No, I think rising miltitant ideology in any form should be opposed. — Janus

By whom?

By whom? — Vera Mont

:up:

:up:

I was trying to say that not every madcap idea counts as an interpretation. There are limits. The text is flexible, but only up to a point. — Ludwig V

Why must there be such limits? A madcap interpretation is still an interpretation. On what bases can you argue that just because the interpretation is so radically different from your interpretation, and the norm, it is therefore not an interpretation. Suppose for example that a person hallucinates and sees a tree as a monster. That is the person's "interpretation". The thing we perceive as a tree is perceived as a monster. We can argue that the interpretation is wrong because it's not consistent with the norm, but we have no basis for the argument that it's not an interpretation.

The readers' environment is another one, and of course that may break down into a number of sub-contexts; it may overlap, to a greater or lesser extent with the author's environment. — Ludwig V

I do not agree that the reader's environment ought to be allowed to enter as a factor in the interpretation. One must attempt to completely place oneself into the author's position, the context of the writer, to properly interpret, and this means negating one's own place. Of course this is impossible, in actuality, hence subjectivity enters the interpretation, but it ought to be held in principle because if it is not, then subjectivity is allowed into the interpretation, as a valid (your meaning of valid here) aspect. So, the reader's position, or environment is not a valid consideration in interpretation. For example, when interpreting your post, I would not assume that you must be using "valid" in the way that I would want you to, and insist that my interpretation is correct when I impose my understanding of " valid" on your writing, in my interpretation of your writing. For these reason's I would say that when interpreting the true meaning of an author's work, one's own environment must not be allowed to be a contributing factor. Incidentally, this is very evident in fiction, one must allow the author to describe the environment, and the reader must allow oneself to be transported to that environment, leaving one's own. In school we start by learning fiction, and it's good practice.

This is relevant because when the text is read in a different context different questions, issues, priorities may come up and lead to a need for interpretations that go way beyond anything the author could have meant or thought. But still, it is not the case that anything goes. — Ludwig V

This is the matter of subjectivity. it cannot be avoided. And this is simply the nature of language, interpretation is subjective. Further, there are two subjects, the writer and the reader, so subjectivity enters from both sides. Just like the reader must put oneself in the author's context to properly understand, the author must put oneself into the reader's context to be properly understood. Now, writing is not a one on one form of communication, but the author intends to be read by many, so the author's task is much more difficult.

That seems a strange question to ask. The answer seems obvious: by anyone who isn't indoctrinated by, or complicit with, the militant ideology.

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater.

That seems a strange question to ask. The answer seems obvious: by anyone who isn't indoctrinated by, or complicit with, the militant ideology. — Janus

What, like atheists?

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater. — Janus

Well, I'd agree that in part it is a matter of personal preferences, but that's kind of the tip of the iceberg, of subconscious factors impacting our reasoning.

Right, and if all parties could acknowledge that their reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased, not based on purely rational thought, but on personal preference, it might help folks to understand one another's positions more, and thus lessen the social divisions, which only seem to be getting greater. — Janus

Of course! Why haven't we thought of that? You start and show us how it's done.

Which are dogma? :chin:

(A) Show me evidence that g/G is true, or more likely true than not true.

(B) True or not true, I believe in g/G.

(C) It is usually more adaptive to not believe 'not true g/G' than to believe 'not true g/G'.

(D) Whether true or not true, you ought to believe g/G because we believe g/G (because g/G commands us to believe g/G].

(E) Think for yourself. Learn by doing. Trust but verify, etc.

(F) Obey g/G (via pronouncements by its representatives).

Well, I'd agree that in part it is a matter of personal preferences, but that's kind of the tip of the iceberg, of subconscious factors impacting our reasoning. — wonderer1

I agree that what might seem like personal preference is not free from other influences, but that is a whole different can of worms.

Of course! Why haven't we thought of that? You start and show us how it's done. — Vera Mont

What you've never thought that you should acknowledge that your reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased? Are you unable to do that without my help?

What, like atheists? — Vera Mont

If the militant ideology is anti-theist, then it should be opposed by atheists if they are opposed to militant ideologies tout court. If they are not opposed to militant ideologies tout court then of course they won't oppose a militant anti-theist ideology. You really should have been able to work that out for yourself.

What you've never thought that you should acknowledge that your reasoning is based on premises which are not unbiased? Are you unable to do that without my help? — Janus

No, not that bit! I've got that down cold. It's the rapprochement with bible-thumpers I don't know how to do and am not sure I could stomach.

