This could lead only to two different responses — god must be atheist

I challenge this assertion. I have found that both online and in person, it takes time to learn another's language with its nuances and inflections. This is exactly what I'm talking about in the Bakhtin topic.

I have found that I understand a couple of my friends on another forum much better after writing with them for three years. Of course, this won't happen with an irrational person or a troll...

What do you answer when the kids ask you, "Why ought we question authority?"

I teach them how ideology works to mystify reality and feed us all sorts of lies and distortions about what's what. That's the short version; I can send you my Critical Thinking handout if you want to see it.

"And what do you answer, when the kids don't question you? But slavishly write in their notes, "We must question authority. We must not tell him that we follow this advice."

I accept them where they're at: if they are content staring at the shadows on the wall, I'm not going to force them to go outside the cave before they're ready.

"And what mark does a kid get who does not question you, but answers all questions on his test the precise way you taught him to answer them? — god must be atheist

When they excel in the subject matter (in the Humanities), they earn As. I tell them, It doesn't matter if you never use this subject matter again in your life, because you've gotten better at learning, which is the skill you want to strengthen all your life.

I agree with that hypothetically, but in practice, contingently, even single long posts on the board are never focused. — Terrapin Station

I thought about this on and off all day. One of the challenges of cyber-communication is, indeed, staying focused and to the point, and another one is the fact that in many cases we really don't have enough of a context within which to understand what a person means when s/he writes a statement. It's a challenge not to assume that one knows exactly what someone means when one might not really understand where the other is coming from without further clarification.

This reminds me of Borges' infinite cosmic library, which in turn makes me think of Derrida's deferral of meaning, and we're always chasing after it like a runaway kite...

I remember her from the late 80s, but I never took her very seriously. I loved the French psychoanalytic feminists, though: them I could take seriously!!

What do you mean, you might be equivocating between society and patriarchy? I would like to understand that better.

but when the teacher's tuition turned against accepted, strong beliefs, he or she was burnt, mutilated, hanged, quartered and cut into many little pieces. — god must be atheist

Teaching to transgress by bell hooks: I teach subversively, but so far I've avoided being tortured to death; they can't do that after they give you tenure, can they?

I teach students to question authority and more than anything else, I try to get a dialogic flow going between them and me.

I think Paglia's statement is stupid. To suggest that patriarchy produced birth control pills seems tantamount to saying that all science is patriarchal. I find it hard to believe that all aspects of scientific endeavor are permeated with patriarchal values and motives, while I would characterize the military (in the US) as patriarchal.

Not every single aspect of a culture should be considered cannon fodder for patriarchy.

It seems feminists want access to the patriarchy more so than its alteration. — NOS4A2

Not all women are feminists and some women are very identified with and supportive of the values of patriarchy. But I find it impossible to believe that any woman calling herself a feminist would consciously identify herself with patriarchy.

Feminism has been attacked for only accommodating to the needs of white, cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied women while leaving out other minority women from the movement. — Bridget Eagles

This statement seems a bit dated, since for decades there have been many feminisms--lesbian, of color, working class, etc.--that address different sub-groups of women.

The fact still remains that a woman from any sub-group, including priveleged white women, can be the victim of patriarchal injustice and inequality.

In this case you can become the teacher. — god must be atheist

I like Paulo Freire's concept of the student-teacher and the teacher-student in collaboration. I have always learned a great deal from my students, for I am a professor.

I was by no means reducing his meaning to my one example of how to apply his ideas in terms of interpersonal dynamics. I believe you're referring to his concept of speech genres, which in one sense refers to one's ability to understand and speak an other's language, i.e., to use the word in the same way the other does.

I see your quotation as essentially referring to the same concept I'm referring to: "dialogic collision" as he puts it. Although I have to wonder about the translation into "collision" of whatever the Russian word he used, because it's not a violent intersection, but rather, like voices making harmonies together through mutual understanding.

even single long posts on the board are never focused. — Terrapin Station

It seems that even the short posts aren't focused quite frequently.

Let's keep it to no more than a 200-word essay, please — Terrapin Station

You must stay away from the discussions with around 2,000 responses. Just because a discussion gets long doesn't mean it can't keep its focus.

Perhaps you are too sensitive then? — Janus

I don't know if I'm more sensitive to nastiness than others.

