Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners". — creativesoul

*sigh*

Talk about bad faith. You look to interpret my words in such a way as to make them easily dismissable.

I use the term "Westerner" in a cultural sense, not a geographical one. I've explained that more than once.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Except the Ukrainians and those who support them.

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant. — creativesoul

But you do. It's exactly what you do, what the whole anti-Russian propaganda is doing. Long, long ago, they unilaterally declared the Russians to be the enemy.

From what I see, your tendency seems to be to "forget" historical events that undermine your argument, but selectively remember events you think support it. — Apollodorus

Heh. This year, June 6 went by, no mention of the Invasion of Normandy. Normally in the time around June 6, national televisions show documentaries about D-Day, the daily film is "Saving Private Ryan", and such. But not this year.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. — ucarr

It's still not clear what those standards are.

It's delusional to believe that patent falsehoods are true or factual. — 180 Proof

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods?

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded.
— baker

My question was about how you'd know. I mean, it's not as if Frodo had a party throughout the book. His journey was, if I recall correctly, pretty much one trial after another without let up even up to the last chapter and then he had to leave anyway. I don't see how someone in mid-life could possibly say "well, I tried it and it hasn't worked". — Isaac

True. But I'm talking about the belief, or faith, that acting in a particular way is worth the effort.
It's this belief or faith that can be eroded.

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately.
— baker

Yes, I sympathise with that, it is difficult to get out of the idea that one's first thoughts are somehow more authentic. But there really is no reason to think they are. They just happened to have arrived first. There's nothing special about them.

No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.

What are you babbling about, baker? — 180 Proof

*sigh*

I'm not babbling. Don't be so superficial.

I'm asking you to explicate why you think there's something wrong with some people believing that "snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed".

That would be practical if it had a name, given the number of times I want to point it out in people I talk to… — Skalidris

That's bosiness.

Certainly, the clergy think highly of themselves. — Art48

The clergy think highly of themselves.

Lol!

But you seem to be confirming the OP's view about "folk" versus theological views.

Yes.

So, what is your point?

You said

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell. — Art48

and I began to address that.

Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars. (Two billion Christians versus how many Christian theologians?)
It would be unfair to do otherwise.

What about that, if anything, do you disagree with?

For one, there is no unified Christianity. Different Christian sects espouse different things.

For two, if we're supposed to ignore the actual religious doctrine, and just focus on what "the majority" of members of some religion espouse, then we're potentially committing the fallacy of appealing to the majority, whereby it's not even clear what this supposed majority actually believes (we'd need to find out empirically).

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell.

So what?

I was describing the view of the great majority of Christians. Why should the “subtly nuanced” understanding of the theologians matter?

The view of the theologians represents the official doctrine of a religion. (Which also happens to be the one that the common members at least nominally assent to.)
If you think that the official doctrine of a religion is something that can be done away with, or that it's something that yet needs to be established, in every time and place, empirically, by polling those who profess to be members, then this makes religion an unintelligible concept.

Uh huh. And "for a religous person" as you say, snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed and ... :pray: :roll: — 180 Proof

Yes. So?

Who or what is really offended here?
What is really at stake here?

Can you explicate?

What counts as insufficient evidence? By virtue of calling something insufficient you're already saying belief isn't justified. Who determines that. Who determines justified belief. — Moses

Poor William Clifford, the author of that pithy saying, worked himself to death, at the prophetic age of 33.

As for your questions, I'm with William James on this matter.

Just because acting in a particular way worked out fine in the end for Frodo, doesn't mean doing something similar will work out fine for me as well.
— baker

How would you know? — Isaac

I'm not a hobbit. Nor an elf. Or even a man, for that matter (notice how there are very few strong female characters in much fiction).

In other words, the ideology put forward in a text of fiction may come with some assumptions about requirements that need to be met in order for acting in line with said ideology to be morally satisfying. Whereby these requirements might never be explicitly stated in the text itself.

Imagine reading a work of fiction, agreeing with the ideology in it, feeling inspired, confident about life because of it, only to some time later discover that it was meant to apply only to a particular category of people (or not even to people at all).

One can read through a book of philosophy or religion, find it appealing, and only later discover that the author intended it only for men. Even though he might never say a bad word about women in the text; but one might later discover that when he speaks of men, he doesn't actually mean humans, but specifically men, males. Or that it's intended only for white people, or only for Indians, or only the upper class, etc.

