn, no matter how talented you might become,
none of this counts for a damn if you are born into a society where you are controlled, oppressed, disenfranchised, marginalized, or, worse, excluded or enslaved. It's that simple.
William Gates, Sr., once pointed this out, and went on to say that it is because we choose to live in this society together, paying taxes and abiding by the rule of law, that America and other countries have been able to flourish. Without our personal willingness to invest our wallets and our liberty into this common social enterprise all around us, the police would not function, the grocery store shelves would go empty, the concert halls would be looted, and society would collapse.
If even just for our own self-interest, to say nothing of true honor, we
have to concern ourselves with others. It isn't enough to treat the rest of the world as what you call “natural.”
Everything has to be on the table. Everything has to be “in bounds.” No sacred cows, no unconditional respect of one another's sovereignty. We are human beings, and we must interfere. The question, therefore, is whether our interference will count for anything virtuous. But that's where individualism comes in.
Disagree you?
Intellect is not measured in doubt but in curiosity. A cynical man may be able to strip away falsehood to reveal truth by asking, "Is this really so?" However, a true intellectual instead asks, "What is this? How did it come to be? What purpose does it serve?" and seeks to find understanding through curiosity.
I don't agree with you here. Curiosity is a component of intellect, not the measure of it. Curiosity is, in fact, the first of the Five Great Virtues in my personal philosophy. It is the beginning of our path toward enlightenment, and a necessary friend on the entirety of that road.
It's “curious,” then, that you should mention curiosity, because curiosity is something I know intimately. If we were to measure the innateness of virtues, curiosity is one of my two inherent strengths. It may not seem so, because so often here I end up arguing from an established position. If you could see me the rest of the time, you might get a wider and thus a better view of how I think and also how I live. Do not mistake my confidence in those subjects in which I choose to debate, for a dearth of curiosity in my overall personality. Surely you can see the logical gap in committing such an assumption.
Your questions, in the excerpt above, are all well-put. But I wouldn't even measure them as the mark of an intellectual. An intellectual is one who is rigorous in critical thought; nothing more. One who is
curious, meanwhile, possesses the drive by which to ultimately establish an identity of...well, that's the thing. An identity of no limits.
I fear you may have become nothing more than a cynic.
Heh. If I were a cynic, I wouldn't waste my time here. Cynicism is about as unnatural to me as right-handed fencing.
I know I'm not the only person here who admires the fact that Ramsus responded to the words "f off" by shrugging them off.
It's his way. I was startled by it too, at first. He's a hardass...likes to swear, doesn't take bullshit, and cuts an imposing figure. No problem, though. That kind of persona is refreshing, in moderation.
We have to tweak our behavior depending on who it is we're interacting with. I assure you that I wouldn't cuss people out most of the time, but in Ramsus' case it is the least I can do, telling him to fuck off when he's being a fuckoff. =)
However, if I might so suggest, you and Daniel take very different argumentative approaches. You are someone who very much "tells it like it is" (well, you tell it like you perceive it, which for you is the same thing) while Daniel is much more someone who would rather the individual think on the matter and come to the conclusion him or herself. To put it another way, you've done the thinking and tell people what the “right” result is while Daniel's done the thinking but tells people how to get the “right” result themselves (of course, "right" and even "thinking" are subjective terms in this particular case). So yes, Daniel asks "what if" quite a bit, but you use fiat quite a bit in turn.
Interesting.
I would take almost the exact opposite reading you do: Krispin is the one who begins with a conclusion, and then tries to build upon that. In so doing, he evades argument on behalf of his position and counterargument against the other party's position, opting instead for development beyond that which is actually under discussion. Now I grant that his style of speech seems to invite the listener to reach their own conclusions, but, when he begins with a conclusion, he's stacking the deck, because, in effect, the price of admission to join in debate with him is to accept his main point right from the onset. It's very hard to engage with him on a point where he has already made up his mind, and the consequence is, of course, that the other party is likely to be herded toward a predetermined milestone. Whether or not they realize that is another story, but often enough the scheme fails, which is why Krispin is so cautious about being fully truthful about his theological and political positions nowadays. Caution is typically a good thing, but in this case the effect is like under a wolf in sheep's clothing. Behind the gentle persona is someone who lusts for war, who feels very strongly about Hell and damnation (and all the other religious stuff), and who has crisp, ardent opinions on many political subjects. Ask him point-blank why he does not hold two otherwise identical people, one an atheist and one a Lutheran, in equal esteem, and he may even dare to reveal some of his inner self to you.
