We're both given to sort of peacocking, I think. We both do it, the OP was doing it, and I've responded by doing it. But how would you sum up the OP in a few sentences? — csalisbury

I'm not sure I can add much to your understanding.The op is a provocation rather than argument, along the lines you indicate, and directed at the usual suspects of post enlightenment thinking. (the clue's in the name). But for you, this is as formal as I can be bothered to make it.

P1. No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Therefore, virtue is sacrifice.

So the trolley thing is just a comment on the state of a certain form of consequentialism. What a feeble tale it is compared to Abraham and Issac on which to hang one's identity! Would you pull the lever or not? I really don't give a fuck if that's all life is about.

And of course, I am asking for help. Always I want to discuss what is beyond my reach; so as always I am frustrated by recitations of received wisdom. To be clear, I am not interested in Christianity at all, except in so far as it pollutes the environment, as it were. But I invite you to my funeral, and this is the hymn I have chosen


Why do we keep tying our children to the tracks? What's wrong with an altar and a knife?

In plainspeak - I've liked your posts for a long time. I sign on a lot when angry and confrontational, or provocational, unfortunately. That isn't today, but it is recently, and when I do that, I tend to go for the posters who can respond best. Also asking for help, in some ways. I don't want you to have a funeral. I agree that sacrifice is central to virtue, as well, and I also think its very sad sometimes, but inevitable, and beautiful at the end.

-and I still think fixing academia requires restructuring academic incentive structures. But that is for the other thread.

-and I still think fixing academia requires restructuring academic incentive structures. But that is for the other thread. — csalisbury

Well on this thread I can perhaps present my position more clearly. The Academy resides on route 66 despite its monastic origins. So I grant your point for the reformation of the academy, simply noting how 'Jackal' that is. But down here on highway 61 where we get the killing done, and the dissolution of the monasteries and so on, there are no grades, and no tenure on offer. Say a true word or go straight to hell, as the Zen masters put it.

Science (as opposed to and distinct from the academy) only works if it is pursued religiously, and if it doesn't work, it's a steaming pile. So likewise, I am all for reforming the safeguarding policies of the Catholic church, but if the priests don't keep the faith, there is nothing left, and the congregation will drift away to some conspiracy theory that brings them comfort.

This is the bible story that, even more than Job, popularises atheism — unenlightened

How unfortunate for it appears that it needs to be interpreted correctly for very important moral lessons in it to come through.

The very idea that there could be some principle adherence to which would be more important than one's own child's life is so repugnant on the face of it, that even in the bible, God has to relent once He has established His absolute authority. — unenlightened

First things first, why is taking "...one's own child's life...", as you put it, "...so repugnant..."? Let me answer that question for you. Would you feel the same way, "...repugnant...", if it were another person's child? No, of course not! You may empathize with another parent who's put in a similar situation but let's not delude ourselves, the emotions involved are of lesser intensity or, sometimes, even absent. However, if it was really about the child, the child as a thinking, feeling person, brimming with great potential, you should feel the same way about another child as you would about yours. This isn't so. Ergo, feeling "...repugnant..." isn't really about your child per se but about you. That Abraham's situation is described as a sacrifice betrays this fact - Abraham (you) is losing his child but, for reasons provided above, the loss isn't the child's but Abraham's (yours). When I say "...the loss isn't the child's..." I don't mean that the child involved has nothing to lose (a full life is definitely something to lose); what I mean is Abraham's (your) pain as you're asked to make the sacrifice is not about a child but about Abraham's (your) child. In other words, the sacrifice and all its emotional accompaniments are all about Abraham (you). So, don't try to give people the impression that Abraham/you care about Abraham's/your child. It's utterly false. I know this sounds harsh on a parent, I'm one myself, but at times one must call it as one sees it. What does all this mean? In seven simple words, "morality requires you to surrender your ego." Abraham has to eventually come to realize that his "love" for his child is but self-love, vanity, ego, in disguise and God wants him to see past that disguise and recognize fact for fact which is that so long as one's ego, self-love, is allowed free reign, morality is going to keep its distance from our communities, villages, towns, cities, metropolises, etc.

