This automatic reaction to think the worst of people when there are perfectly good explanations possible seems like a symptom to me.

I think that has a lot to do with how we live and how much of our autonomy we have to surrender to live that way. We live in a world of strangers and that is not what we're built for. We feel helpless to make things right and that's not what we're built for either. — Kenosha Kid

Nah. Bad faith and ill will are evolutionarily advantageous.
The social contract actully teaches us that it's good to think bad of people. If you can corner someone by thinking the worst of them, you win in that evolutionary struggle for survival/one-upmanship.

When it stops listening. — Wayfarer

To listen is not to be a man.

To attribute powers to something which may or may not exist to begin with, seems like an odd starting point to any discussion. — Present awareness

Yet it has never stopped the religious nor the philosophers from doing it.

They're not just milder, they're qualitatively different. If you accept a position at a firm with a dress code then, like a nun, you have weighed up whether conformity is something you're willing to adhere to get something you want. — Kenosha Kid

For one, the nun probably isn't weighing her options like that. I wouldn't assume nuns or prospective nuns generally do that. There was a time when I wanted to become a Catholic nun, and I can say from personal experience that the standards of dress were never an issue for me; it went without saying that if I were to become a nun, I would wear the habit or whatever standard attire would be prescribed by the order. I have also not felt in any way oppressed by the standard of dress for nuns; there was no fear involved in the prospect of wearing the habit. On the contrary, I looked forward to it, I felt proud about it. I dare say I am not the only one who thinks so.
Becoming and being a nun is just not for every woman, nor is every woman required to be one. Your generalizations don't apply.

For two, one needs a job, and the options are, for many people, rather limited. The dress code is sometimes a necessary evil. But because the job is a necessity, one views the requirements of the job in a similar way as one views the requirements of one's citizenship, which one received simply by being born into a certain country (as is the case for most people): it's a preexisting unilaterally imposed obligation over which one has no say.

However when weighing up whether or not to wear a headdress in public, you are weighing up whether or not the risk of insane and hateful punishment is worth taking.

I don't know. How many Muslim women have you interviewed about this?

From what you've said, I surmise that you're assuming that the baseline from which all women all over the world all over history start (or from which they should start) is the same: that they all want to live by a certain Western secular standard; and that if they can't live by that standard, they feel oppressed and only follow social norms out of fear.

This is where you're wrong.

Wanting a particular job is not on the same spectrum as not wanting acid in your face. That's the troubling aspect about this.

It's a false dichotomy to begin with.

There are milder, broader issues around things like dress and oppression. Transvestites are often attacked by homophobes. However a) it's comparatively rare, not systematic, and

b) the victim has recourse to the law.

Recourse to the law in "civilized" countries?
Where do you live???!

Yes, we have laws, on paper, but they're only as good as how much money and power one has.

The same coersion that forces women to wear particular clothing in public (which is far more totalitarian than just in the workplace) will typically either place them outside of the protection of the law, or else under a law that supports that mode of oppression. We're talking the kinds of countries that stone women to death for being raped. Even in the most comparable cases, it's qualitatively different.

Your most fundamental mistake is that you think that Western secular men are better feminists than any woman could ever be.

Heaven knows you feel a fierce moral indignation and your armor is shining on your white horse.

There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent. It is these conditions of perceived potentiality - in particular what a woman’s clothing means regarding the potential and value of interactions with her - that women are rarely given a say in as free-thinking agents, in any culture. THIS is an area of concern. — Possibility

Exactly. And there's a name for this wanting to rescue others, seeing them as helpless victims: white knighting.
This, combined with being a social justice warrior makes it impossible to actually discuss any social problem, and makes sure that the conversation is kept on the surface of the issue, while the deeply embedded factors that bring about and maintain the very problem that the SJW and WK want to save the poor victim from, are left intact.

It's a way of maintaining the status quo while pretending to be acting for change.

And you're a seeming apologist for some of the worst practices in the world. — tim wood

"Seeming" being the operative word.

My bad if I misunderstand. Please correct me.

No, that's not good enough.

But being confirmed by lack of correction, I shall respond as I see fit, and the standard you're setting abysmally low.

There you go. You think that with an attitude like you've been displaying here toward me and some others, you invite open discussion? Too bad this forum doesn't have the type of report function that some others have, because I've been wanting to report you from the beginning of this.

The standard of discussion that you're setting here is abysmally low and does not warrant much engagement.

I feel disgusted by your attitude.

I am at a loss to account for just how you-all can be as ignorant and stupid as you're being with the arguments you're presenting here, and disgusting. — tim wood

I'm not going to defend stances that you merely imagine I hold.

