What makes something true is how well it works. — Athena

Then threatening people with eternal hellfire and burning them at the stakes are good practices, for they work!

I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.

Yes, the Holy Inquisition were "looking for God in everyone" as well.

In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.

But today is not yet the end of the story.
Take Nazism, for example: it's being rehabilitated. If the current trends are anything to go by, it might not take that much before it rises to power again.

The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.

Read again. Whose letters are you using to write this?

However, I can see Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people — schopenhauer1

One doesn't actually need respect for people in such discussions. It's not like one intends to take them out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.

I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise. — Isaac

Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue.

Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?

*hrmph*
"No true philosopher would refuse to give all ideas a fair shake."

Terms that denote racial, national, cultural, religious, or political identity are hard to pin down, they have multilayered meanings. The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to them (just like it doesn't apply to the story from which it originates, which was a case of an equivocation -- 'person living in Scotland' vs. 'a good person').

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.

One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.

Again:
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power than you. — Bartricks

The kind of power that gets people locked up in institutions with white padded cells.

Insisting that omnipotence should include being able to do the illogical is something 6-graders are impressed by.

Logic provides the limits for what is tenable. What some people present as the limits of God's power, are actually the limits of what is tenable, as provided by logic.

In the same way that it is impossible to draw a square circle, or a bachelor being married, or you being your own father, it is impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift.

God is defined as the greatest being, the biggest being etc.. So the concept of something being bigger than God (in this case, a rock) is a concept flawed from the onset. The way a "square circle" or a "married bachelor" are flawed from the onset.


And if you're going to make up your own definitions of "God" to begin with, and ignore the way God is defined in actual monotheistic religions, then why bother with the analysis at all? You're just arguing against a strawman.

It's the sledge-hammer of examples, but can you say holocaust? — tim wood

Can you say, "People who refuse to integrate into the socio-economic system in which they live and insist on being a minority thereby risk ostracism"?

Whatever the motivation - it's wrong by his own standards of truth telling. — yebiga

Well, if his own actual standard of truth telling is duplicity, then he can be called neither a hypocrite nor wrong ...

dispute his often cited claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage plays a central role in formulating the Western World's greatest ideal: the Individual. — yebiga

The individual is fundamental to Christianity, because without the individual, the whole prospect of the Judgment and of eternal heaven or eternal damnation fails. Christianity stands and falls with the prospect of the Judgment.

Yet, Peterson repeatedly makes this judeo-chrisitian claim and the claim is never challenged. In fact even atheists like Harris have failed to call him out on it.

Because they all need it and rely on it:
The Christians and Peterson for the purpose of judging and condemning people, and the New Atheists to claim their special status (and also for the purpose of judging and condemning people).

it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible. — god must be atheist

What does drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have to do with omnipotence??
Why should drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have any bearing on a being's power?

Then there is the commandment, look for God in everyone and "there but for the grace of God so I". — Athena

Who commanded that?
What makes this person our commander?

We are all in this together so it behooves us to make things as pleasant as we can. :wink: I will do what I can to get to kumbaya-happy.

While those with prejudice laugh at you and win in the battle of life.

My difficulty as well. The notion - any notion - of "ought" or "should" outside their correct grammatical usage, is imo fraught. And to suffer for Him? How does that work?

At bottom, if the Bible were just any book I would agree with you 100%. But for a Christian it is not just any book (and just what exactly for a Christian it is has changed over the past 200 years). I am a default Christian — tim wood

A Christian with questions and problems! How capital!

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
— baker
Their country, their rules.
— baker
Well, you have emptied both the ignorant barrel and the stupid barrel; just what are you working on? Are you suggesting that what is wrong on one side of an arbitrary line is right on the other? — tim wood

What are you talking about??

It's bizarre that a person goes to some foreign country and expects that the people there will play by this person's rules.

The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. — Kenosha Kid

Meet you there!