Secondly, my experience with hatred has been, quite evidently, very negative. I've heard people scream at those whom they hate (foes, enemies) with the words, "I'll kill you!!" What is god asking Abraham to do? Kill his son, right? With that one command, God puts Abraham in a tight spot - he has to treat that which he loves as that which he hates. After all, Abraham may have surely met someone whom he'd have loved to use his dagger on and relate that to what he's commanded to do, off his child with his dagger. God then is attempting to teach Abraham a moral lesson - treat the ones you hate same as the ones you love. Then God goes on to stop Abraham from actually following through with his decision to sacrifice his child. What this achieves is a sudden separation of hate (for your enemies) & love (for your child) from a point when the two couldn't be distinguished (kill your child as you would an enemy). This closing event in Abraham's tryst with God is surely going to send massive shockwaves through Abraham's sense of right and wrong and should've made him see the light as it were.

My two bitcoins worth. Warning! Idiosyncracy.

With that one command, God puts Abraham in a tight spot - he has to treat that which he loves as that which he hates. After all, Abraham may have surely met someone whom he'd have loved to use his dagger on and relate that to what he's commanded to do, off his child with his dagger. God then is attempting to teach Abraham a moral lesson - treat the ones you hate same as the ones you love. — TheMadFool

Because, as God commandeth -- Thou shalt have no other gods before Me!

Warning! Idiosyncracy. — TheMadFool

What I don't understand is why you want to make a new interpretation and persuade us that you are telling a better story.

What does all this mean? In seven simple words, "morality requires you to surrender your ego." — TheMadFool

It's not that I disagree with your seven simple words, but that is obviously not what this story is about at all, because if it was about that and everyone had got it wrong up 'til now, it would be a crap teaching story. There are stories that teach ego renunciation but not this one.

Because, as God commandeth -- Thou shalt have no other gods before Me! — baker

:chin:

but that is obviously not what this story is about at all, — unenlightened

Somebody never read Kierkegaard. :confused:

What I don't understand is why you want to make a new interpretation and persuade us that you are telling a better story. — unenlightened

Principle of charity among other things I suppose. Put God and Abraham in the best light possible.

It's not that I disagree with your seven simple words, but that is obviously not what this story is about at all, because if it was about that and everyone had got it wrong up 'til now, it would be a crap teaching story. There are stories that teach ego renunciation but not this one. — unenlightened

Take a long, hard look at Abraham's story. The obvious conclusion is god is being a really big jerk and Abraham too in his own little way manages to make the situation from really bad to worse for Christianity/Judaism/Islam. My gut-instincts, for what they're worth, immediately inform me that something doesn't add up. The whole episode doesn't make sense at all - a good god telling a faithful, pious man to kill his son. All I did was added what I felt was necessary to make it all hang together as a beautiful moral lesson, fit for all generations.

'There was one who was great
by virtue of his power,
and one who was great
by virtue of his hope,
and one who was great
by virtue of his love,

but Abraham was the greatest of all,
great by that power
whose strength is powerlessness,
great by that wisdom
which is foolishness,
great by that hope
whose form is madness,
great by the love
that is hatred to oneself."

I think the Hong's say "personal identity" at the end, which is obviously what he means, but it messes up the rhythm.

Fair enough, but being let to cultivate a person's way of life is what the Faustian bargain is made for. Highway 61 intersects Highway 66. I'm fairly confused by the rest of your original post.

It's probably my mistake. I just wanted to have a conversation about The Man Who Sold the World.

From my position, I would say that either you or Kierkegaard has misunderstood the nature of faith. Empirical evidence is irrelevant to faith. My belief in justice is not increased by the discovery that it occasionally prevails, or decreased by the observation that it commonly does not. — unenlightened

As to whether I have Kierkegaard right, I don't know, but I took his position that Abraham showed the perfect faith in God when he unquestionably agreed to sacrifice his son without objection. My point was that he didn't show faith as we understand it in a contemporary sense because Abraham had no reason to question God. God's existence didn't require any leap of faith. He was as obvious as the sun and sky in Genesis. The Old Testament figures didn't engage in an ongoing battle between theism and atheism. The question was whose god was best.