I've been polite to you so far, but you're abusing it.

exercising their right to choose what to wear — tim wood

Really? The constitution of Iran states that people can wear whatever they want??

But we're not talking about whether it's good for a woman's CV: we're talking about whether it would result in her having acid thrown in her face, or restrictions of freedoms, or domestic abuse, or loss of life. The man in a bikini example is directly comparable to a nun choosing not to wear her habit, not to a Muslim wearing a chador for fear of death or disfigurement. I find the false equivalence of these quite alarming. — Kenosha Kid

It's not an equivalence. I'm saying those repercussions are on a spectrum.

The repercussions that someone in the West will face for not living up to dress standards are, of course, far milder than elsewhere in the world. However, even those repercussions can end up having lasting and even fatal consequences, such as becomnig homeless due to job loss and dying in the street.

My point is that we in the West are not free either, and we make many choices out of fear of repercussions.

This sort of thinking is precisely how the pandemic has become so protracted. A refusal to do it once and do it right because business comes first has killed off many more businesses and people than just accepting the necessary measures to handle the pandemic properly. — Kenosha Kid

If you want to apportion blame (and emphasize personal responsibility), then the blame lies with the employees who chose to go to work instead of losing their jobs. In the beginning of the pandemic, this is what was happening: if people chose to respect the quarantene, not just a few employers would count that as their vacation time or sick leave, and when those ran out, it was "Go to work or lose your job."

Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. Those unfortunate enough to be the worst affected have no right to insist that every person saved by those measures should instead be dead for their sake.

So how does a person come to terms with this?
In fact, I'll start a thread.

I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.' — Jack Cummins

I have noticed that religious people can be strangely disassociated from their religious beliefs. I've known Catholics who, for all practical intents and purposes, believe that the Catholic doctrine is none of their business. That they are just a lowly person in the pew and that the doctrine is not something over which they have any say.

It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive [forces are] prominent. — Kenosha Kid

To a lesser or greater extent, this applies to any choice people make anyway.

It's not like it would be acceptable for, say, a male bank teller to come to work wearing a bikini. He probably wouldn't be stoned for it, but it would certainly not be good for his reputation and his CV.

Oppressive social forces are always at work, in every culture. The only difference is in how they externally manifest.

In the oh so civilized West, people can get fired for trifles. How's that not bad?

Oh dear. This thread is in the Political Philosophy section. I only saw this now.

Pay them poorly, make them feel disposable and always wonder when you will have to close your doors. — Book273

I suppose that's true for small companies, but I'm not so sure about the bigger ones.

Consider how worse it would be without that section. At least that section serves the purpose of containing the religious garbage in one place. — emancipate

So what is your suggestion: Where should people go and what should they do in order to learn and practice criticial thinking?
(Other than college courses and similar.)

It seems to me that for most people, criticial thinking (as is understood in secular academia) is an impenetrably foreign thing.

Your title says
"Bad theology as an introduction to philosophical thinking".

From what I've seen, for not just a few people, religious apologetics, specifically, monotheistic apologetics is the first and last encounter with some kind of philosophical thinking.

It was the first such encounter for me.

Wow. You're not a typical capitalist!

Can you actually see a square circle?

If you can't see it, it's moot as to whether God can make one or not.

Is it possible to have something more infinite then infinity? How could something that goes on without end, have MORE without end? — Present awareness

By going in circles.

I'm talking about one's purpose for trying to prove or disprove God's omnipotence, not about belief or disbelief in God.

If you care so much about what others expect of you, you will never be free. — Olivier5

If you don't care much about what others expect of you, you put yourself at risk of their anger and their revenge.

suppression of women — tim wood

I suggest you talk to as many women as you can. Ask them by whom they have felt most oppressed in their lives.

I bet at least some of them will reply that it was by other women.

baker@TheMadFoolLet me make sure I understand you two: in terms of obligations to wear certain clothing and not wear other clothing, according to you two, there is no difference between a Christian nun and a Moslem woman. That at least is what you appear to be arguing.

Have I got it? If not please correct. — tim wood

What do you mean here by "obligation"?

We've been saying all along that it's far more complex than that.


On the topic of obligation: I take it you're a male living in the Western world. And you wear pants, not a skirt or some other garment that covers the lower part of the body. Would you say you wear pants out obligation?

It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws. — Possibility

I agree. And what is worse, it's not uncommon for women to be complicit in these assumptions, supporting them.

In Western culture, much of the fashion advice given to women -- by other women! -- is about how to be attractive, and specifically, sexually attractive.

Pick up any women's magazine: on the fashion and relationship pages, women are advised to look attractive to men. Or watch an extreme make-over reality show: when they do an extreme make-over on a woman and then present her in her new look, that look is typically in clothes, shoes, and make up that is sexually revealing and is intended to be attractive to men. Even regardless of the woman's age!