One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is talking about an "adoring crowd", but about a woman not being good enough to be loved. Not pretty enough, not rich enough, not successful enough to be loved by a man.

Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. The people I listed above never do so, as a matter of principle; it's not an option for them.

There are ways for people to live harmoniously together: such as under tyrants; or when everyone knows their place and minds their own business. It doesn't make for a kumbaya-happy picture, of course, but it's harmonious.

Prejudice only begins to matter when an egalitarian social order is being imposed on people.

I do believe that overcoming prejudice is important, and is an ethical ideal, so I am asking to what extent can we reach this ideal, in order for people to live more harmoniously with all others? — Jack Cummins

Why do you believe that overcoming prejudice is important?

Who isn't? — Isaac

To be clear: You're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?
How is a philosopher different from a non-philosopher?

A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.
— baker
Who isn't? — Isaac

Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. Some of these people can rightly be considered ideologues, some are just so authoritarian that they don't allow anything else to exist in their proximity, some are extremely narcissistic.

It's my standard grudge against theists, it has nothing to do with Kierkegaard specifically.

Only if you value what's lost, in which case you'd opt in. — Kenosha Kid

Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster.

How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life. — Isaac

There's a difference between having strong opinions and voicing strong opinions in a particular social setting.

It seems to me that people typically have strong opinions, but they often don't voice them.

In other words, good reasons. — Pfhorrest

Who decides what are "good reasons"?

And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake? — Isaac

Awww. You're trying to clearly delineate a philosopher's efforts that testify of his love of wisdom, you're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?

So let's try with this one:
A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.

This distinguishes him from the wannabe and the juvenile who has not set such boundaries and limitations.

Many charge that god can't create a stone he can't lift, therefore he is not omnipotent. — god must be atheist

And if God can't draw a square circle, then he's not omnipotent, right?

Resorting to the illogical and the absurd is lame.

What is the aim for trying to prove that God is not omnipotent? Probably the aim of such is to find a justification for not believing in God.
Guess what? You don't need a justification for not believing in God. You simply don't believe, period.

But one has the freedom to not opt into that. — Kenosha Kid

And doing so comes at a cost. It's not free.

would like to be able to convince people of its soundness. But my priority is to find out whether it actually is sound. After all, it is irresponsible to try and convince people of a view whose truth one is unsure about. So the priority should be to check if a view is true - which one does by careful rational scrutiny.
It can often be hard to appreciate a good argument - hard to recognise just how much probative force it has. Most people prefer soundbites and simplicity and don't have much time to give a view the amount of thought it needs to uncover its problems or to see its truth. — Bartricks

An argument in favor of not having children is specific in that it is aimed at people making an important change in their lives.
This means, among other things, that such an argument needs to be formulated in such a way that people of all walks of life can accept it, and with minimum effort, at that.
IOW, you need an argument that will convince even the average Joe and Jane, in a commercial break while they watch tv.

R-i-g-h-t! When a woman gives offence in those cultures she's burned, stoned, beaten to death, hanged - what else?. The offence? The sensibilities of some man were offended. — tim wood

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.

It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack. — Kenosha Kid

Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard, or no man will want her, and she will be ridiculed for being an old spinster. Well, at least she can take solace in not having acid thrown into her fce!

During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base. — tim wood

???
Their country, their rules.

But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. — Kenosha Kid

It's politically correct to call it a "choice".

How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.


Clearly, this doesn't compare with having acid thrown into one's face. But one would think that "civilized" countries would be more inclusive about a person's appearance ...

I think most people who think are not moral realists because they also think science defines the world and science cannot discuss morality; therefore, it is assumed morality has no meaning. — Constance

I think that most people who think science defines the world are proponets of scietism, and therefore, very much assume that science is the one that has all the answers to moral questions.

most people who think

And you think there are people who don't think?

I don't see why you are averse to Kierkegaard. He "speaks" (thought he does it with style, with far too much style--the extended metaphors are maddening) what meditation IS.