But to your other comment, do you not have a rational basis (as opposed to an empirical one) for believing in the existence of justice or must faith also play a role?

As to whether I have Kierkegaard right, I don't know, but I took his position that Abraham showed the perfect faith in God when he unquestionably agreed to sacrifice his son without objection. My point was that he didn't show faith as we understand it in a contemporary sense because Abraham had no reason to question God. — Hanover

You have misunderstood Kierkegaard. In Fear and Trembling, he states that Abraham could only act upon "the strength of the absurd" and that it would be impossible to understand a person who has made the "movement of faith". God promised Abraham a son which he was given, Isaac. It was through Isaac that the progeny that was promised to Abraham was to come. God then demanded that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. There was no possibility of Abraham rationally believing that God would fulfill his promise. He could only act "upon the strength of the absurd". The story ought not to be interpreted as a moral fable about devotion as it commonly is within a Christian context; it is a way of calling to light what faith is like. People take it that Abraham must have had blind faith when that was precisely what he was denied.

But to your other comment, do you not have a rational basis (as opposed to an empirical one) for believing in the existence of justice or must faith also play a role? — Hanover

I do not require justice to exist in order to believe in justice. Rather the inverse, it is the existence of injustice that demands that I believe in justice. The builder has to have faith in the architect's plans, because the building does not exist. What he does not do, my sensible builder, is complain that the plans are too thin to hold up the roof.

do you not have a rational basis (as opposed to an empirical one) for believing in the existence of justice or must faith also play a role? — Hanover

We can be faithful or unfaithful to justice.

If I grasp the story right, the ultimate destination of highway 61 transcends any notion or feeling of sacrifice and faith is realized. More realistically on highway 61, some comfort is better than none, and we can soldier-on without being undone.

Eventually, people who have consigned themselves to evil grow old and try to amend what plights they have wrought, which is all well and good and can restore a certain degree of faith in humanity, but, in the grand scheme of things is often too little to late.

Your crypto-Fascist spy within the Metal scene grows tired of the drug trade and his long black beard begins to show a touch of grey. He uses his place in the sun to keep his many wolves at bay. Some of them know of how he got there, though, and their long black beards grow before they come to do the same.

Are we going to get to talk about The Man Who Sold the World in this thread or not?

I'll understand if no one is interested in doing so, but, in passing conversation, I have previously been known to have been willing to invoke "Glam eschatology".

Are you on Highway 61, or route 66? — unenlightened

Well, I was standing at the intersection when an elegant gentleman offered me a deal...

Human digits are formed in the womb by the selective death of embryonic cells in the limb ends. Incomplete cell death results in webbed hands/feet.

But the state of nature is what we have fallen from, as the story goes, — unenlightened

I think there is a global trend from nature to technology, yes. Developing cities look a lot like Dubai with skyscrapers and all. I think at some point people will realize that a fully artificial life isn't fully satisfactory.
We already know that a wholly natural life is unsatisfactory, so my guess is a symbiosis between the two.

I don't know what human digits are. Do you mean that humans are numb, number, numbers? I don't think life is an equation to be solved.

I don't know what human digits are. — TaySan

digits = fingers and toes. Sorry, English is a wretched language for non-native speakers. The human form develops in part through selective cell death. Thus human sacrifice is "natural". What I mean is that Nature is cruel or kind, makes sacrifices or cooperates, according to circumstance and according to its nature. One can to an extent imagine human nature as somewhat like that of chimpanzees and bonobos, but the question of what one ought to do must presume that one's nature does not dictate, and nor does the environment -physical or social.

To put one's faith in God is to harken to a moral voice that has no material existence and is utterly mysterious. What I ought to do is not what has to be, or what I want, or what you want; rather it is "the space at the wheel's hub that makes it useful" as Lao Tzu put it. The no-thing of creativity.

Homework for tonight.