If the militant ideology is anti-theist, then it should be opposed by atheists if they are opposed to militant ideologies tout court. — Janus

Oh, right. Oppose universeness. Yah, done that. Lost the argument. Retreated in disarray. Been called Brave Sir Robin by my pseudo-friends ever since. Not an experience I care to repeat.

No, not that bit! I've got that down cold. It's the rapprochement with bible-thumpers I don't know how to do and am not sure I could stomach. — Vera Mont

I don't expect to be able to reason with fundamentalist theists any more than I do with miltitant anti-theists.

Oh, right. Oppose universeness. Yah, done that. Lost the argument. Retreated in disarray. Been called Brave Sir Robin by my pseudo-friends ever since. Not an experience I care to repeat. — Vera Mont

I'm going to treat the above response as serious. If I'm mistaken about that then more fool me.

I'll grant that universeness is an ideologue, a fanatical anti-theist, but I don't think I'd call him or her a militant anti-theist. I doubt you lost the argument, because I don't believe any cogent or non-simplistic arguments have been presented by the person in question. I am curious as to which "pseudo-friends" you are referring to.

In any case if you can't reason with someone, you can't reason with them, and it's not your fault. For example, if someone says that religion has been and still is a net negative for humanity that is just an opinion unless backed up with data from extensive case studies. If it's just an opinion, the opiniated person is entitled to it, but as I see it are not to be taken seriously if they won't or can't provide convincing argument or evidence to support their opinions.

I actually think it should be illegal for parents to force children to go, or not go, to church, although of course that would be a hard law to enforce adequately. — Janus

Could'nt resist this one @Jamal Do you think this statement by Janus makes him a fanatic?
A militant atheist who is a threat to innocent theists everywhere? Honest and honourable theists, who care that their children get exposed to the god inspired, support and love of their church. The intention of the parents is to morally guide the child correctly, yes, whether or not that 'religious experience' has been consented to by the child before every church attendance.
If the comply or threat, threat, threat message of the church does not get through then such children could become fanatic atheists!!!! Is that a fair concern?
Does the above statement from Janus, add to his evidence, that justifies his typing such as:

All of those I've ever encountered with your kind of anti-religious fanaticism were once devout, or at least heavily conditioned by religion when they were young, and I'm betting you fit in that category. — Janus

Some of the conversation here has got me thinking. In my extremely secular milieu, militant atheism seems ... silly. But in, say, the US Bible belt or the Middle East, religion is still a very big deal and causes a lot of problems. There is an Islamic civil war on several fronts, one of which is a meaningful yet mostly religious dispute between different interpretations and traditions of Islam (Sunni vs Shia). In those circumstances I imagine an atheist might develop an extreme antipathy to religion in general. And in fact I know some Iranian Leftists who go out of their way to offend against Islamic customs and assert their atheism (they're not living in Iran).

On the other hand, even in those circumstances, I can't really see how militant atheism would be either effective or necessary, since for most Muslims, their religion is just what gives shape and meaning to their lives at the ordinary everyday level. It's a luxury for me to say it, but it still looks to me like religion as such is not the problem, but the social and geopolitical situation in which religious divisions take on greater significance than otherwise.

I already pointed out that 180s argument, by implication, equates fascism with theism, and by extension anti-fascism with anti-theism. — Janus

He did not equate them, he compared them. He simply tried to explain to you that it is not fanatical or militant and is in fact 'reasonable' to suggest that an anti-theism position such as atheism! (that you yourself claim to be!) is a more reasoned position to hold than a theistic one. Theism is a net loss, in the atheist viewpoint, as an atheist population is one that is far more able to pursue the truth, in all circumstances, as they will not accept being told to be quiet and accept the word and laws of some unproven god. The message from most religions is:
'Don't worry your pretty little human brain with trying to answer the big questions, just do as we say, believe as we tell you, hate who we tell you and you will get your reward'after you are dead!!!'
You then state;

whereas it is a given that fascism is. — Janus

How would you respond to a fascist that called you a fanatic and a militant due to your anti-fascist views.
I am sure this was quite a common occurrence between neighbours, in 1939 Germany.
It would be a BS claim against you yes? Just like your claim that I am an atheist fanatic is in fact you just throwing your toys around, because I have a high conviction level (as does many prominent atheists and scientists and more and more highly intelligent and highly qualified theologians/theistic scholars) that theism is simply based on proposals which are untrue.