If we play by Krispin's rules and give him what he wants right from the start, then he becomes very generous and accommodating. That's why many of his more interesting statements are the ones that are off-topic. However, while this ballet can be altogether pleasant, I don't think it does much to help the other party with the hard thinking. If anything, it helps Krispin himself more than anyone else.
As for me...well. You're closer to being right. At my best, I invite people to reach their own conclusions. If you look at my first and second posts in this topic, that very principle is the essence of what I wrote.
But I am honest enough to recognize and admit that, much of the time, my exhortations strike more like imperatives. Talk to those who talk to me, and they would tell you of my imperious style. I respect intellect and give it room, but, when talking to people beneath me, I have a hard time being a good teacher. That turns out to have helped some people, such as Burning Zeppelin and ZeaLitY, who are able to learn from such a temperament. But for other people, I am too arrogant for them to be willing to overcome their [revulsion, pity, scorn} toward me. That is almost certainly as much my failure as it is their own.
All of which is to say that your criticism is fair.
Yet: I should also add that you, like Ramsus, mustn't mistake my tactical style within a debate as my sole or primary mode of engagement. When I enter into an argument, I expect to win. The argument is invariably on a topic I have dealt with before, and my opponent's incoming arguments are all familiar to me. While I do keep my eyes open for new revelations, rarely do they come up. Most argument for me is a matter of course...and not particularly educational for me, other than that it helps me hone my own arguments.
But when I am not arguing, my preferred method is to ask questions. I already know what I know, as it were, and thus to me the most useful thing is to let the other person do most of the talking, with me guiding the course of debate (if I want to probe something specific) or otherwise being introspective (reviewing my own knowledge for combination with the new).
And similarly, you seem more interested in the individual reaching your destination, journey be damned (especially if the journey leads someone to a destination different than yours).
Now that much is simply not true. The people who are the closest to being in agreement with me are the ones who I would challenge the hardest. Somebody who is very far away from me in thought can only be reached via sweeping strokes, but somebody who is vastly similar in thought can be challenged on much finer details. My most challenging and rewarding debates are with those who are very likeminded to me. On myself I am the hardest of all. That's one of the reasons why I can be as confident as I am on the limited number of issues where I feel competent to stand my ground in an argument.
If your assertion were correct, I would go easier on people, the closer they come to my position. That the opposite is true means you have misread the program. What is most important to me is that other people think critically. That, for me, is the holy grail. When people start thinking critically, real discussion happens. Meanwhile, when someone reaches a conclusion that does not fit with my own position, one of three things happens:
1. I see a flaw in their reasoning, allowing me to press the issue if I so desire.
2. I see no flaw in their reasoning, and attribute our different positions to matters of style, preference, or taste.
3. I see no flaw in their reasoning, and incorporate the new conclusion into my own thinking.
If you think about it, it should make sense to you that I am not interested in creating a bunch of Josh drones. That goes against my entire theory of human progress. I resent mimes and flatterers, and yes-people. I value independent thinking. That doesn't mean I will agree with what people are thinking, but, so long as the thinking is critical...that's good enough.
If that sentiment doesn't come through in my words here, then you are not being charitable enough in your allowances.
Tolerance, when applied blindly, can allow for great social ills to persist with no or small hope of correcting them. While in turn, intolerance, when used properly, allows for great social ills to be corrected (though to be fair, intolerance is far more capable of causing social ills as well, when compared to universal tolerance).
I just thought I might point out for the benefit of others that we are in agreement here. Even people like us have plenty on which we can agree. Since others in this thread seem to feel as though I would bash down anyone who doesn't agree with my philosophy, here is an example to the contrary.
