you didn't even try to answer the question, because you know I am right that the sex organs are not designed to be put in the anus (irregardless if you think men will tend to do it or tend to like to do it). — Bob Ross

One's penis can go anywhere one chooses (with consent). But anal sex is not compulsory, right? No one is saying it is, although it's a common heterosexual activity. And a question of 'design' has not been demonstrated. A penis fits inside holes. Are you also against sticking a penis in a woman's mouth? Where do you get the idea that any particular kind of sex act is somehow wrong?

A bigotry charge is a serious accusation: why do you think people who disagree with your political views are all bigots? — Bob Ross

I'm not saying you are a bigot i said what you wrote was bigoted. But you may well be a bigot too.

Notice your language:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices — Bob Ross

I think we should have government programs for studying transgenderism to cure it and they should have programs that help transgenders be cured — Bob Ross

Both of these read like bigotry. "Let's cure those deviants."

I don’t support Stalin: that’s a blatant straw man. — Bob Ross

I didn’t say you support Stalin, I compared that re-education approach to a Stalinist one. I think that’s fair; he was big on re-educating dissenters. What you think about Stalin is irrelevant to my point.

Wouldn’t you agree that being homosexual or transgender is a result of socio-psychological disorders or/and biological developmental issues? — Bob Ross

No, and this is another bigoted position.

Do you think a part of our biological programming is to insert a sex organ into an organ designed to defecate? — Bob Ross

I don’t know you to establish how seriously you offer this, but that sentence reads like something a child would write, surely? I can't help but feel some compassion for you that your religion appears to have made you so reductive and homophobic.

I could be wrong but from what I read here my view would be that it might benefit you to stop hiding behind theories, metaphysics, and fundamentalist religion, and get out into the real world. Spend time with lots of different kinds of people for a few years. Maybe some real-world exposure will help you understand the diversity and beauty in people who differ from your prescribed notions. And that perhaps what needs to change is you, not them.

Either way, it may be that we don’t share enough foundational axioms to have a fruitful discussion. All I really wanted to do here was point out that your outlook looks bigoted on this matter and (since hating on trans people is a popular sport for many) to express a different view from yours. Job done.

That said, I’m glad you feel confident expressing your opinions here for us all to explore. It’s interesting to see what comes out in response, Perhaps it reveals a little more about the true nature of some of our members.

Thanks for articulating your views further. To me they seem to be founded in bigotry, but no doubt you think I’m wrong too, so I guess we’re a microcosm of our times.

Re abortion: I'm not concerned where life begins.

The issue for me is that no one has the right to use another person’s body without their consent, even to preserve life. For the pregnant, this means a person is not morally obligated to sustain a fetus, regardless of whether it is considered a “person,” because a right to life does not include the right to forcibly use someone else’s body. And this principle applies universally: just as no one is required to donate a kidney or remain attached to life-support to save another, no one can be compelled to maintain a pregnancy, making abortion permissible on the basis of bodily autonomy and self-ownership.

For you, then, what are the ‘major issues’ related to transgenderism? — Bob Ross

Well, unlike you, I don’t have any “major issues” with trans people. It’s pragmatic: social policies can negotiate this one. Let them be. Are there some assholes and bizarre activists among them? Sure. But the same can be said of Christianity, Islam and almost every identity.

Your idea that we can “cure” them seems antediluvian or Stalinist. Let’s cure gay people too, huh?

Do you think gay folk need to be cured of their homosexuality?

Do you get your moral views from a particular interpretation of Christianity?

My thoughts are that all you're doing is cloaking bigotry with philosophy to give it the appearance of intellectual depth, as part of a hateful and destructive reactionary political and religious movement. — Jamal

There's a bit of this around these days. Metaphysics is a good place to hide.

Liberalism in America tends to want the social and legal acceptance of:

1. Sexually deviant, homosexual, and transgender behaviors and practices;
2. The treatment of people relative to what they want to be as opposed to what they are (e.g., gender affirmation, putting the preferred gender on driver’s licenses, allowing men to enter female bathrooms, allowing men to play in female sports, etc.);
3. No enforceable immigration policies;
4. Murdering of children in the womb; — Bob Ross

From my perspective your language seems bigoted and cruel. But I do understand that people think this way.

I think progressives around the world would probably want:

1) For individuals to live free of bigotry and for homosexuality and trans people to be able to live as they want.

2) A woman's right to have bodily autonomy and self-determination.

I would agree with these too. I do believe in immigration policies, so let’s set that one aside.

I’m not a theorist, nor do I much care for the curlicues of argumentation about essentialism, sex, or whatever else people bring into this debate.

At its core, the trans issue is a matter of pragmatism. Trans people exist, have always existed, and will continue to exist, denying them serves no one. Why not simply accept this reality?