That's hilariously in character -- Disagree with me? Why, you must not understand! — Moliere

:grin: But seriously... there is another variety of dogmatism, which is not quite the same. It starts from exactly the same response - "you must not understand me.", but does argue, properly at first. But when it becomes apparent that the proposition at stake will not be abandoned, (for example, as in ad hoc explanations), the debate is over - unless one can agree on a solution such "hinge proposition" or axiom, in which case a solution has been reached. Those solutions are a bit of a problem.

The key, though, is that proper engagement requires that one put one's own beliefs at stake.

Why must there be such limits? A madcap interpretation is still an interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's true. I'm happy to accept that a madcap interpretation is an interpretation, but only in the sense that a broken watch is a watch.

Incidentally, this is very evident in fiction, one must allow the author to describe the environment, and the reader must allow oneself to be transported to that environment, leaving one's own. In school we start by learning fiction, and it's good practice. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are quite right, of course. But fiction is a particular context. Even so, Aristotle says that a story must be plausible. I think that's too restrictive, yet there's something in it.

Can I give the same liberty to, say Berkeley's immaterialism/idealism? Assuming that it is a consistent and complete system on its own terms, I could have no objection. Could I object to Putin's interpretation of the history of Eastern Europe?

Another example (legal in this case) based on ancient memories of "The West Wing". Suppose a country has a constitution written more than 200 years ago. There is a provision that each geographical division of the country should send to the legislative body an number of representatives proportionate to its population. It is taken for granted that women do not count. It is further provided that slaves shall count as a fraction of a person (say 2/5th). Fast forward to the present. It is clear, isn't it, that something must be done. No-one is a slave any more, so perhaps that provision can be simply ignored. The provision about women was so obvious that it is not even mentioned, so perhaps one could simply include women. But it would be safer to delete the slave clause and add a definition of "person". You might not count that as re-interpretation, but it surely demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to take account of the contemporary context as well as the historical context.

It's a luxury for me to say it, but it still looks to me like religion as such is not the problem, but the social and geopolitical situation in which religious divisions take on greater significance than otherwise. — Jamal

Basically I agree with you. But the local religion is also part of the social and geopolitical situation. So perhaps it might be more accurate to say that religion is only part of the problem, or one factor in the problem. Or, perhaps still more accurate, that the local interpretation of the religion is a factor in the problem.

On the other hand, even in those circumstances, I can't really see how militant atheism would be either effective or necessary, since for most Muslims, their religion is just what gives shape and meaning to their lives at the ordinary everyday level. It's a luxury for me to say it, but it still looks to me like religion as such is not the problem, but the social and geopolitical situation in which religious divisions take on greater significance than otherwise. — Jamal

Religion's an enabler of those prejudices though innit. Not in the abstract. But would the world have had Qutub without an amenable Islamic ideology? I doubt it. Female genital mutilation without the religious practices that mandate it? I also doubt it.

Being strongly critical of politically ascendent religion is an attempt to create a liberal notion of freedom, which must be affirmed to make more radical freedom possible. IMO anyway.

But it could also be interpreted not as an exaggeration. What is it to “have reasons”? If it’s to have arrived at the love through ratiocination, or if it means that reasons are somehow constitutive of it, or are the motivation for it, then the statement is accurate. I don’t decide to love someone based on a deduction. — Jamal

It’s a rich insight (though hardly an original one), so try to understand before rejecting. Be curious. — Jamal

I think the content of your post that I took the above quotes from is fair enough but I think the assumptions made in your last sentence are inaccurate. You assume I don't understand before rejecting.
I disagree.

So under that interpretation, giving or thinking of reasons post hoc is not what “having reasons” means. — Jamal

My point is that identifying reasons for falling in love with someone is not post hoc. They are present in your thoughts during the very moments that the experience starts imo, the reasoning is just very fast and 'flash like'.
You, and imo, Zizek are suggesting that such as 'oh my goodness look at her over there, I think I'm in love!!' has no reasoning behind it. I think that's untrue. It's just that all the reasons are happening at top speed in your head.
It starts with.
Aesthetically stunning ....... tick
Posture alluring (sitting or walking) ...... tick
Body language ....... tick
These reasons are manifest in parallel thought.
These are enough reasons, to attempt initial contact and it can build from there or die quickly when one of her first questions is 'are you a fanatical, militant atheist?, because if you are then you can just f*** off, right now!'
Now if you still think I don't understand the Zizek quote, then I will admit to having a 'craft' (can't rationalise a f****** thing) moment and I would appreciate more assistance from TPF members in revealing to me, what it is about the Zizek quote I am still not getting! :grimace:

Religion's an enabler of those prejudices though innit. Not in the abstract. But would the world have had Qutub without an amenable Islamic ideology? I doubt it. Female genital mutilation without the religious practices that mandate it? I also doubt it.

