What's wrong with threats of divine punishment? Threats of divine punishment are useful for those who cannot see the negative effects of immoral actions. — Agustino
People read statements like mine, and they object that it is all too reductionist, depressing, mechanistic, and so forth. Much the way people (me too) respond to your antinatalist statements. The difference between your view and mine is that you think people can help it, I think people can't help it. Yes, we could cease to reproduce -- but the commitment and prolonged concentration that universal, species-ending non-reproduction requires is not one of our features -- and it isn't going to happen. — Bitter Crank
It doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. — schopenhauer1
The ordinary folk that I rub shoulders with every day don't seem to have lapsed into a nihilistic funk — Bitter Crank
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion. — Bitter Crank
Nihilism is just a phase of development, don't be so dramatic. — praxis
I disagree, people in my experience are either 9-5 zombies on a treadmill that's increasingly delivering less real prosperity for the average person, or they're retreating into fantasy worlds of various sorts (sucking the teat of various kinds of consumerism).
We are tremendously advanced in terms of technology, and that's keeping our heads above water, but the morale situation is pretty dire - consider suicide rates (particularly among men). — gurugeorge
Sociopaths and psychopaths aren't all bad or immoral though. For example, about 1/100 persons is a psychopath. You've quite probably met some of them, lived with them, been friends with them, etc.It may be true that the 'ignorant masses' need and will respond to threats of divine punishment, or else they will not behave morally; and even then, perhaps they will not...
Sociopaths and psychopaths...? I don't know what to do about them; they are often highly intelligent. — Janus
It's not a lie at all, threats of divine punishment are absolutely true. Someone who commits an immorality will get punished by the action itself, the punishment actually is inescapable. But failing to be aware of the punishment, many expect to encounter it in the future.So, threats of divine punishment could be seen as a form of "noble lie". — Janus
I think it's a fantasy to think medication can make people more moral.On the other hand, perhaps if education, and if necessary medication, were adequately improved, there would be far fewer people who required such threats in order to behave well towards their fellow humans. — Janus
Why would social involvement or communion be salvific? I think that's not what salvation is taken to mean. Social involvement or communion MAY (depending on personality type & circumstance) be helpful in getting you to feel good and positive about your life. But salvific? I think not.I would say that for most people the existentially salvific aspect of religious belief consists predominately in social involvement, in communion — Janus
For example, I take those saints who sit in a hut all day on Mt. Athos and don't meet anyone, in continuous prayer, meditation and contemplation of God to be closer to salvation than your average socially engaged lad. — Agustino
Sure, they have decreased empathy but they don't lack it completely. Having even a shred of empathy is sufficient to then imagine the rest. For example, if one feels bad when they see a man tortured, but not when they see him get kicked in the leg, then they can imagine feeling bad in the latter case too - or at least imagine that they ought to feel bad, even if they don't.Sociopaths and psychopaths characteristically lack empathy and are thus more likely to be lacking conscience and moral intuition. — Janus
But who made human nature such that you suffer when you do evil? This is a structural occurence - in that sense it is of divine origin.I agree with you that people are "punished" by, in the sense that they suffer on account of, their immoral actions, (or more accurately they suffer because of the dispositions that give rise to those actions) but I don't think that can be considered a "threat of divine punishment" or even a divine punishment; it is an outcome of human nature; a natural suffering. — Janus
Hmmm - I'm not so sure they are truly irresistable. I think regardless of imbalance, there is always a degree of self-control that can be exerted if one learns how to exert it. The thing is, the brain isn't necessarily "one person". So one part of the brain may give whatever directions it wants to, there will always be, so long as the person retains consciousness, another part of the brain that can oppose it.In cases where people do immoral things because of irresistible impulses that are due to imbalances in brain chemistry that are correlated with some psychiatric conditions then medication may indeed cause them to abstain from performing immoral acts they otherwise would have. — Janus
Well, loving God with your heart, mind, and body is more important than loving your neighbour as yourself, but, salvation consists in none of those I would say. Salvation consists in being at peace (deep inside) regardless of external circumstances.What does salvation consist in then, other than loving your neighbour as yourself? it is the removal of focus from the self that saves, as I see it. — Janus
Why is social engagement a good thing? Most people share this belief, but in my opinion, it's simply because they are afraid of themselves. They cannot stand even a little while with themselves, they get bored, and they're willing to do most of anything to escape that feeling. Just because you're not feeling any pain/discomfort doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing a good thing. You have to think in context. Social engagement is a distraction for most.I don't think hermits are even as close to salvation as properly socially engaged people, unless they are of the rare breed of human that genuinely have no need of human society. — Janus
Well, loving God with your heart, mind, and body is more important than loving your neighbour as yourself, but, salvation consists in none of those I would say. Salvation consists in being at peace (deep inside) regardless of external circumstances. — Agustino
Why would social involvement or communion be salvific? I think that's not what salvation is taken to mean. Social involvement or communion MAY (depending on personality type & circumstance) be helpful in getting you to feel good and positive about your life. But salvific? I think not.
