For they don't have a beef with God, but rather with the whole of tradition. They only have a beef with God, in other words, because they want to get rid of tradition, and God happens to be part of tradition. — Agustino
Unfortunately no.Have you read Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men? — Heister Eggcart
I do read fiction, but I don't really like present-day fiction, I have an aversion to it. It's too progressive for my liking. I like reading the likes of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Garcia Marquez, Jane Austen, etc.I don't see you as a fiction reader — Heister Eggcart
Well I don't know the book, but if you state the themes I could respond that way I guess.but I'd be interested to know what you think of the book's themes. — Heister Eggcart
Okay but if this is so, then the case against God is political rather than intellectual, and it's good for both participants to realise it is so. Then it merely becomes a matter of pushing tradition, rather than God for the theist. The atheist will then have a hard time defending and claiming moral superiority once God ceases to be a central focus of the debate. Once the theist stops claiming that social conservatism depends on belief in God, it will be very difficult for the atheist to oppose. So long as the theist can't be cornered, and the atheist can no longer claim that the theist believes X because of his belief in God, then it will be very difficult for those opposing tradition.I mean what is God without the "traditionalist" elements? If God is not a moral arbiter or enforcer of the world, God becomes sort of irrelevant. What does it matter if there is some being if it has no impact on the world? The question of believing in God becomes equivalent to whether one thinks there is some astroid in some galaxy we haven't observed. God without the "traditionalist" stuff is so benign that no-one has a beef with them-- well, apart from the traditionalist theists, who cannot stand the notion because it would mean the absence of their moral arbiter and enforcer.
I'd say everyone has a beef with God because that God is inseparable from the tradition they are opposed to. Even the "descriptive" atheist (i.e. the worried about the presence or logical coherence of God) reacts because belief would mean partaking in a tradition they found abhorrent (e.g. believing in falsified states and/or incoherent concepts). — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, but the social conservative atheist, while not believing in God himself, could find belief in God useful for policing society, and so could at any time ally with the theist. Their mutual commitment to tradition is stronger than their commitment to God. Even more, since the atheist is a social conservative, he could find the preservation of religion useful for the set of morals it teaches, and not for its facticity. Then God becomes mere rhetorical device to help the propagation of a system of morality which ultimately doesn't rest on God - but on reason.Without the reactionary defence religious tradition or alt-right identity, it's difficult for the social conservative atheist to generate political appeal — TheWillowOfDarkness
I remember becoming a social conservative first, and a theist second, and yet most folks claim to go the other way around. Why is there an association of religion and social conservatism? To me it would make sense to be the other way - if someone can first accept social conservatism - ie natural morality - they can accept religion much more easily... So what do you think? Is there a link between social conservatism and religion, and if so, why? — Agustino
How? The conservative atheist has his own independent reasons for adhering to tradition - reasons which are independent from God. His "belief" in God is not dishonest - it's merely a mask he uses to communicate with others in a language they can understand.So there is no doubt the socially conservative atheist may find God a useful concept for policing society and grounding their values, but it comes at the cost of honesty. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But - what if believing in God is equivalent with adhering to tradition? What if believing in God is simply doing the Will of the Father? What if faith is simply upholding the virtues? What if this is simply all we mean when we say someone believes in God?God only works as a foundation when it is believed — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, but that's other people from the conservative atheist's position.Only if people think God is intellectual, is inseparable of the intellectual and political ethics of a just world, can it help reinforce socially conservative practice. — TheWillowOfDarkness
They could, as I have outlined above.The social conservative atheist's argument might rest on reason (or specifically an intellectual and binding ethical/political position), but they can't publicly state that and make rhetorical use of God. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Sure, but this is different from having social conservative values being the outgrowth (or consequence) of belief in God. Rather, in this case, social conservatism is simply equated with belief in God, in such a way that anyone who is a social conservative is an (anonymous) Christian, for example.To keep the theists on side, the public face must claim God is true and equate social conservative values with religious belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't think this follows at all. What about someone like Epicurus - you really can't get more atheistic and materialistic than that. And yet, Epicurus was very pious, and probably quite close to social conservative values. It's not materialism that is the problem. Politics comes before materialism - and materialism is merely the post-fact rationalisation for a certain kind of politics. There is no necessary, or even likely link, between materialism and liberal progressivism.The ground seems a bit flimsy though without some 'higher' conception of reality which includes, but is not exhausted by, its material component. Man does not live by bread alone. — Erik
Because that's what leads to well-being and happiness for yourself and others? If you read Epicurean works - take De Rerum Natura by Lucretius - you'll see that one, for example, should be free from lust because being a slave to lust makes one suffer - it diminishes their strength. One should be bonded in friendship with others because friendship makes everyone stronger, and none weaker. Giving in to your greed or lust isn't, paradoxically a way to satisfy the grandest ambitions of the ego - but a way to destroy them - it's the ego self-destructing because of lack of restraint.You may very well be correct, but in what sense does the notion of piety have any legitimate meaning in a materialistic universe devoid of intrinsic purpose or value? — Erik
Yes.What leads to happiness and well-being? A life of moderation and the implementation of other virtues? — Erik
If that were so, then you should go ahead and join them. Then there would be no way for social conservatism to win - it would be impossible. If satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible really would make most happy, then that is the end. No amount of spiritual pleading could ever convince them otherwise, if they rationally perceived it to be so. The only alternative would be deception and force, but even they would probably fail in the long-run.To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. — Erik