Some, if not most, women have deeply internalized these norms and don't question them. An acquaintance of mine once complained to me about her shoes with high heels -- how her feet hurt because of them, how she began to slouch. And then she said, in a matter-of-fact manner, "But alas, what can you do, such shoes must be worn."

I don’t even see HOW you could categorize people in advance of engaging with them, so I’m certainly not advocating that anyone somehow do that. — Pfhorrest

I mean that you're presenting a model of different ways of engaging with people, based on whether they agree with you or not.
Not that you suggest that Tom be put in category 1, Dick in 3, and Harry in 5, based simply on their names or some such.

But after engaging with people, it will become clear whether their opinions are the ones you think are correct or not, and how strongly held those opinions are and for what reasons they’re held.

It’s then appropriate to engage with them differently based on those various factors.

I don't see it this way at all.
I can't even begin to understand why one would take this approach, at least not in philosophy(ish).

What you're saying makes sense in terms of politics (whether it's ordinary citizens or professional politicians discussing politics, or whether it's employees discussing workplace politics, and such).

But beyond that ...?

What you think should be the case is totally immaterial to what actually is the case. — Isaac

And you're here to tell him what actually is the case?

How would you multilaterally define the terms of engagement, since to do so one would have to first engage? — Isaac

I eschew the defining of terms of engagement in advance, and instead just follow the arguments/ideas.

It's an interpersonal communication dynamic, with emphasis on it being dynamic.

I see no need to categorize people in advance in such a forum setting.

The thing is that you chose a hot topic, one of the worst hot topics on the internet.

There are ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet that get a police officer sent to your door.

Then there are other ways to frame and formulate an existential quest on the internet, ways which are more profitable.


My suggestion is that you get serious about this, and do some serious studying about this.

I think a good point to start is the work of Matthew Ratcliffe.

I've combed through a lot of arguments and forums on this so I can't relay everything or remember it all. — Darkneos

If you want to solve the problem of solipsism, you will need to be more disciplined.
A haphazard, ameteurish approach to philosophizing is a recipe for disaster.

It might help you see better if you realize that it is proposed in juxtaposition to the common practice of treating people as only being in groups 1 or 5. I’m advocating more nuance than that. — Pfhorrest

Since I don't practice that common practice, the whole classification is moot for me.

Like I said: The categories in the OP are unilaterally defined terms of engagement.

God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator - an imperator who will be God. And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives. — Bartricks

Which still is not an imperative to join the Roman Catholic Church -- or whichever one.
IOW, the God of philosophers has no practical implications in the real world.

Once again, the question was not "How should I live my life?" but "Why do YOU choose to go on." — Kenosha Kid

From what I've seen in online forums, much of the time when people ask the latter, they mean the former.

I think he wants people to give him the answer he already knows he wants.

Obviously, a person can only understand things that are already within their scope of understanding.
Everyone is like that.

That is incorrect. Enjoyment of the film may be emotional or intellectual, but the decision to stop watching half an hour before the end is illogical, and the decision to watch to the end logical (other factors aside... if the cinema is on fire, leave). — Kenosha Kid

It's not illogical if one wishes to train oneself to come to terms with the fact that not everything in life has closure:

I believe that there are limits to human imagination, however, I also believe it is possible to imagine a being or thing which does not have limits. All sorts of Gods have been imagined by all kinds of human cultures and who’s to say which one is right or even if any of them are right? — Present awareness

In that case, it again comes down to one's purpose for trying to prove or disprove God's omnipotence.

Luck is problematic because it puts to the test some firmly held notions, such as "People deserve what they get".


But it's an big topic with many implications.

This is about the methods or strategies of debate. I think most people haven't thought about this much, and are just going with their gut feeling, or their favorite method (such as reductio ad absurdum).

Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard. — Jack Cummins

"Would" isn't going to get you to those wider areas.

I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others. — Jack Cummins

Not being locked into a certain position can also be detrimental to oneself and to others.
Like they say, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system. — Possibility

Exactly.

Further, in order to ge closer to the truth of this matter, we'd need to carefully interview these women, and also account for when they give socially desirable answers and why they do so.

I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. — Jack Cummins

People who don't fight for what they believe is right go crazy.

Romance is the opiate of the masses.

You've given a really good list there of the limits of psychological investigation. I'm largely in agreement. You've prefaced the list rather unfortunately though. These things do not escape those of us who study people professionally. We have no lesser access to them than others. — Isaac

Sure, you can do so as private persons (ie. when not in your professional capacity), or else, only produce qualitative case studies, which are of limited scientific value.