God without Being á la Jean Luc Marion?

The God that I would generally defend is a radically transcendent one, a God that's radically Other - with philosophers like Kierkegaard and Levinas. — Marty

What do you mean "radically" transcendent?

What those thinkers thought about virtue may or may not be thought to be relevant today; and in any case it is matter of interpretation. Or perhaps you think you know 'what they really thought'? — John

We can ask them bruv. If you head over to the Nichomachean Ethics, you will find out that Aristotle defines virtue to be a state of character or habit which orients man towards his telos.

As for whether it is relevant today - what makes you think it isn't?

If a woman cheats on her husband — John

I'm not a woman, sorry to disappoint you.

If a woman cheats on her husband, that is a matter for them to work out in their own ways, not for 'do good' proselytizers to pronounce upon. — John

Yes - let me put it straight: impossible to work out. You should never get there in the first place, that's how you work it out. Only an idiot would plunge head-on to get a disease if that disease could be prevented by one's free choice to begin with - that should be intuitively obvious.

How are you to know what is good for you if not by means of your own strong moral intuition? — John

By understanding what a human being is, by understand what this world is, and by understanding the role a human being must play in this world. This gives the general framework I am governed by. Then I couple this with an understanding of the historical and social conditions I find myself in, and guided by the general framework (which gives me the virtues) I orient myself what particular things it is best to do in the world.

Perhaps you have a source for your claim? — andrewk

Yes - it's called (1) keeping my eyes open :P (take this as a joke) and (2) understanding that without the necessary support structures, all human arrangements are very unstable. For example - you take two atheists. They form a couple. What will hold them together? Chance? Then take two Christians, schooled in the virtues, raised up in the faith, and committed first to God and second to each other. What will hold them together? Well let's see - because they are schooled in the virtues, they will practice a sexual morality which will not encourage violent emotions amongst each like - like cheating, looking after other women, etc. They will respect each other, and care for each other spiritually, not just on the emotional and the physical level, another bind between them. Furthermore, because their commitment to God comes first, they understand that their love can only flourish within the world which is limited and guided by the virtues, and thus they will be more likely to respect them.

But the atheist on the other hand - he is likely, just statistically, to have had quite a few sexual partners. What will happen? Their loved one will not be as special. They will also not trust each other as much - because very likely they had been deceived in the past. They will look at other women lustfully, because they already have that habit. They will be tempted to cheat, and nothing will stand in the way. In other words, they will willingly head to destruction - like sheep.

God and divine justice - that is the only principle by which men have ever lived in order and by which they will ever live in order.

Virtue consists in having strong moral intuitions and following them — John

>:O According to John. Not according to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the whole Greek lineage which defined virtue.

Rule-based ethics do not account for the differences between individuals. — John

Right - because me and you are different, you can cheat on your wife and I can't. I see. Makes a lot of sense, that must be exactly the core principle on which we build our society...

So, following commandments is not the way of the free man, but the way of the self-ignorant slave. — John

The free man does what is good John. If there happens to be a commandment which matches with what is good, then you would be a fool not to follow it.

I always took God on a leap of faith. — Marty

Exactly - I think most believers have. It's not possible to come to belief in God by argument, by pure reason.

There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. — Blaise Pascal

I respect this approach. — Hoo

Thank you :)

The Kalam maybe is since it has to state the universe has a beginning. But any cosmological argument is merely going to state that all we need is a contingent world. All the theist needs to argue for the existence of God is to have Being somewhere in our philosophy. — Marty

I know - I haven't criticised Aquinas's arguments. I think they are valid, but NOT persuasive to an unbeliever. Different arguments must be sought out, as illustrated by Pascal. One has to appeal to the heart and to the will - not to the mind and the intellect.

My point is that virtue ethics, is traced back to Hellenic thought and Divine Command theory evolved out of Abrahamic thought which was rule based. — Cavacava

I think the rules are just the structure required to teach virtue. Socrates was long wondering about whether virtue can be taught or not :)

Christianity mixes these two different attitudes toward morals, which became the normative ideal from which Deontolgy evolved — Cavacava

I think in either case, Deontology as Kant understood it, is quite un-Christian. Its emphasis of duty to a moral law, regardless of the aims, is not a Christian idea.