An Epicurean wouldn't accept the distinction physical/spiritual. They would claim that the mind is what is meant by spirit, and the mind is also material. And so since sexual pleasure is felt in the mind, it is of the same kind as what you call spiritual pleasure, and in no way different in substance. However, the pleasures of the mind are to be preferred over the pleasures of the flesh simply because the pleasures of the mind can be achieved more easily, at lesser costs. Thus Epicurus would argue that the sage isn't interested in sex, because there is nothing to gain from it - the costs always outweigh the benefits.Physically at least. Now my counter-point would be to smuggle in a resulting spiritual unhappiness from such behavior. — Erik
Going away from traditional Epicureanism now, which discourages physical love and attachments. The question isn't only that you betrayed the trust and loyalty that your wife placed in you. The question is that if you do this, then your wife will also (likely) do this, and you do not want that because you would experience jealousy then. So you merely feel guilty because you know what awaits you. If even you cannot be trusted, how could your wife be trusted? And this becomes the problem. If you fail, then not only have you failed her, she has also failed you.I betrayed the trust and loyalty that my wife placed in me and which should have prevented me from succumbing to the temptation of physical pleasure for the sake of (at the very least) a mental contentment that comes from knowing that I can constrain myself, that I'm more than a mere beast seeking to satisfy its natural desires. — Erik
Sure, do that, but they might not be your friends for long :)Same thing with friendship. Without a belief in anything more valuable than my own happiness and well-being, why not just use other human beings in a utilitarian way to the extent that they can assist my attempt to achieve things like bodily health, longevity, etc. — Erik
You would see them, when you have no alternative. Say your wife is in danger. If you don't risk your life to save her, will you ever have another wife? Probably not - probably people won't respect you anymore. You'll be considered a coward and a wimp. Nobody will want to be around you anymore. And so it is better to risk losing your life, because if you don't, then you've already lost what is of value in it. And consider the alternative - you risk your life and manage to save her and survive - everyone, including your wife, will consider you a hero! You've won big league as Trump would tell you ;)I see no grounds here to do unnatural things like lay down my life, or sacrifice my own well-being, for the sake of another person, and I would not expect them to do so for me if they were guided by similar considerations. — Erik
I do read fiction, but I don't really like present-day fiction, I have an aversion to it. It's too progressive for my liking. I like reading the likes of Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Garcia Marquez, Jane Austen, etc. — Agustino
Well I don't know the book, but if you state the themes I could respond that way I guess. — Agustino
I think not. Again, there never is a time when not acting virtuously is better pragmatically than acting virtuously. And thus, even if the character in question is a sociopath, they could never "show their face" so to speak. And if they can never show their face, and therefore they never do anything sociopathic, in what sense are they even a sociopath? The problem with sociopaths is that they hide and hide - but at one point they have to show their true colors, otherwise in what way are they sociopaths? For them, this showing their true colors ultimately is their undoing. Virtue is its own reward, and evil self-destructs. Even your so called sociopaths don't think sufficiently in the long-term. They are irrational.I would also quickly add, Agustino, that I think your 'conservative' ethics is ripe for the type of highly functional sociopaths who can successfully pass themselves off as virtuous while actually being the opposite. — Erik
Epicurus wasn't interested in politics, and advocated that his followers live a tranquil life, focused on study, exploration of nature, friendship, and enjoyment, and away from potential sources of pain, such as politics, sex, and the like.My guess is that Epicurus would have made many concessions to the dominant social and political forces that Socrates (and Jesus) was unwilling to make, and that the reason for this could be traced to their respective understandings of human existence and, more specifically, to the existence or non-existence of a 'soul' whose needs can be at odds (at least on occasion) with the desires of the body. — Erik
I don't find this in myself.Well, I believe that I'm a conflicted being with conflicting impulses. — Erik
Then you are a very strange human being, who would willingly advance towards his own destruction, and who, if he wouldn't have a notion of the spirit, would willingly pour poisons down his throat...I would feel no deep pangs of conscience for fucking a woman other than my wife, I would not willingly sacrifice my life for my children without hesitation, or even more unpractically, for an abstraction like freedom of thought and belief. — Erik
Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility. The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning — Benedict de Spinoza
If you were Socrates, would you have chosen to die or to live? I would have chosen to die. We all have to die in the end, better to die as a great hero that all of history will remember, than die as a coward, begging for a few more days of life, humiliated and despised for my weakness by all, and suffused in such great shame. Such a life would indeed have been worse than death! Socrates, and Jesus, simply didn't have any better alternatives. They picked the best path they had available.or that Socrates willingly chose to die for — Erik
Yes but my problem isn't just that they are "new". My problem is that their ideas, and even their characters, seem quite superficial and uninteresting, it's like such people don't have anything of value to teach me. Someone "forced" me recently to read "Revolutionary Road" by Richard Yates - such a great disaster! Honestly the story is so disgusting and serves nothing more than illustrating pure stupidity. It's the story of an alcoholic couple who nevertheless are well perceived by their suburban conservative world, both with serious problems who ultimately self-destruct because of their restlessness, unrestrained ambition and simple lack of intelligence.Everything old was once new and "progressive." — Heister Eggcart
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. — Shakespeare
To my naive view, it seems like the satisfaction of sexual desires with as many partners as possible would make most people very happy. — Erik
Plato's meditations seem fixated on justifying philosophy--which should result in a life of virtue--in the face of the impractical and even dangerous possibilities it contains for its practitioners. — Erik
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.