You missed the point. It isn’t what they can teach you, but what you can learn from your participation in the discussion: humility, patience, tolerance... — Possibility

So you believe that we learn from trolling? I see it as toxic, discussion-killing. So do the experts.

Bakhtin's point is that there are dialogic strategies which open a space for broader mutual understanding, and monologic strategies that shut down the possibility of responding.

Shutting down a dialogue is, in my view, essentially a totalitarian and fascist impulse. Fascism wants to guarantee that everyone believes/understands the exact same thing. A fascist isn't capable of dialogue, isn't interested in mutual understanding.

Many people are incapable of engaging in Bakhtinian dialogue. If one is of a monologic inclination, they won't be convinced that they have anything to learn from anyone else.

Surely the purpose of participating is to learn — Janus

An angry, insulting, patronizing participant has nothing to teach me.

Is there a philosophy of nastiness, or just a psychology? :nerd:

Of course, you can't force someone who's being monologic and con-trolling to become dialogically-minded. You can't make an angry person happy.

So the question becomes, How to respond to those who would sabotage a discussion in the ways that trolls do?

I did a little research on trolling a while back, and here's my conclusion:

How to neutralize a troll
What is are the best practices when a troll rears his head? We have all heard the expression, "Don't feed the trolls": when they can't agitate and anger people, they will be forced to move on and take their personal hell with them. Sad, but true. Here are some other strategies for shutting down naughty trolls:
• Keep your ego and pride out of the mix.
• Sit the game out. You're guaranteed to lose by trying to one-up a troll because you're trolling now, too. You're doing the same thing that you hate in him.
• Don't take a troll's cruelty personally, because he will inflict it on any fish who bites the lure. It's really not about you. Really.
• If you are already in a bad mood, it's much easier to lose your temper and respond negatively to other negative comments (Cheng). We need to be conscious of when it's good to be on the forum and when we might need to stay away.
• Flag nasty comments and turn them over to the moderators.
• Block trolls. You'll be much happier not reading the toxic comments. We probably all have twinges of curiosity to know what the blocked troll is up to, but be aware of how you'll feel after you've peeked; my bet is that you'll feel worse, not better.
• Call trolls out publicly when they're nasty: don't stand by passively while they inflict cruelty on others. Shame him: if enough people on a forum speak out against nastiness, he might just dry up and blow away, or he might melt.
• Defend the troll's victim, and stand up for that person (Pierre). But do it publicly, not in PMs.
• Finally, try to generate compassion for the poor troll. If you understand how unhappy the troll is, and how his misery directs him to make others miserable, it will be easier to recognize what's really going on and you won't plug in.

In conclusion: Anger and hatred can be infectious, so it's important to keep one's emotional and intellectual immune systems in good health.

Works Cited
Adorno, Theodor. "Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda." 1951.
Anderson Ashley A, et al. "The 'nasty effect': Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2014; 19:373-387.
Buckels, Erin E. et al. https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf Personality and Individual Differences 2014; 67:97-102.
Cheng, Justin et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5791909/ CSCW Conf Comput Support Coop Work. 2017 Feb-Mar; 2017: 1217–1230.
Hardaker, Claire. https://clok.uclan.ac.uk/4980/2/ Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (2). pp. 215¬242, (2010).
Munro, Kali. In Suler, The Psychology of Cyberspace.
Pierre, Joe MD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201609/no-comment-3-rules-dealing-internet-trolls Psychology Today Sept 1, 2016.
Suler, John, PhD.[url=http://"The Online Disinhibition Effect."] [/url] Aug. 2004. In The Psychology of Cyberspace.
---.The Psychology of Cyberspace[/url] (hypertext).

was never one that promoted healthy exchange — schopenhauer1

That is a sad statement, indeed. The moderators, in allowing the tone to be set in such a way, perpetuate the kind of academic cruelty that never should be allowed. I'm an academician and I've seen more than my share of pathetic Ph.Ds try to compensate for their sense of worthlessness or low self esteem by acting sadistically towards others.

I just posted a new topic on Bakhtin's concept of dialogism; I'll be interested to know what you think.

I'm not letting a few warty, bilious, infantile trolls chase me away. I just wish they would play nice.