You bring up the Book of Job. Where God and Satan bet on Job's caving into the misfortunes that God inveighs against Job. Job follows the rules. He does what he believes God has commanded, his moral crisis is why is God doing this to me, God's answer, who are you to ask, where were you when I created all of this. He sets the rules an man obeys. Job obey his rules. — Cavacava

Each book of the Bible is written with a purpose. To teach a moral lesson. So we must inquire what the lesson from Job is. I think the lesson is that despite being virtuous, the circumstances of the world may end up such that you are deprived, and it seems to you that you are worse off than those who haven't been virtuous. The point is that virtue (following God's commandments) is not enough for happiness. Aristotle made the same point. BUT - both Job and Aristotle go forth to say that no comfort, in the absence of virtue, is worth it. Thus one should always choose virtue, and in the case of Job faith and obedience in God.

To put a demand on myself for a responsibility for the Other. Ethics as first philosophy. However, I'm not sure if this has to do with accumulating virute or anything. Generally a forgetting of one's self as the arbitrator of the just is something I attempt to keep in mind. — Marty

I think Kierkegaard was a bit wrong on this. Faith without virtue is not faith. One cannot claim to have faith while cheating on their wife for example, regardless of how much they profess to be praying to God and loving God, etc.

Abraham may have acted from his faith in God, but he followed God's command. This is different than the Hellenic approach. — Cavacava

Yes because he understood that God knew better than he did what was best for him and his son, so he had faith in God.

No, I think he destroys his soul because he goes against the commandment not to commit adultery — Cavacava

Where does the Old Testament state this? If you read Proverbs, or maybe you go to some books which aren't included in some versions of the Bible (like King James), such as Book of Ecclesiasticus, you will see that divine commandments are issued as guideposts for man to live the best life, not as capricious demands that man must fulfil to be rewarded by God. It is made clear, through for example the story of Job, that being virtuous does not guarantee earthly happiness, but it is nevertheless the best that can be done to guarantee it.

What you are referring to, the Books of Moses, where the 10 Commandments are given and so forth is a description of the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God, not an explication of divine wisdom, which you have to look in other books for. Yes there are commandments - God does wish his people to live in a certain way. Why does He wish them to live so? Because that's what is good for them - not as you imply that God just wants them to live so because he wants them to live so. That is absurd.

Also Christians adopted Hellenic ideas from the very beginning, don't forget that St. Paul interacted with Hellenic peoples, argued and disputed with them, and preached the Gospel to them. The two were intimately linked. What happened after is that Christianity developed in tandem with Neoplatonism, and neglected many of the Aristotelian roots of Greek culture, which were later retrieved through the works of theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas.

Now that is a convincing reason to adopt a new worldview. The urge to go through the motions of procreation is very powerful. — andrewk

LOL - he certainly chose one which makes it quite difficult to get to the "motions of procreation"... there are much easier alternatives, you know :) (maybe he loved the girl (interest in procreation being only secondary), in which case it's very good. small L love leads to capital L Love ;) )

But then in a very crude way you are right. It matters how you get to the motions of procreation - if you get there maimed, humiliated, and broken - or you get there whole - most non-religious people get there in the former category. If you don't plan your journey, don't be surprised you don't arrive... Life is such that some things cannot be undone - so much wiser to err on the safe side.

Abraham was commanded by God to kill Isaac — Cavacava

The parable has a very specific meaning which is about the importance of faith. As outlined by Kierkegaard, Abraham trusted, even if he could not see how, that God's commandment was ultimately aimed at his (as well as Isaac's) goodness. Thus he humbled himself before God, and willingly bore all the pain that was going to come from the act. The purpose here, much like the purpose in Job, is to show the power of faith.

Paul who introduced the idea of will divided against itself — Cavacava

An idea later developed by theologians like St. Augustine through their explanation that, despite appearances, God is actually closer to your own jugular vein than you yourself are - that God is more you than you are. Thus, the will divided against itself is just your misunderstanding and misidentification of your own nature. It is an effect of pride and the original sin.

Why does he destroy his soul, is it due to his own internal conflict or because he does not follow God's Command. I think it is the latter. — Cavacava

He destroys his soul because he does violence to his own nature - he betrays his wife, he destroys the intimacy, love and exclusivity that existed between them, and other such permanent goods of the soul, in exchange for a moment of fleeting pleasure. So God doesn't do anything to destroy his soul - he does that himself by engaging in the vice. And notice that this is unchangeable - regardless what he does after, he will live with this and the consequences forever. The Gospel paints the picture of God in pursuit of man - and men running away. If he thus runs away out of his own will, and separates himself from God, how is it God's fault that he is in Hell? The gates of hell are locked from the inside...