Being strongly critical of politically ascendent religion is an attempt to create a liberal notion of freedom, which must be affirmed to make more radical freedom possible. IMO anyway. — fdrake

I agree. But being strongly critical of politically ascendent religion is not the same as being critical of belief in God as such. Militant atheism seems precisely too much "in the abstract". I mean, it doesn't seem fit for purpose in undermining fundamentalism and female genital mutilation; these might be better undermined by variant interpretations of scripture.

But I'm not strong on that point. I'd probably applaud a stronger anti-theistic movement in those parts of the world where theocracy is strong.

Oh shit! I hate/love tests like this. I am so good/bad at them, especially when written by a wordsmith.
F*** it, I'm just gonna go for it, I say (G) alone is fully dogmatic!
:gasp: :worry: :yikes: :death: :flower:

I mean, it doesn't seem fit for purpose in undermining fundamentalism and female genital mutilation; these might be better undermined by variant interpretations of scripture. — Jamal

Perhaps a better strategy.

But being strongly critical of politically ascendent religion is not the same as being critical of belief in God as such — Jamal

It helps though. I had a friend in Iran, there is a sizeable anti-theist anarchist black metal scene there. There'd be no way of mobilising that demographic with alternative interpretations of scripture.

But yeah. Anti-theists and anti-fundamentalists are good bedfellows.

And when I say the things I've been saying it feels kinda wrong, in that I'm speaking from a position of privilege: the privilege of living in a liberal secular society that makes it too easy to take a contrarian anti-militant-atheist line.

living in a liberal secular society — Jamal

I'm not in Russia right now BTW

I don't believe any cogent or non-simplistic arguments have been presented by the person in question. — Janus

K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid!) :kiss:

In any case if you can't reason with someone, you can't reason with them, and it's not your fault. For example, if someone says that religion has been and still is a net negative for humanity that is just an opinion unless backed up with data from extensive case studies. If it's just an opinion, the opiniated person is entitled to it, but as I see it are not to be taken seriously if they won't or can't provide convincing argument or evidence to support their opinions. — Janus

Yeah, do your own research lazy bones/brains, as has been typed many times on TPF, we cannot spoon feed everyone, all the time. There is not enough time to do so.

Basically I agree with you. But the local religion is also part of the social and geopolitical situation. So perhaps it might be more accurate to say that religion is only part of the problem, or one factor in the problem. Or, perhaps still more accurate, that the local interpretation of the religion is a factor in the problem. — Ludwig V

:up:

I think the content of your post that I took the above quotes from is fair enough but I think the assumptions made in your last sentence are inaccurate. You assume I don't understand before rejecting.
I disagree. — universeness

Yes, that was unnecessary. I was probably just trying to wind you up. It's a Scottish tradition; you can take it.

My point is that identifying reasons for falling in love with someone is not post hoc. They are present in your thoughts during the very moments that the experience starts imo, the reasoning is just very fast and 'flash like'. — universeness

This is the issue and I think you're wrong. It reminds me of something that Bertrand Russell said about perception somewhere. He said something like, perception is inference from sense data to an image or model of the environment, and when it's automatic--because the environment is familiar and doesn't contain any surprises--it just means that the inferential process has just got really quick. This idea works no better for perception than it does for love, and I just think you're misunderstanding your own feelings.

You, and imo, Zizek are suggesting that such as 'oh my goodness look at her over there, I think I'm in love!!' has no reasoning behind it. I think that's untrue. It's just that all the reasons are happening at top speed in your head. — universeness

So you might be conflating causes and reasons.

Aesthetically stunning ....... tick
Posture alluring (sitting or walking) ...... tick
Body language ....... tick
These reasons are manifest in parallel thought. — universeness

This is quite comical though. You don't fall in love using a checklist.

But what you're talking about here is an assessment of attractiveness, which I accept might have a checklisty character, although even then I think it's probably post hoc. In any case, the assessment of attractiveness is not falling in love.

Yes, that was unnecessary. i was probably just trying to wind you up. It's a Scottish tradition; you can take it. — Jamal

:up: butyerbumsootrawindae!

:smirk:

But yeah. Anti-theists and anti-fundamentalists are good bedfellows. — fdrake

The last two words of that sentence reminded me of a very pleasant email exchange I had with Joseph Atwill, who is the author of Caesars Messiah.

In his final email he commented:
Be careful when dealing with many, who claim to be atheists, they often make strange bedfellows with theists.