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded.

we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories.
— Isaac

As long as this is merely a description of what works for people, that's one thing. But to take it as a prescription?? To _deliberately_ pick a work of fiction and use some of the characters in it as one's "support group"? In my experience, this doesn't work.
— baker

What has failed about it?

Like I said above, the intuitive trust in stories is gone, for me.

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately.

Here from Jon Elster:
States that are essentially by-products

Faith : superstition :: imaginary hope : imaginary fear.
Let's not to conflate – confuse – "faith" (or "superstition") with pragmatic trust-ing (or pragmatic distrust-ing). — 180 Proof

The concept of such conflation can only exist for a non-religious person.

For a religious person, believing in God/having faith in God/trusting God is epistemically the same as believing/having faith/trusting that the ariplane one is about to board isn't going to crash.

The point is that worldviews which seek to completely discount the role of faith and instead advocate for a dogmatic narrow-minded commitment to "evidence" or using one's own reason to follow up on everything are bullshit.
— Moses

Can you give an example? — Jackson

William Clifford is one of the leading examples.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford#Ethics

Were you graded on a bell curve?

But prosperity is all about absolute terms. Do you have enough and good food? Good service and medical treatment. All those machines and opportunities to make things easy. That is the start point.

You are looking at a different problem, income and wealth inequality, not prosperity itself. — ssu

Even two thousand years ago, and before that, they had the notion of "prosperity". They just didn't define it in terms of indoor plumbing, fancy kitchen appliances, or availability of top trauma surgeons who could sew back a detached limb.

Then look at the poor people. And you can see that they are better in every country in the World than they were two or three hundred years ago. You simply cannot deny that.

Irrelevant. Is the relative difference between the rich and the poor that makes the relevant difference.

In my native language, the offical, politically correct word for "being poor" literally means 'socially weak'.
What matters is that Tom has less than Harry. It doesn't matter how much each of them have per se, as long as the difference between them is big enough. Middleclass people are to the elite what beggars are to middleclass people.

And that has been always the problem since the birth of our species. There hasn't been any time in history when natural resources were bountiful. They look only "untapped" for us as the technology wasn't there to for us to use them. Our technology that we have had made the limits of what are obtainable resources.

Maybe some time (soon!) we can learn to eat plastic. Yay!

Well, people who genuinely say that they are disgusted by living solely for the sake of living may have other problems. Just ask yourself, what do other animals do?

For all our supposed superiority, we should do better than worms.

For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof. — ucarr

It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out?

That catechism view is the minority view. — Art48

You do realize that if an adult person wants to convert to Roman Catholicism, they have to pass a program called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults, and that this program is based in the Catechism?

They are simply two different views. — Art48

The RCC doesn't share your opinion. Neither does the pope, not even Pope Francis.

merely a narcotic (Marx) to balm their despair. — 180 Proof

A "narcotic to balm their despair" that resulted in world domination.

An existential coping strategy (e.g. Pauline Christianity) for those who already had been vanquished by perennial "class warfare" (e.g. Roman Slavery-Imperialism) was not itself "class war" (e.g. revolts by Spartacus et al) — 180 Proof

In terms of motivations, it was class war. At first, they just didn't have the sticks and stones for it, so it might at first not look like much of a war at all, but they more than made up for it later on.

Baker: Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

You ignore the beginning of my post.
IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin. — Art48

Which means that you were taught in accordance with RCC doctrine as codified in the Catechism of the RCC.

I didn’t learn the above from kids on the street. I learned it from nuns and priests. If fact, most Catholics do not believe intentionally missing mass, using contraception, etc. are mortal sins that could send them to hell.

Baker: I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.

You don't seem to understand how Roman Catholicism works. In RC, the institution of the Church comes first, it's above the individual person. The individual person is expendable. The individual person cannot unilaterally decide to be a member of the RCC; it's up to the RCC to either grant such membership to a particular person or to refuse it. The RCC can excommunicate a person.

The fact that many people who consider themselves Roman Catholics believe all kinds of things that are not in the Catechism of the RCC doesn't change RC doctrine or the supremacy of the RC institution.

Christianity isn't really codified in the new testament is it? It's hardly an unambiguous watertight legal document. — bert1

The subtopic here is specifically Roman Catholicism, whose doctrine is codified in the Catechism of the RCC.

but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place. — guanyun

By now, we can only speculate. The craving to feel special, to view oneself as morally superior to others (_eternally_ morally superior to others at that), the craving to see oneself as victorious over life likely played a part.