Plato rejects Divine Command Theory, but this is exactly what the Bible, Christianity and eventually Deontology accepts...that there are rules given to us, ways to live the Good Life, and a virtuous life follows these rules.

The issue (in need of reconciliation I think) is between Virtue Ethics and Deontolgical Ethics. Kant held that man has to follow the Moral Law in order to be worthy of the Good, that virtue involves doing what one ought to do. — Cavacava

This is very strange because you know that virtue ethics existed before deontological ethics, and they are accepted as Christian ethics by many theologians, even St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Bible does not imply that rewards are given based on following commandments - but rather that following commandments leads to the virtues which are the reward itself. To witness one such instance that comes to mind right away:

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. — Proverbs 6:32

The emphasis is again on the corrupting nature of vice itself. It's not wrong to commit adultery because God ordered you not to - rather God ordered you not to because it is wrong, ie. it will harm you. So I'm not sure that the Bible accepts divine command theory in the way it is usually understood :)

Here's the kalam/cosmological argument as rendered deductively by Craig (see included links for details):

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence
4. it's rational to believe that said cause is God

Below I'll round up some pros/justification and cons/objections, for your comments and target practice. — jorndoe

The problem with such arguments are that they are founded on something that is inherently unstable and subject to change - namely the current scientific model of the Universe. I don't understand why anyone bothers. Science will change. What's the point of trying to make up arguments which are based on such fickle considerations? After all ...

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also — Matthew 6:19-21

Maybe tomorrow science will say that the Universe didn't begin to exist - that it was eternal. What then? The argument is finished?! The argument isn't valid anymore? Your faith is thrown down the drain? Impossible!

Any argument for God's existence needs to provide reasons to believe which are independent of that which is subject to change - transcendental reasons. Furthermore - it must be clarified what it means for God to exist... how can I argue for God's existence in the same way I argue for the existence of a chair? Much rather, an argument about God's existence is very much like an argument for love's existence. All it can do is encourage one to openness of the soul towards the experience of the transcendent - it can stimulate one's aesthetic faculties to the extent that one is overwhelmed by the beauty of it. Take the story of Jesus Christ - the most beautiful story that can be told - it's just impossible to construct a more heroic, and more beautiful story. This great King who has all the power, all the might, and all the happiness in the world - for whom all people are like nothing, mere scum and dirt, and yet this King loves them - with such love that he gives up everything he has, including his own happiness and self-sufficiency in pursuit of them, and he comes to live amongst them, to be mocked and laughed at, spit on and cursed, neglected and insulted, humiliated and vilified, just so that he may save them from destruction, and show them that he loves them. And while they do all this to Him - He still loves them, so much so that he forgives them for all the harm they have caused Him. Truth? Pf. It doesn't even matter, I'd believe in it even if it was false, that's how beautiful it is. As Socrates said about the afterlife, I will say about this - I may be wrong, but at least I will go to the grave with hope and love in my heart, and if death does indeed end all, what better way to meet it than carrying this beauty in your heart.

So I said it is the most beautiful story that can be told. That can be proved. A story's beauty comes from the sacrifices that are made in it, in comparison to the strength of the objective reason to make the sacrifices. If a father sacrifices his wealth to save his child - that is beautiful. But now imagine that the one who has all the power, all the knowledge, all the joy, and all the happiness - that this person were to sacrifice everything - for what? For that which is objectively worthless in his eyes. Now if this is not insanity - and a very beautiful kind of insanity - then I don't know what is. A more beautiful story simply cannot be told because there cannot be a greater sacrifice, and a worse reason for making it!

How totalitarian does this forum need to be?

Admins and moderators should act without any interest in the opinions of other members

Admins and moderators should consider how the membership in general likes to have things handled. — Mongrel

Too black and white to answer :)

Not, for example, to point out that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin. — Sapientia

I think we should get some affirmative action about this... I mean it's just so unfair you know... :D I propose free skin-care for white people!

(Even if the wheat is still wrong). — Sapientia

LOL :D

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here. — Baden

Thanks for clarifying :)

homophobes aren't welcome here. — Sapientia

Okay, I agree that it's the right message, but what does that mean? What counts as homophobic? In common discourse in todays world, many things are associated as homophobic, which don't really express either hatred or desire to do violence to a group of people based on their sexuality. A religious person may think that it's sinful to engage in homosexual sex, for example - but does that make them homophobic, necessarily? I don't think so - and yet many common people would say "yes it does". I think that should never be acceptable here is (1) hatred of homosexual people and (2) desire to do violence to homosexual people based on their sexuality. Such should never be welcome, I agree.