I think it's much the other way around, that a change in consciousness usually leads one to engage more in their society, be more loving, etc. — Agustino
The Bible gives them as two separate "rules" - since I'm going to sleep I don't have time to go in more depth than that now.What else could it be? — Janus
So what does this have to do with social engagement? You can love your neighbour as yourself and have fellow feeling without actually being engaged in society. If you disagree, then it follows that someone locked in prison and away from all contact with other people cannot possess inner peace under all circumstances, and hence cannot attain to salvation. Nor can a hermit on Mt. Athos for that matter.If you can love your neighbour as yourself, then you will necessarily possess inner peace under all circumstances, which is salvation. — Janus
Sure, they have decreased empathy but they don't lack it completely. — Agustino
But who made human nature such that you suffer when you do evil? This is a structural occurence - in that sense it is of divine origin. — Agustino
Hmmm - I'm not so sure they are truly irresistable. — Agustino
Why is social engagement a good thing? — Agustino
Few are the people who, like Pascal, or Montaigne, learned to spend large amounts of time by themselves without much social interaction, without breaking apart, going mad, etc. It's a skill, and I think one that it's very important to learn. — Agustino
I disagree, people in my experience are either 9-5 zombies on a treadmill that's increasingly delivering less real prosperity for the average person, or they're retreating into fantasy worlds of various sorts (sucking the teat of various kinds of consumerism). — gurugeorge
(how's that for drama :) ) — gurugeorge
By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much. — Janus
Well for one thing if a solitary artist or thinker produces work that is read by others, that is a form of engagement. On the other hand if we think and feel creatively we interact with a whole society in our thought and feelings, even if we never leave the house. — Janus
what we do on here' would that count as "bodily interaction"? — Janus
Alright, but at some point one must engage, or had to have engaged, in bodily interaction, no? — Buxtebuddha
Hmm, arguably I was possessed by such urges at one point, when I was diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder and OCD. But over time the compulsions disappeared - at first they didn't disappear, but I stopped giving in to them even though I felt them. And over time I stopped feeling them completely. That's why I say that it's one of the things you have to learn to manage. Mindfulness and meditation were very helpful for me.For you maybe not; but then perhaps you are not possessed by such urges that are due to neurochemical imbalances, as some others are. You really have no way of knowing what it is like. — Janus
Well, neither am I. I consider things like this forum, talking over the phone, etc. as equally social interaction. But you must actually interact with another person in real-time. So I would not consider reading a book social interaction, or painting in your home, etc.By 'social engagement' I am not necessarily speaking about bodily interaction, and much less about frivolous bodily interaction like going to parties and the like. — Janus
It's hard to think of a situation since we usually do need the rest of society to survive. But suppose someone was living alone in a hut in the jungle, and they were also a poet. Would they be actively socially engaged? And how?If someone has a rich creative and/or intellectual life, then they will be profoundly socially engaged, even if they do not bodily interact with people much. — Janus
Of course, it doesn't NEED to be expanded to more people. I thought we agreed on that. Is our main difference that I think more people get added the same way more squirrels keep getting added, and you think people are going out of their way to reproduce for some sort of reason?
The reproductive urge operates whether anybody (squirrel or human) wants it to operate or not. It just does. — Bitter Crank
I don't understand how you can say it's a phase, there's no escape from it if the world is as science describes it. — gurugeorge
We are (most of us) "designed" to believe in a religion ... — gurugeorge
... once any reason to believe is knocked away, there's no possible over-arching narrative that makes any sense of a material universe, ... — gurugeorge
... all we can do is clutch at twigs as we swirl down the rushing torrent to oblivion (how's that for drama :) ). — gurugeorge
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.