Seriously, this makes me so sad: there is very little affection and joy going on here. When I first came here, a little over three weeks ago, I felt like I'd been thrust back into the most hostile, competetive grad school environment that one could imagine.

I seek intellectual generosity and inquiry. Everyone here should realize that this kind of correspondence requires a sustained effort and strong concentration skills to stay focused and really get our points across to each other. It's as if we are engaged in writing a kind of essay together, in creating something that reveals to all of us that we know and understand a little bit more than we did an hour or two ago.

Fortunately, trolling isn't a contagious disease, although it does weary one...

Philosophy is a noble pursuit. It's so sad to see that a forum with this name is really just a bunch of men trying to outdo each other. — PhilCF

There are women on the forum as well. I am not consumed by competitiveness. I love the rational and polite exchange of ideas and the entire process of two or more individuals attempting to come to an understanding of each other, and thus to a broader perspective on their own ideas.

This forum is no exception as far as aggression, one-upmanship, insecurity, and plain meanness go. Trolling has become the rule rather than the exception for many people online.

I'm game, and I'm proposing a reading or a story based on some of the stories in the book of Genesis. Understanding those stories as tremendously compressed, symbolic and poetic (i.e., not literal), here goes:

The process is already underway. Although God said it would never wipe everything away again after the Flood, it finds the behavior of humanity intolerable at this point (and this point refers to the past 10 or 12 thousand years). It has pretty much arrived at the conclusion that humankind is largely incorrigible in its destructive, greedy, selfish, sadistic and general psychopathic incapacity to care for the planet or its inhabitants. The minute "Moses" turns his back, people immediately return to making idols and doing all sorts of things they're not supposed to do. (Readers may substitute whatever figure or character they wish to in place of Moses; perhaps Jesus would be good, but that would only account for misbehavior during the past 2,000 years--and just the naughtiness of Christians.)

So the forty days and forty nights consist of conflagrating, baking and melting the earth this time: like a big pot simmering away on a cosmic stove, everything will get cooked down to mush--even cockroaches. Eventually, only a stinky miasma and some stardust will be left; God will just allow this to recycle, because God is, if nothing else, ecologically-minded and doesn't throw anything away.

As for the souls, it's a situation similar to an infinity of monkeys typing and eventually one will type the complete works of Shakespeare and Jane Austen, it's possible that some souls will be the same souls, but most will be different--perhaps just one little letter different, or much more different (depending on what the monkeys type).

If I were able to speak to God, I'm not sure I'd offer advice; I'd probably say that I totally understand its reasoning. Humankind is a hot mess.

'Zusha, why weren't you more like Zusha?' — TheMadFool

The whole point of that story is about how one lives his life. Zusha recognizes the shortcomings that prevented him from living his life as fruitfully as he might have had he not wasted time.

You know why the Yahrzeit is so much more important than the birth date, right? That's when one can really see the measure of the woman or man. Zusha knows he fell a little short. He doesn't fear punishmeht, but he regrets.

Jews really aren't interested in the afterlife.

Not 66? — S

That too.

This isn't possible for Abrahanic religions because in them reward/punishment for our actions occur in heaven/hell and not in this world. — TheMadFool

That isn't an accurate description of how Judaism operates (and I don't know what the other Abrahamic religions are). That sounds like Christianity to me--not Judaism.

Judaism puts all the emphasis on this life, not the world to come, which is why the most important holy day is the Day of Atonement. There's no earning brownie points towards heaven; Judaism is about doing the right thing in this life.

Uncanni, how old are you? — god must be atheist

15

Yes, because I already know the answer. It's me. — S

S, how old are you?????

In a good way, though. Right? — S

I tend to see it as a malignent (in the most evil sense of the word) cancer poisoning and rotting humanity. Hostility is like bloody stool: not a good sign.
And this for the last, oh, I dunno, 50 or 60 thousand years? After that, my memory gets too blurry.

Heav’n but the Vision of fulfill’d Desire,
And Hell the Shadow from a Soul on fire,
Cast on the Darkness into which Ourselves,
So late emerged from, shall so soon expire — PoeticUniverse

Or a singular peace, existing here on Earth,
No shadows on the wall delude the view,
In Nature we are always born anew
Death nourishes the journey of rebirth.

I wonder what Elie Wiesel would tell us the opposite of hate is. — JosephS

Genuine concern for other sentient beings?