But I disagree that we shouldn't allow discussions about the morality of homosexual sex. I think that such discussions can be fruitful and are important to both sides.

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"? — Ovaloid

Yes very good points! I thought much the same. Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.

Well said. — Wayfarer

Thank you, but I must say your agreement puzzles me :D

Buddhism emphasises annata - which seems to be very contrary to what I say. More like what I described here:

Any other solution (for example getting rid of the person/self who lacks) is just like claiming that suicide solves the problem of life, or that burning the village solves its flood problems. That's merely an escape from the problem, not a solution, and there's a big difference there. — Agustino

Ending all desire, ending all attachment, extinguishing the self, attainment of Nirvana - all these are very very antithetical to what I have described above. Desire is good - if one desires to be loved by their mother for example, that is a very very good desire. If one is attached to their child - that too is a very very good attachment. In fact, if people don't have those desires and attachment, they should be encouraged to cultivate them! If you don't plant beautiful flowers in the garden, weeds will grow! Understanding that the fulfilment of such desires may not be in one's control (and thus tolerating an unfulfilled desire - living with it, in the same way a man lives with an incurable disease) is different from ending the desire, or the attachment. Ending the desire or the attachment is absolutely wrong, because it denies the core of being human.

And I may add that I know there are ways to solve these problems that I mentioned above in Buddhism - but they seem to me like obvious mental gymnastics to avoid a core issue. Like ending all craving will be associated with ending lust, greed, etc. Okay, fine - but still, it says ending all craving - it creates a very wrong association. Furthermore, it doesn't state cultivate good desires. So you will end all the vices okay. What then? Do the virtues just pop out of thin air? Of course not, they need to be cultivated. One doesn't only pluck out weeds, one also plants beautiful flowers.

I would agree to something like... https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/dr-christian-lindtner-ph-d-on-the-self-atman-in-buddhism/ . However, the language of Buddhism seems to be very very prone to misunderstanding, hence I still don't like it. Things have to be stated clearly if they can be stated at all.

Curiously, there is a contemporary Buddhist academic, by the name of David Loy, who says that Buddhism recognises this sense of 'lack' as the source of unease or 'dukkha' which lies at the bottom of our consciousness. — Wayfarer

Clearly if there is a sense of lack it can be resolved only by fulfilling that lack. Any other solution (for example getting rid of the person/self who lacks) is just like claiming that suicide solves the problem of life, or that burning the village solves its flood problems. That's merely an escape from the problem, not a solution, and there's a big difference there.

But all these attempts are ultimately futile, because they can't address the real source of the feeling of lack, which is that the self has no real basis in reality, so our lives are spent trying to stablise or reify something inherently unstable and fleeting. — Wayfarer

I think the self (not the ego, very important) has a very strong basis in reality. There is nothing bad about desiring your own good - provided you understand what this really means. The moment when you understand that your good is intertwined with the good of others - that you are not an island, and your happiness depends on the happiness and fulfilment of others - that your sense of self is given by, and sustained by your community, then you will love your neighbor as yourself - because you will understand that when your neighbour suffers, you suffer. Once you understand this, then you will thirst for order - as order is the only thing which can ensure the limited fulfilment achievable on earth to you and to others. Both order in your own soul (not being overcome by greed, lust, and all the other vices - but moreover being full of the virtues - ie love, kindness, faithfulness, loyalty, chastity, etc.) and order of society (morality/tradition/religion/culture).

So this talk of some happiness independent of the world, independent of your community is absurd to me (as it was to Aristotle). You cannot but be attached to your self in its full meaning - which is both you and your community. There is no line in the sand which if you cross you will achieve enlightenment - there is no single experience, no matter how intense, that will guarantee you happiness and fulfilment for the rest of your life. There is no such thing as enlightened human beings - just more or less spiritually developed. And personal order in your soul will not guarantee you happiness either - it will guarantee you the possibility of happiness, but to really achieve happiness, the stars need to align - your community must also be ordered. But personal order is nevertheless the only thing fully in your power, and gives you the best chance, as illustrated by Socrates.

I'm not making it difficult. I'm pointing out that it is difficult. — Michael

:D LOL! >:)

I'm not the one claiming that sin exists. I'm skeptical of God's existence. — anonymous66

What do you mean you're skeptical of God's existence? How is your day to day life different because of this skepticism that you claim?