All I can add is that "the subtle reason" is also (primarily?) historical: in the early centuries of the Common Era, Pauline Christianity had offered a more optimistic "by faith, not deeds" alternative to the non-Christian cults of "fate" which provided very little "hope" to the vast majority of people who were poor, sick, homeless, orphaned, women, prisoners and/or enslaved that they could be "saved" from their "fate". — 180 Proof

IOW, yet another instance of the class war.
It's the one theme that persists throughout Christian history: Christians as the innocent victims, Christians as the martyrs, Christians as the righteous. The prospect of being in the gutter, and yet superior to others has got to be one of the strongest ego boosts there is.

yes, our textbook is explained by Marxism, but I don't want to read only one interpretation, because then I can't reach a full understanding. — guanyun

How many different sources do you think you need to consult before you will reach full understanding?

instead of just believing in the one answer that was put in front of me. — guanyun

If your aim is to pass exams and complete your degree, then you should probably stick to "the one answer that was put in front of you" or at least show that you prefer it.

This principle for academic success is the same everywhere.

Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? — ucarr

Yet this is what some people are.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

You seem to think that only that which is _not_ somehow related to proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries gets to pass for "individuality".

I think that's an absurd standard.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual.

Sure, when the goal is set so high.

For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

What do you think the self consists of?

Again the NATO and Nazi things show to be partial rationales (at best), excuses. — jorndoe

The Russians should be more moral than the Americans because [complete the sentence].

I don't think I've declared myself a Buddhist on this forum, — Wayfarer

You said as much. But the exact quote of yours is too hard to find, since the keywords are too common.

although I have a strong interest in Buddhism, and would appreciate not being stereotyped.

Not stereotyped, but held accountable. This could be your last chance.

Anyway - Putin himself invoked the spirit of the tsar Peter to rationalise his invasion. His actions and murderous disregard for human life are in keeping with the spirit of Josef Stalin also.

You really enjoy saying such things, huh? You're willing to posit the existence of a soul, a selfhood, just so that you can enjoy in the contempt you feel for someone, and the self-righteousness.

gradually subverts 'systems of control' imposed by the former (orthodoxy ~ telos). — 180 Proof

Only if the religion is in fact ineffective, or if people believe it to be ineffective (such as by not practicing what they preach).

Religions are, on principle, supposed to be a means to an end. Practing in line with the doctrine should lead to the declared goal.

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense.
— baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun. — creativesoul

*sigh*

An example:
Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with.

Another poster understood me just fine.

Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." That lots of people know we are facing an existential threat hasn't done the trick of concentrating our minds. — Bitter Crank

Isn't self-confidence great!
Maybe if people learn to "believe in themselves" sufficiently, they can even live off of CO2!

Yet this simple fact will hardly have any impact to some. Too many people are mesmerized with ideas that improvements happen only by basically stealing from others, that capitalism and the market mechanism are bad, because there are obvious problems and injustices around us. Hence throw everything out...at least at a theoretical level. Yet central planning and socialism without market mechanism hasn't worked. But who cares about history? — ssu

Well, some people think that.

Some of us are just digusted by living solely for the sake of living. All this eating, consuming, day in day out, getting nowehre, spinning around in a circle of consumption. This principle of consumption is the same, whether we're living a caveman lifestyle, or a post-industrial one.

The Luddite argument can be easily shown not to be true as the industrial revolution didn't bring us hoards of beggars roaming the countryside as there would be no work. — ssu

There would be countless beggars because there'd be no work for people, were it not that some people invented new desires to cater to, even raising them to the level of "needs". That's how new jobs were created and people weren't unemployed en masse.

Do you feel no compunction at inventing new desires, new "needs" even, just so that the business keeps going?

In order to maintain the relatively high standard of living for some people, many other people have to live a relatively low standard. So that's not really a solution.
— baker
Why?

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

For example, take all the Americans of 2022. Compare them with all the Americans of 1822.

How will you argue that compared to two hundred years ago, only some Americans have become more prosperous, but others have it worse than in 1822. — ssu

Queen Victoria didn't have internet access. I guess she wasn't particularly prosperous.

You're looking at prosperity in absolute terms. I think this is problematic, because prosperity then gets to be defined by some arbitrary standard that depends solely on "how far people dare to dream".

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

Yet the _relative_ difference between the rich and the poor is the same, regardless of which time period you observe.

It is a solution.

The real question is how to get there.

The scarcity of natural resources puts a limit to human expansion. If natural resources would be unlimited and easy enough to obtain, then the process of growth as has been taking place for the past two hundred years or so could continue, and your "solution" could come true. As things stand, it can't.