No doubt there are ways of regulating and incorporating trans people into society that work for most. Minor issues, such as prisons, toilets, or sport, can be resolved and are distractions from the deeper question of identity. I'm not interested in how we choreograph prisons or sport to accommodate an evolving understanding of gender. Let's leave those to social policy processes.

What do you have against trans people? Is it ultimately that you believe they go against God?

So I ask for examples of these dangerous questions it's the purpose of philosophy to ask and address. — Ciceronianus

I see what you’re saying: what counts as a dangerous question in one country might not be in another. Here in Australia, no one much cares about God or gods. You’re rarely going to find controversy about teaching evolution or privileging science over religious dogma.

But there are enough questions (often with essentialist themes) which seem to provoke antipathy. What is a woman? What is gender? Is taxation theft, or is it the price we pay for civilisation? Is morality objective or just a matter of custom? What is racism? What counts as true? Plenty of wars have been started in pursuit of answers to these sorts of questions.

But an AI Nietzsche without hormones and a fragile sense of masculinity won't need to overcompensate so much...

What will we make of... an AI Nietzsche? — Banno

I wonder if their reading will be existentialist or post-modern. No doubt we'll be able to pick.

Just checking - does this work the other way? Would it also be naive and idealistic to think a person of high status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of low status.
— Tom Storm
This is moot, because the person of higher status is automatically correct by virtue of their higher status. — baker

I don’t think this is moot. In my experience, low-status people can and do question those of higher status. And changes may result.

Look, I'm not an elitist. I'm interested in having a measure of peace of mind and not becoming cynical and jaded in the face of injustice.

If you look at popular religion/spirituality, as well as popular psychology, the advice usually goes in the direction that the ordinary person (who doesn't have the means to revenge themselves) should embrace a type of amoralist, anomic stance where they are quietly okay with whatever happens or is done to them (or others). Morality doesn't seem to be something everyone could afford. — baker

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure I share this understanding. I guess I'd need to understand this through specific examples rather than abstract principles.

I don't think I ever implied that the purpose of philosophy is to play social status games. I'm also not claiming that everyone should approach or be a philosopher. I'm merely pointing out the purpose. Can you not be a plumber but understand the purpose and value of understanding plumbing? Of course. Does everyone need to understand or partake in plumbing? Of course not. — Philosophim

I never said you did. :wink: I was simply responding to an argument often made when people start talking about purpose.

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status. — baker

I’ve not noticed that. Certainly, in the cultures I know here, people of all status commonly ask difficult questions and are sometimes insolent while doing so. What do you count as a traditional culture?

In Australian culture low status workers habitually question and sometimes harass the management and ruling classes.

While the answer, "The love of wisdom" may be the definition, it doesn't answer the deeper and more important question of, "What is the purpose of philosophy?" — Philosophim

True enough: although I suspect purpose may be plural. I doubt it could ever be one thing.

My issue with the ususal definition is: what does “love of” actually mean, and what is wisdom? The hermeneutics of either of these broad, portentous terms could keep us guessing forever.

Many of us have met enough people who claim a love of wisdom without ever cultivating it for themselves.

But here’s another question. Does it matter? When people say they aren’t interested in philosophy to those who aspire to be, there’s a tendency to hold them in mild contempt, or at least to consider them somehow inferior. I suspect, however, that having no interest in philosophy can be a perfectly legitimate way of being. It may simply be dispositional, and I wouldn’t want to live in a world where philosophy must appeal to everyone, and those who aren’t interested are somehow suspect and intrinsically plebeian. That said, there's probably a right way and a wrong way to be disinterested.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first. — Ciceronianus

Quite. But one might consider: how is it that one comes to the view that anything should be questioned at all? I suspect one needs a skeptical bent to begin with.

Looks like a robust framework to me. I wonder if there is also room for a speculative and creative tool there, something about: Use AI for imaginative and speculative inquiry to model inventive scenarios and challenge conventional limits of imagination. Or something like that.

I still think it's naive and idealistic to think a person of low status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of high status. It's naive and idealistic to think that the same measurments apply to everyone, regardless of status. This doesn't mean that one must think of the higher-ups as infallible, but that one is not in a position to judge them. A quietism as summarized by the priest above seems to be a much more viable way to live, in contrast to wasting one's resources in a futile pursuit of "justice", or becoming cynical and jaded (and worse) upon realizing that one's sense of right and wrong cannot be acted on in cases that seem to need it most. — baker

Just checking - does this work the other way? Would it also be naive and idealistic to think a person of high status could correctly measure or evaluate the words and actions of a person of low status. And I'm also interested in what you count as high status.