Well let's see - what do you think God calls a sin?

I could make the equally valid claim that either sin does not exist — anonymous66

No you actually can't. You can make a claim though, but that wouldn't mean it's "valid", if by that you mean true. Second of all the existence of sin - the belief in it - is an existential attitude one takes in front of evil. For example, it is sinful to rob a defenceless old man - that means that I take an existential attitude towards the act, placing my faith in the fact that it is objectively wrong for such an action to take place - it is objectively unjust, and deserving of punishment.

"X is a sin" because there isn't enough evidence to support that conclusion. — anonymous66

There is quite a bit of evidence, such that it hurts one or more persons (including the doer of the action), it puts one or more persons at risk of hurt, or it brings about future suffering for one or more persons.

Can one believe in sin and yet not have a belief in any God? — anonymous66

I have difficulty in understanding what you mean by not believing in God - what does it mean not to believe in God? How do you act and go around differently if you don't believe in God, as opposed to if you do believe in God?

Or perhaps God does exist, but He Himself doesn't consider any act sinful. — anonymous66

That is impossible - it would imply that God is not Just.

Is belief in, or rejection of free will a matter of faith? Is it even possible to be agnostic on the issue? — anonymous66

Let's see - to sin or not to sin - that's the vulgar understanding of free will. If that is so, then you must admit the possibility of sin for free will to even make sense. But that seems strange - for free will, a good thing, depends on the possibility of sin, a bad thing. This doesn't make good theological sense, thus St. Anselm proposed free will to be defined as the ability to choose the Good for its own sake, and for no other reason. Thus free will depends on love, which depends on Goodness. So if you believe in virtue (goodness), you also believe in free will.

Your world constrained by logic shares a denial of reality similar to the gnostics. Insisting the world must be your preferred logical meaning, you ignore the movement of existence itself. You are blind to any part of existence which does not fit your logical rule. Anything which is not your particular tradition is a "shadow play" which doesn't qualify as a meaningful state. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I knew you'd say this :) - of course, if you are right, then I'm the gnostic, only that I don't think you have your facts (which ground your understanding of the structure of Being - or lack of it) right :D

Your problem is not in the logic, but in the premises my friend.

Re: slavery. Id like to do some more research, but the sense I got is that slavery has always been abhorrent.... there was always mistreatment (as if "only" ownership wasnt bad enough), and there have always between people who didn't give slavery a seCond thought. I got the sense it was just assumed that some people deserved to be slaves. — anonymous66

No - they thought slavery was an evil, but a necessary one (hence the some are slaves by nature from Aristotle), and therefore supported it, because eliminating it would have caused more problems than maintaining it, and gradually eliminating it. Similar to the situation with servants in India today. So yes - there are evil things in our midsts that we have to do something about - but we have to be careful that by solving them we don't bring about even greater evils.

Perhaps Plato had no slaves in his Republic because the majority of its workers in it were no better off than slaves in their subjugation to its ruling class. — Cavacava

LOL! :-*

Maybe you meant that the ruling class was no better off than slaves in their subjection to the citizens... The guardians (ruling class) were raised very austerely, they didn't have families, they belonged equally to all other guardians. Guardians weren't allowed to love each other, they weren't allowed to have sex or be intimate with anyone, they weren't allowed to own any property. They were supposed to devote all their time to study and development, protection and care of the community. There was only one time when the guardians were allowed to have sex (with other guardians), and that was only for reproduction, and it was expected to be promiscuous because the guardians were to develop no love, intimacy, or partisan (exclusive) affection one towards another. Again - the guardian class would deprive themselves of all goods in order to devote themselves 100% to the protection of the community. Plato was keenly aware that given the function of the guardians, they should develop characters which were entirely devoid of the usual joys - their life would be a life of servitude to the Good, above all else.

And this idea is fundamentally correct and has been carried through. There is a reason why priests (the leaders) are, in many religions, required to be celibate for example. It's supposed to be something that they give up, in order for their affection to be universal, and have no elements of partisanship within it. Plato's guardian would love all men equally, and make no distinctions whether it was his son, his wife, etc. - indeed, these concepts didn't exist for the guardian. But remember the function of the guardians isn't to live the best life - but rather to ensure that the best life is possible for everyone else. So don't expect the guardians to live nicely - they didn't.