I think the hostility is tragic.

Also, noted, S, that you have to be that guy calling people with different opinions and diverse ways of going about life and dealing with emotions (that needn't result to "hatred"), on a discussion forum for philosophy "delusional" ... what a way to be. — Swan

I have noted a tendency among certain members of this forum simply to react with agression and thinly-veiled insults to statements with which they disagree that must, somehow, trigger some kind of trauma. This is the bane of human existence: to have to manifest hatred against whatever threatens one's sense of security.

The attempt to feel in control of the situation by venting agression and derision of what someone else states is destined for failure. It's the same situation as staring at a mirror on the wall and asking over and over, who is the most brilliant of all. It's pointless. But those who believe that they hold their world together through an insistence upon their own superiority (shades of Aryanism), and the use of agression and violence do not understand this, which is why they may very well destroy the world.

Perhaps those who practice evil create their own hell: I personally scoff at the idea of a God who would condemn anyone to eternal damnation, and prefer to see it as those who commit evil acts are already dwelling in a mental/spiritual hell realm as the Buddhists might say.

So I don't see how free will (two words) is a "defense against" POE; rather, it justifies a human's ability to practice or refrain from practicing evil.

How can we "solve" the POE? It's a fact of human existence. If we wish to understand why humans commit evil, I would suggest psychoanalytic explanations in addition to the concept of free will. Some folks cannot or will not control their aggressive instincts; some folks enjoy sadistic acts for various and sundry reasons; some folks are just plain psychopathic and don't feel any remorse. I don't think there's a "solution" to the problems which result from evil acts. Maybe incarceration...

37
If Derrida is right about claiming that there is only "différance", then "love" is only possible in terms of its other which is "hatred". Should we therefore be thankful for the existence of the phenomenon "hatred"? After all, a — Daniel C

Perhaps love is only possible if we understand what hatred is--which doesn't mean we have to indulge in it. To feel hatred may be enough for most of us, without having to perform it.

And this, in turn, reminds me of Bakhtin: anyone who insists on having the "final word" wants to shut language down to a single and authoritative (=authoritarian) meaning. The so-called expert never opens, dehisces, meaning; s/he always reduces it.

This has been a fascinating discussion. God as a concept serves many purposes, as enumerated above by various members-- to control, to manipulate, to explain the unexplainable, to comfort, to delude, and to justify a lot of human endeavors throughout history.

The concepts employed by the majority of people I've ever discussed it with turn me off completely, but I think I understand why people believe the way they do: it's too terrifying not to have what Unamuno referred to as fairy tales to comfort them.

Would a good god kill or cure corrupted souls? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A good God would practice infinite patience with corrupted souls, and wait patiently for them to get well.

A good God wouldn't punish people with floods, holocausts, genocides, etc.

A good God would never reject any person on the basis of sex or sexual preference.

A good God would not give any people the right to go and slaughter everyone and take their land.

A good God wouldn't try to cut deals with people: "Accept me as the only one who can save you or, I'm afraid, you'll spend eternity in hell." A good God would allow for infinite paths to enlightenment, or the practice of kindness.

A good God would never justify any kind of "holy war." There are no infidels to a good God.

Yes, that sounds quite right. Your poem expresses it beautifully.

And yet: Whence evil? Is it uniquely human creation? Is it somehow separate from "God," and if not, how is it a part of the whole? Should one attempt to examine evil without anthropomorphizing it? Why would it be separate? It would have to be a part of the whole.

It's when I contemplate evil, which I consider entirely human-made, that I'm left asking more and more questions. I never consider this issue from the standpoint of original sin or any other kind of origin of evil; I'm personally not concerned with origin in this case.

I'd be interested to know others' thoughts on the nature of evil.

I love it!!! Great questions, Brian. I like the word "God" for its poetic capabilities: it evokes many images and feelings for me. So it's like poetry, and what is poetry? It's not really narrative fiction, but it's certainly not fact. So it's putting something into words that's akin to things felt.

Enough introduction: I'll settle for using the word Cosmos or cosmos to describe all that is and will be; sometimes I affectionately refer to it as mother nature, but that is anthropomorphic, I know...

I have stopped reading you because you are repressive, not really interested in an exchange of ideas. So write away, but I won't read your responses unless you can be polite. Send me a pm when you can be polite.