Lord J, I never said that. Faust said that, but I never got around to correcting him. I never considered Nietzsche for a nihilist, nor, for that matter, you for one either. I do very well understand the disctinction between purpose and meaning; I know that purpose means driven by some other, deeper, thing, whilst meaning can be derived simply from things as they are. Why did you assume that I did not? In fact, I said that he would be more inclined to say that trying to find some deeper purpose will make one lose the beauty at hand. That was the one final thought I had on Nietzsche in that space. Was that fundamentally wrong? My philosophy mentor is going over Nietzsche in great detail... line by line, word by word, and I think I'm right in saying that. Yes, you are right, quite to the contrary he is a very strong affirmer of things. Again, why did you assume I meant nihilism when I'd so plainly said the opposite right there? How can I argue with you when, having written out an affirmation of Nietzsche's beliefs, you tell me that I'm ignorant and proceed to merely say again the selfsame thing I set out to say?
What you say you said isn't quite what you actually said. This is what you said to FaustWolf:
However, there is an out to all of this, one which I do not personally agree with, but which is a potent argument. Nietzsche. To Faust, Nietzsche might ask you 'who's to say there is purpose?' He would call all these religious teachers, all the poets, teachers of purpose to try and give us drive to do anything. But an illusory purpose! Essentially, it is an important component so that we are not weighed down by uselessness, but in fact life might have absolutely no purpose, and these teachers are just appealing to a sort of collective weakness in driving the herd onward. Maybe there's nothing deeper beyond the surface? He calls that the gay science. This whole idea that there is some deeper truth to anything gets us away from just understanding things as they are, from experiencing the manifold complex surfaces of things. Truth is nothing deep; it's just the base stuff as it is. There's nothing more to life than that. Spirtuality, religion... these are all expressions of purpose to try to give meaning to a life that is inherently meaningless. The strong one would do without such a sort of crutch.
Now, of course, I don't agree with this. I would put the idea that there is nothing deeper to truth than the silly surface as being similar to the argument that equations can be derived down to zero. Yes, one can do that, but often the nature of an equation, of a thing, is best known not by its barest fact but in its application. As such, truth takes on manifold facets revealing those things otherwise hidden. That is how I disagree with Nietzsche on these grounds. Nonetheless, it is a wonderfully brilliant question to ask.
So, in fact, I would say that 'religion', though it might stifle the individual, does not override the quest for purpose, but is in fact a manifestation of it (one can find purpose in the herd, after all!) But what one must really ask... is is there a purpose at all? And are you going to be strong enough to get beyond that need? That, I think, is what Nietzsche would be asking you. You're saying, Faust, you are much depressed that the answer may not exist? That's why Nietzsche can be unsettling. He shows a lot of facade and purposelessness in what we do. That, in fact, is the really tough question to approach. Are you still so enslaved to the ideas of the old morals that you must have a purpose in your life other than what it is? Why do you have to look for anything else beyond it? Okay, now I'm playing the Devil's advocate. But I admit that his is a potent argument.
That isn't a particularly cogent reading of Nietzsche. If I indeed understand you correctly this time, then I am inclined to suspect that you misspoke (or spoke incompletely) the first time around.
When I do look directly at authors in my debates I feel inclined to cite them. This is, in fact, not name-dropping in order to make myself appear intelligent (though it might appear as such on the exterior), but is merely my academic training which demands I cite the sources of my ideas if they are not my own. It is neither aggrandising my learning nor is it appeal to their authority: I like to paraphrase, but even paraphrases need to give proper credit. If in doing so I seem to be pointing out what I have read and make myself appear larger by it, my apologies. That is not my intent.
I have my doubts that this is sincerity and not rationalization, especially in light of the fact that you (still) prefer not to respond to any of my arguments directly. At this point, however, it probably doesn't matter if you are being genuine or not, so I may as well make some kind of show of amity. How about a “thank you for the clarification”?
Thank you for the clarification.
It is a fundamental disagreement with Nietzsche. His question is a very important one, I'll admit, and it had me thinking in entirely different ways, but I came to the conclusion that he might be wrong.
It would seem you did. You know, you once rebuked me for having the audacity to contradict the great philosophers of yore. I wish I could provide the link, but, alas, I do not remember the exact words of our exchange well enough. Suffice it to say, I may now assume that you have renounced your previous and would henceforth be open to the likes of us mortals arguing with those whose names live on.
Alas...too bad you didn't leave up your original post. I don't think I agree with placidchap as to its spot-on-edness, but at least it was your honest opinion. Better the enemy who speaks than one who stays silent.
Perhaps next time... =)