Is abortion human sacrifice? Compare and contrast the story of Abraham and Issac with that of an unmarried woman of small means considering abortion. Speak for God.

Well, thanks for the homework but I pass. I absolutely love the English language, but mistakes are natural. Lol, if you look at the spelling & grammar errors of native speakers.... Anyway, my bad.

What I ought to do is not what has to be, or what I want, or what you want; rather it is "the space at the wheel's hub that makes it useful" as Lao Tzu put it. The no-thing of creativity. — unenlightened

It's very poetic. Yet I wonder how this translates to a functioning government. Or any other form of authority. How do you create laws based on nothingness?

Well on this thread I can perhaps present my position more clearly. The Academy resides on route 66 despite its monastic origins. So I grant your point for the reformation of the academy, simply noting how 'Jackal' that is. But down here on highway 61 where we get the killing done, and the dissolution of the monasteries and so on, there are no grades, and no tenure on offer. Say a true word or go straight to hell, as the Zen masters put it.

Science (as opposed to and distinct from the academy) only works if it is pursued religiously, and if it doesn't work, it's a steaming pile. So likewise, I am all for reforming the safeguarding policies of the Catholic church, but if the priests don't keep the faith, there is nothing left, and the congregation will drift away to some conspiracy theory that brings them comfort. — unenlightened

I'm with you that academia is something different from science. At the same time most of scientific practice requires significant funding. This is an extreme example, but: while it's possible to go into great solitude to meditate and pray, it is not possible to build the Large Hadron Collider this way. And whil there are solitary regions of science- say, Einstein doing gedanken experiments in the patent office - even these solitary pursuits bloom out of - and require verification by - the whole intricate expensive, apparatus of equipment, peer-review etc. (I'm sure scientists, if any were to see this, would probably roll their eyes at how clunky my understanding is...but the general idea I think is right.)

I agree that none of this works if its only institutions, and no one believes or cares if the findings are accurate. But we're all really good at self-deception, and I think people skillfully and effortlessly rationalize slippages as being ultimately in service of truth. I think a perhaps useful analogy is a relationship: you can have real faith in the relationship, and true love for the other person, but that is a guiding light that orients you while you go through the difficult work of figuring out what the snares and difficult patterns of any relationship are, and how to work together to overcome them. In failing relationships, you often have people who still have faith in (a progressively abstract idea of) their love, even as they're unconsciously choosing to rationalize (or ignore) problems that feel too intractable to overcome.

One idea that's gaining a lot of steam in scientific circles is pre-registration of studies. That means you let everyone know in advance when you're going to do a study, and exactly what your methodology will be. The idea, as far as I understand it, is that it prevents doing multiple studies until you get the results you're looking for, or adjusting methodology when you get the data to better suggest meaningful findings. (I don't think this is mostly scientists lying for prestige. I think it's usually more a matter of self-deception. You're going to get a ton of noise when you do studies, especially if statistics are involved, and I think they see it as trying to frame the findings to best convey what they believe the data imperfectly shows.) With things like pre-registration, you have a community working together to collectively overcome the traps they've got caught up in. This doesn't seem to be enough yet - but it's that kind of thing that seems like the way out : institutional reforms that come out of dedication to the ideal of science.

To tie it back to the thread's operative metaphor - travel (and sacrifice) usually requires taking a whole bunch of different roads

This question has multiple parts. The first part is Q1, should I save my child or let them die. The second part is Q2, should I save or let 3 girls die. The final part is connecting the two, Q3 do I sacrifice my child to save others. Q4 do I sacrifice the 3 girls to save my son.

I would answer these,
Q1 save my child
Q2 save the 3 girls
Q3 I don't sacrifice my child
Q4 I don't sacrifice the girls.

What matters is how we prioritise these questions. I've layed them out in order of importance, according to me, personally.

Most people would save their own son, I think. The relationship between a parent and child, is built heavily on trust and respect. Also, its our duty to protect our children from harm.

The difference with Abe, is that he is doing his son a favor. Hes sending his son to God sooner. His Son doesn't have to risk going to hell by fault of his own sin, he gets a free pass.

...

...

...