This is an often misunderstood attitude of Plato. Many think Plato encouraged a community of women, or communism in the same way Marx did - but this is totally false. The community of women was indeed a privation of the goodness of love and intimacy that the guardians undertook in order to be most fit to serve and protect their community. But because people's thinking is twisted - they expect it to be the opposite - they think that because the guardians are rulers, they must have lived the best life, and if they lived the best life, then that means that Plato thought that a community of women and communism was the best socio-political system of organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. They expect the rulers to be those who have the best lives, and therefore they too desire to be rulers. The truth is that rulers don't live very good lives. Their lives are a sacrifice to the gods - pure duty, and not enjoyment or pleasure characterises the guardians. Nobody would like to be a leader - as is made clear at the beginning of the Republic - but one decides to become a leader because in the absence of one (or worse, in the presence of an incapable one), society, including that person, will be worse off - pretty much one becomes a leader when there is no alternative. Leadership is a sacrifice one makes, because the disease (socio-political disorder) is worse than the pain of the cure (leadership - order).

I'm actually surprised there aren't more people who embrace this combination of social conservatism and leftist(ish) economics. — Erik

Yes, I am especially surprised as most conservatives nowadays tend to be religious and yet, I can find nothing in religion which supports rampant capitalism, accumulation of money for its own sake, social ostracization of different races, and other manifestations of greed.

But getting back to the point, I do think a focus on virtue - and character formation generally - can only benefit the development of genuine 'freedom' as well as a 'progressive' economic agenda. A virtuous person for instance would seem much more likely to treat their family, their workers, and their fellow citizens in ways that would result in more camaraderie, trust and good will than we see at present. Without that ethical grounding, cynicism and hedonism and shortsighted self-interest combine to create a hostile and exploitative social and economic environment. — Erik

Yes!

I'll shamelessly offer myself as an example of how embodying some (admittedly poor) semblance of 'virtue' could be compatible with a progressive social policy - keeping in mind my many personal flaws of course and admitting I was going to go with the old 'I have a friend who...' routine. Long story (somewhat) short, I offered to take a pay cut at work to make sure a couple of my hardworking employees got modest pay increases I felt they deserved. This idea was met by the owners with total disbelief, like how could anyone be so stupid as to volunteer to make less money? The answer for me was pretty simple: taking care of our employees and treating them like human beings rather than numbers would reinforce their loyalty and commitment, which would make my job a lot easier, and would also increase the likelihood of the company's success.

What I didn't say, so as not to give offence, is that I'm not fixated on money or gaining the approval of others through the typical symbols of social success. I would gladly spread the wealth around if it meant others are taken care of too. Being stubborn and shortsighted bean-counters, and seeing our workers as obstacles rather than contributors to increased profits, they couldn't fathom mindset. It was like I was speaking a language they had never heard. I then tried to use their language and reinforce the pragmatic cost/benefit angle (setting aside the moral/ethical aspect) as increased pay (along with other things) would likely improve morale, decrease absenteeism, help us avoid turnover, and improve the overall performance of our staff. With that they started to listen and actually gave the employees raises. — Erik

Thanks for sharing your example! We need more examples like this in the world, and I think there should be no shame in sharing examples of goodness. Afterall, if you do not share examples of goodness, then all that will happen is that others will share examples of evil and shamelessness, and make evil cool. A big problem today is that the good men have sat down, and have restricted themselves to a humility which prevents them from having an effect on educating their peers. Instead, people like Lady Gaga, Amy Schumer, and the like spread their vulgarity, rudeness, and selfishness across society, and no one does anything to stop them. Instead they are allowed to make this into a "cool attitude" - whereas if someone tries to make virtue and goodness cool, then there is a problem, then he is an oppressor, and lacks in humility. I think people need virtuous examples to combat the influence that decadence is otherwise guaranteed to have over society - and there really should be no shame in doing it. Those who spread evil have no shame about doing it - why should those that spread good have any shame?

A complete misreading, in my view, based on an inadequate conception of the nature of the goal. — Wayfarer

I haven't read it. But offhand my experience is that Gnosticism has several unusual religious elements that make this hard to swallow. — The Great Whatever

First I think it is good to have an introduction of Voegelin's thought for this discussion. On the internet there are quite a few sources. Here. Here (very long, and quite comprehensive. Or here.
Try to remember that what Voegelin focuses on is the consciousness of Gnosticism. He claims that the structure of consciousness for the medieval Gnostic and for the modern secular Marxist is the same.

emphasis is on the exclusion and specialness of those in the Gnostic community — The Great Whatever