I'm not sure what I can do about that. We often believe arguments made by people more powerful than ourselves. Sometime this is appropriate (if their power is on their expertise), sometimes we only make the show of acquiescence because it's socially convenient, we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories. — Isaac

You mean like, What would Aragorn do?

I feel like I've just rewritten what I wrote before, but maybe if it's still not making sense, you might explain what's missing.

I don't find your explanation believable. I suppose what you're saying is what people often do; in a sense, it's the essence of religion/religiosity; it's also why people can feel inspired by and find a feeling of confidence about life in the Harry Potter books, LOTR, or Star Wars, to name some notable examples.

I often wonder about the potential for real-world application of moral and other principles or "lessons" found in fiction. Bruno Bettelheim was probably the most famous (if not original) proponent of the idea that people learn to overcome real-world life problems through what is clearly fiction, ie. fairy tales. (Although given the limited resources an individual person has for experimenting and testing, the life advice given in "science based" help books might as well be fiction, too.)

Just because acting in a particular way worked out fine in the end for Frodo, doesn't mean doing something similar will work out fine for me as well. Of course, if a work of fiction is complex and nuanced enough, it provides scenarios that can accomodate such failure as well.

we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories.

As long as this is merely a description of what works for people, that's one thing. But to take it as a prescription?? To _deliberately_ pick a work of fiction and use some of the characters in it as one's "support group"? In my experience, this doesn't work.

And that's how psychologists betray people.
Clearly, you're interested in staying on the surface of things, pushing your particular ideology.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.” — Art48

Roman Catholic theologians follow the Catechism of the RCC. There, it is stated what conditions must be fulfilled for a person to commit mortal sin and to thus go to hell. (It's quite difficult to get there. Hitler, for example, might not actually qualify for eternal damnation, as far as the Catechism of the RCC goes.)

Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

Yes. Roman Catholicism is one of the few religions with a catechism, an actual metatext that defines the religion's doctrine. RC is, doctrinally, well-defined, which makes the discrepancies between the official doctrine and the various folk beliefs held by ordinary Roman Catholics more egregious.

I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

The question can be asked more generally:
Which version of a religion is the right one: The one that is codified in its foundational religious texts, or the one espoused by the people who claim to be members of said religion?

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself": all this is easy. Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy.

Advertisers have created a culture of consumerism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In the spirit of empirical science: How would you go about proving this claim of yours?

I suggest reading Edward Bernays and Ernest Dichter (et al) to get a picture of how a culture of consumerism was intentionally created. They're proud of their work and talk about it more or less openly. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Or maybe they just liked to brag, taking credit for things they didn't do. What else to expect from someone working in or around advertising!

The hole needing filling is the problem.
— Isaac

Sure, a good part of the problem. But the saturation of society by adsters deepens the hole and offers insidious pseudo-solutions to the hole - what Frankl called the existential vacuum.

So I think mass manipulation sustains the existential vacuum. I don't see a way to tease them apart. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not even if it rained gold coins
would we have our fill
of sensual pleasures.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.14.than.html

This is from a text old more than two thousand years. Or read Ecclesiastes in the Bible.

The existential vacuum and the awareness of it have existed long before modern methods of "mass manipulation".

So I think mass manipulation sustains the existential vacuum. I don't see a way to tease them apart.

And you want to be a psychotherapist??

I assume you accept that the popularity of flannel shirts in the 90s had its origin in the grunge movement given a global platform on MTV. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Flannel shirts have been popular among farmers and other physical workers for pretty much as long as those people could afford them. This precedes grunge.

this desire to be led — ZzzoneiroCosm

Really, people want to be led? I don't see that.

If you want to discuss this:

The right-wingers say that the "self-serving and devious" are the leftists.
The leftists say that the "self-serving and devious" are the right-wingers.

They also differ in who exactly those "innocent masses" are.

So who is who exactly?
— baker

...you might start a thread in the politics section. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No. I am asking you:

Who are those "innocent masses"?

Who are the "self-serving and devious"?

Your thread topic depends on taking for granted that those categories exist. But it's not clear that they do exist. There is no social consensus about who they are. You can't pinpoint them. So who are they?

I think both concepts, "the innocent masses" and "the self-serving and devious", are artificial constructs intended to serve some ideological purpose.



As for how psychologists have betrayed democracy: By pretending to be morally and ideologically neutral when they're not, and demading from us to act as if this pretense doesn't exist.