It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach
What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach
every single one when religion is destroyed without replacing it with a state-sponsored religious replacement the social model fractures (breaks down into civil conflict) over 1-3 generations.
Thus: the Chinese are bussing in nationals to replace the Ugar. They have experts with models too. — SkyLeach
Even a summary at that level would fill multiple pages in order to supply just the biblio links. — SkyLeach
No "false dichotomy" on my part as I've not made an argument (re: systems of control) with an "either-or" premise. :roll: — 180 Proof
By "system of control", Aaron, I mean the (socio-political) 'extrinsic constraints on populations which constitute – regulate – participation in a dominance hierrarchy'. — 180 Proof
I mean... would it help if I pointed to Hagger's Trait Self Control and Self Discipline?
I'm not quoting some article on BuzzFeed here I'm summarizing decades of research and what I said isn't controversial it's just accepted understanding of how human beings develop psychologically to regulate their actions in a social dynamic.
As such there just isn't any such single thing (or couple of things) as what you're asking for (except, of course, for lists of citations by link depth).
Link depth would be shown on Hagger's Google scholar (approaching 5k/year) but that's just an appeal to popularity. You really would have to read a few studies in order to get a feel for how most psychologists describe self discipline/self control. — SkyLeach
What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach
I don't know what the words I underlined mean. As for my statement, the first half is the summary of the findings of many research papers. What makes me think it's true is the findings of the research, the methodology of the research, and where it has been replicated the reproducibility of the research.What makes you think this statement - which is jammed packed with choice ideas - is true?
Religions typically insist on the acceptance of a set of dogmas among its adherents. — Aaron R
What is truly more terrifying then religion, however, is the absence of both religion and philosophy. Without being armed with at least one, individuals cannot exercise self discipline and must therefore have discipline imposed upon them. It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach
Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.
Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world. — Nicholas Linares, Schopenhauer's Philosophy of Religion and his Critique of German Idealism
They don't understand the problem and they're taking all the wrong steps to fix the issue. They know there is a problem but to the misfortune of their people the leadership is completely ignorant of how humanity thinks — SkyLeach
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.