Yes, this structure of consciousness where the participants see themselves as special or elite appears in modern movements like Marxism, where the Proletariat is the special class that will bring about the communist paradise for everyone. Modern homosexual movements see themselves in this same light, as special and unique and deserving to show and demonstrate their sexuality to everyone. This is pride, instead of humility.

the world is just a kind of prison, or afterthought, or shadow play — The Great Whatever

Voegelin criticizes this as the Gnostic denial of reality, and seeking to replace it with a more real, second order reality that only they have access to. This bears the character of totalitarianism for several reasons: (1) it seeks to replace reality as empirically accessible, (2) claims infallible direct access to reality that is not open to rational criticism and correction. It's very similar to what @TheWillowOfDarkness does, when he claims that there is nothing necessary about a person - it's an empty abstraction, which carries with it the denial of reality.

That situation does not seem stable. — The Great Whatever

Indeed - which really is an important point. A religion which cannot ensure social stability and order is really no religion at all. I'm not disagreeing with perhaps there being a higher, mystical tradition within a religion, but I disagree with considering something to be a religion which is formed of pure mysticism denied from connection and criticism from authority and tradition. Such is anathema to the purposes of order.

I guess the biggest difficulties with Gnosticism are (1) its infinite moral variations, (2) its lack of respect for authority and tradition, (3) taking and encouraging personal experience and its validations over tradition. For example Gnostics have been across both extremes - completely denying the value of man's sexual nature, or freely indulging in it. Such variety I think arises precisely because there is no respect for authority and tradition AND because everyone is encouraged to their own interpretation, which could very well differ very much from another's. As such, gnosticism is untenable as a social position - much like any other religion that emphasises disrespect for tradition and completely free and dogmatic trust to one's own experiences.

What lead me to an interest in Gnosticism, is why Christianity (or 'churchianity') didn't seem to have anything that corresponded with the idea of moksha, spiritual liberation, as it was depicted in books about Eastern mysticism that I had been reading all my life. — Wayfarer

They did, only that it was transcendent. You would never be immanently free (or you would never immanently achieve spiritual liberation, in this life) - the desire for immanent freedom of this sort is, according to Voegelin, exactly the same desire to be found in secularist progressive movements - they too desire a freedom, or liberation achieved in this world. According to Voegelin, you and the secularist progressive share the same consciousness, you just have different means of achieving the desired result (and by "you" I mean the religious gnostic - as opposed to the secular gnostic)

Also very similar to Prometheus who desired man to be like the gods.

I think the original failing with Christian orthoodoxy was bound up with the formation of the Catholic church and the exclusion of gnosticism. Have a look at this scandalous article. It would never get published in a real journal, but contains more than a grain of truth. — Wayfarer

I may as well show my cards and say that I agree, and that Gnosticism is for me anyway the 'real' Christianity. — The Great Whatever

What do you think (both of you) about Eric Voegelin's account which actually points to Gnosticism as the cause behind both the totalitarian and progressive movements of 20th century and beyond? The account is best laid out in Chapter IV (Gnosticism - The Nature of Modernity) of his book The New Science of Politics.

The nuts and bolts are that Augustinian theology separates the transcendent (freedom from suffering, the Kingdom of God, etc.) from the immanent (the world), whereas gnosticism brings the transcendent into the world, or attempts to. Voegelin claims that all totalitarian and progressive movements are similarly marked by the same tendency to bring a transcendent (Marx's communism, where people live free from the sufferings of the world) into this world - instead of identifying it with a transcendent to follow in the "next life". Whereas Christianity encourages humility, piety and patience to bear the sufferings of this world as it is impossible to completely eliminate them, the heresy of Gnosticism (which he identifies in the Middle Ages with Joachim of Flora) encourages actively seeking to bring the Kingdom of God on Earth - Christianity seeks a transcendent salvation, while gnosticism an immanent one, in this life. He identifies the same tendencies in modern progressive ideology, as well as in the totalitarian states. More info in the book (and specifically the chapter) I have pointed to!

Not according to Plato, the Neo-Platonist school (on which our forms of government and systems of justice are, after all, largely based), Augustine and a host of other theologians and philosophers they are not. — Barry Etheridge

We both know this is laughably false, no intellectual would take your assertions seriously. Cite, for example, where Plato encourages barbarity, murder, rape and justifies these as being good in-themselves.

What is the term in your ''framework'' then, that represents what people choose and act based on?

Say this term is "X''.

Then here's my OP question rephrased in your terminology: What is the X which most people have in their life? — hunterkf5732

Motive.