I've been around Buddhism for some 20 years. In this time I have encountered so many ideas about what meditation "truly is" (and the supposedly peace-loving Buddhists and proponents of mindfulness viciously fighting over it) that by now, all of these ideas seem equally valid/invalid. It really depends on whom you ask.

I had turned to Kierkegaard to help me solve my problem with theism. It didn't help. All in all, he struck me as yet another theist basking in his faith. A faith I had no hope of obtaining. The idea of a leap to faith is to me like a spit in the face -- like someone telling me, "See, I can do it, but you can't!! Shame on you!"

if we care (which I don't). — Kenosha Kid

Why don't you care?

"The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: "Do this and that, refrain from this and that--then you will be happy! — deusidex

I wonder where Nietzsche got that idea from.
I grew up in a religious country. The idea above is entirely foreign to me. Where I come from, nobody cared about happiness. People were supposed to "do the right thing" for the sake of "doing the right thing". Happiness or misery never entered the picture.

So how are you judging it to be 'the best' explanation? — Isaac

Relative to my current state of knowledge and understanding.

As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it — Kenosha Kid

And how do you propose to do that??

Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? — TheMadFool

Do Christian nuns _want_ to wear miniskirts? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.

Have you ever thought about how revealing Victorian dresses actually are?

Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.

(I tried to find the news article about it, but it's been awhile.) When Madeleine Albright was in her official capacity talking to women from Muslim countries (I forgot exactly from which country), she spoke to them on the assumption that those women felt oppressed and Albright saw herself as some kind of savior to them, or at least, to commiserate with them. But those Muslim women clearly told her that they didn't feel oppressed.
I don't feel offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors, nor about the habits of Catholic nuns.

It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.

No doubt such people exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was "why must lack of objectivity preclude commonality?", not "why may it do so in some circumstances?" — Isaac

Because to begin with, people, unless they are pathologically narcissistic, have an existential need to believe there is more to their preferences than just subjective whims and molecular chance.
This need becomes pronounced when interacting with others: people must believe that what they have in common are more than subjective whims and molecular chance, or else they'll have a sense that what they're doing together is wrong or at least not worthwhile.


I don't have a study to support this, but it seems to me that this sketches out best an explanation for why people are the way they are when they are together and how they can take their joint pursuits seriously.

That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. — TheMadFool

This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.

And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.


Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or opressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.

Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.

The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.


The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.

So you seem now to be saying that a philosopher is not, after all supposed to give all ideas a fair shake, but rather only those which would be neither a rehash, nor fruitless? — Isaac

There comes a point when it's important not to be an ass, Buridan's or otherwise.

"Fairness" is relative to one's situation, as it is, on the spot.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have an idiosyncratic idea of what politics is. — Kenosha Kid

What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me!

Paul, on the other hand, did indeed suffer - so what, exactly, is the suffering for, and for what purpose if it is necessary? — tim wood

The point of the commandment of having no other gods before Jehovah is that the believer is willing to have no other gods before Jehovah even when it's not particularly convenient or popular to do so.

Meaning, he should be prepared to face some trouble when he makes an effort to be true to the commandments of God. This trouble is because he himself may have some evil inclinations in him which he will have to overcome in order to be true to God; and because the world at large isn't interested in being true to the commandments and is trying to lead the believer off the straight and narrow path -- which is something he will have to resist and also expect to be punished for by people.


The way I see it, the salient point of Christianity is that in order to be a Christian, one has to go against the ways of the flesh, against the ways of the world. And this going against necessarily entails suffering.

The Christian will feel turmoil as he, as a Christian, goes against the ways of the flesh (such as when he restrains himself from masturbating, adultering, stealing, etc. etc.).

Other people will seek to persecute and punish the Christian for not following the ways of the world, and instead following God (anything from atheists making fun of Christians to Romans putting them in gladiator arenas with wild animals).