It depends from culture to culture and from person to person. Do you want the motive in today's world? Or 100 years ago, or when?

If today, then that motive most likely is pursuit of an abstract ideal of freedom and pleasure. Most people seek pleasure, but with the underlying assumption that pleasure is always to be found in what they think will be pleasurable (hence the ideal of freedom - one has the freedom to decide what is pleasureable and what isn't). In other words they presuppose that what will be most pleasurable is not given necessarily by the structure of reality.

It is possible to agree about the pleasure, but think that what is most pleasureable follows necessarily from the structure of reality, in which case what is most pleasurable will be most pleasureable regardless of what someone thinks about it.

Aaaand you didn't answer my bank robber example. — hunterkf5732

The criminal is either mistaken about his purpose, or he thinks that robbing a bank is a means to achieve it. Purpose in my framework, which is Aristotelian, is objective. Whether X or Y knows their purpose is a different story. Purpose is not that which they choose and act based on.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that character is formed by physical aspects in the first place. For an example, someone born in a well to do, educated family would quickly acquire this ''character'' you expect, owing to the influence he receives via these external factors of education,family traditions,etc.

On the other hand, someone who happened to be unlucky enough to be born the son of a thief may acquire a contrary form of character via the external, physical aspects of watching and learning what his dad does. Would you really then blame the thief's son for not having the ''character'' you expect? — hunterkf5732

Yes background plays a role in moral development. The thief's son is still to blame for the wrongs that he does, but this is to a smaller extent due to his unfortunate background influence. This doesn't change the fact that he has control over his character - if he wanted to, he could change. The only thing is he doesn't want to.

Renaissance humanism - which is where 'humanism' began - was not what we would call a secularist philosophy. It was certainly not religiously orthodox and sought to differentiate itself from religion proper but the great writers of humanism - Ficino and Pico Della Mirandolla - were very much in the vein of philosophia perennis.

'In the Oratio de hominis dignitate (Oration on the Dignity of Man, 1486), Pico justified the importance of the human quest for knowledge within a Neoplatonic framework.'

As such, there was a grounding in transcendent truth which is generally absent from today's secular humanism. — Wayfarer

I think the more important point that TWG was trying to make is whether or not humanism (whether of a religious or secular kind) is destructive. The way he has defined it:

valuation of human beings for the sole reason that they are human beings, a valuation that can't be augmented or diminished by any particular circumstance or quality of the human being beyond belonging to this abstract class. — The Great Whatever

Notice that this definition doesn't claim that being human has no value - only that this isn't the only source of value. It protests against the levelling of all people to the same conditions of value based merely on the fact that they are human - Hitler is not equal to Socrates for example, although they are both human. And one wonders whether this impulse to level all people to the same condition of value has caused, for example, the importance of virtue to recede, to the point that virtue has ceased to be a word used in common discourse. In common mentality, people no longer strive for virtue - why would they, they all have the same value, regardless whether one is a criminal or a saint. I think what TWG is trying to say is that once humanism is admitted, it inevitably will lead to the collapse of nobility and strength of spirit - these qualities will no longer be admired and desired by the masses of men. Instead, the masses will prefer the easy path that requires no effort - people will demand of each other "Accept me for who I am, don't tell me to be better - don't expect me to improve". Such an impulse, I believe, is highly destructive. And this is true even for religious humanism. In fact, a lot of Christianity has become decadent once it started accepting the discourse "Jesus loves you and will take away all your sins if you accept Him as Lord and Saviour! + Works don't save! It doesn't matter if you live a perfect moral life, if you do not say that you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, then you will perish" - this discourse basically provides people with a license for sinning - it tells them, don't be worried, don't fret - you're an adulterer? No problem, Jesus will forgive your sins. Why fret so much about it, afterall Christianity demands you not to be anxious!

And so - I believe - that TWG is trying to point out that this humanism produces a decadent effect, even upon religions.

"Accept me for who I am, don't tell me to be better - don't expect me to improve"
But what did Aristotle say? Friends are not those who make each other feel good, but rather those who compete to bring out the best in each other. That is a noble friendship - what is so common in the mainstream society, is the opposite - friends have become those who bring out what is worst in each other - encouraging each other to lust, greed, drunkenness, sloth, etc. And why? Because people have been trained not to tolerate those who challenge them and push them to be better.

There was a really good speech adapted to a movie from Aristotle about this very matter in the 2004 Alexander the Great movie - but the one I knew on youtube has been removed...