Rational being? Speaking of delusional... Let's just say, that if we are ourselves rational beings, and yet we are at war with each other throughout history, then "rationally" we must be possessed by irrational beings that overwhelm us at every turn. — unenlightened

I see what you mean. But does rational mean level headed and peaceable? It just means capable of reasoning. One so capable can be simultaneously a total cunt. I think Kant (not to be confused with the epithet I just used) argued that our use of reason would eventually lead us to a state of harmony and order, but I’m fairly sure he didn’t think we were there already.

There are countless other cultural traditions, considered 'harmless' and beneficial such as Christmas which I am sure many here indulge. Can't stand that rubbish. I am not against partying but why have it over some stupid thing like that, which most people don't believe in now anyway? — unimportant

I think it’s reasonable to challenge arguments from tradition. If someone says something is a matter of tradition, I think the first response should be to question it. But that’s just a personal preference. Misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and many other bigotries and harmful practices are traditional. The defence that a group has always done something a certain way is not a definitive justification. And the question might be, “Whose tradition?” Is it tradition for the nobility to exploit peasants and does this make it right? Is democracy and liberalism a tradition? I’m sure many of the people who defend tradition may not be so enthusiastic about those two institutions.

When does something become a tradition and is there any agreement on how it works?

Ha ha! Well if I'm going to go, let it be Zoroastrianism.

Sorry, but I remain skeptical about your calling yourself an atheist — Astorre

You’re welcome to be skeptical, makes no difference
to my disbelief.

Christopher Hitchens may not have been a professional philosopher, but I don’t think that diminishes the depth or value of his insights. What I find interesting about what he says about God is not technical philosophy but moral and existential clarity.

He challenges the assumption that belief in God automatically makes a person moral, and he exposes the moral contradictions in many religious doctrines - especially those that sanctify cruelty, fear, or submission. He asks uncomfortable but necessary questions: If God is good, why does he permit suffering? If morality depends on divine command, does that make genocide or slavery good if commanded by God?

Hitchens also reminds us that we can find meaning, awe, and compassion without invoking the supernatural. He combined reason, moral passion, and literary brilliance - showing that intellectual honesty and empathy can coexist. — Truth Seeker

I’m an atheist and I mostly enjoyed him, but I wouldn’t say Hitchens was deep or insightful, he simply recycled the usual secular free thought ideas that had been offered since Ingersoll and before. All of the Hitch's “thinking” consisted of familiar atheist talking points I’d already encountered when reading Madalyn O’Hair decades before he took them up.

The morality argument is a particularly creaky and venerable position. But many have overlooked that since Christians cannot agree on what is morally good or not ( on issues like capital punishment, stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality, trans rights, gun ownership, war, welfare reform, taxation, feminism, etc, etc) one can hardly argue that they have an objective grounding for morality. What they appear to have are multiple and contradictory interpretations of guesswork and speculations regarding which version of god may be real and what it thinks.

To whom are you grateful for all these things?

Or do you merely appreciate them?

Expressing gratitude is quite popular these days (google "gratitude journal"), yet most often, what these people are talking about is appreciation, not actual gratitude.

Gratitude is painful, uncomfortable. To be grateful is to be grateful to someone, and this puts one into an inferior position. To be grateful means to acknowledge one's indebtedness. To acknowledge one's insufficiency, one's dependence. To be grateful means to acknowledge that one's position in the intricate web of dependecies is precarious.
With that, gratitude evokes a sobering emotion toward life, a disenchantment. — baker

Interesting that you raise this. I was going to say earlier that for me, gratitude feels like an indebtedness to a mystery for this fragile state of good fortune, which could disappear in a nanosecond. There is in fact a vulnerability built into it, and a deep sense of precariousness. But I guess my experience of gratitude doesn’t accord precisely with the classical use of the word; there’s also, built into it, an appreciation.

Do you feel gratitude?

There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. — Pieter R van Wyk

I came to this position when I was in my teens.

But of course this is just a perspective. There are theists who would argue differently.

the decision is made, in general, by what is politically expedient — Pieter R van Wyk

I think this is probably largely correct, although I would say that most positions on morality are related to tribal survival. A tribe/society that allows widespread theft, killing, and violence will collapse. Although, so far, America hasn’t done so… I guess we could see morality as a code of conduct, and yes, expediency is one frame to use to explain it. :wink:

Please tell me, by whom or by what authority can a decision be made that something is good and something else is evil? A scientist, a politician, perhaps a religious leader ... perhaps a philosopher? — Pieter R van Wyk

It's a fair question. My answer would be that various intersubjective communities have their leaders who make those calls, and community members agree and follow. It might be a politician, a judge, a rabbi, the Pope, a cult leader, a teacher, or even the 'high priest' at a university philosophy department.

But I am personally not aware of a single binding decision made by anyone that something is good or evil. Both of those categories, to me, are poetic notions I generally avoid. I tend to think more in terms of beneficial or harmful deeds. But again, these are contingent categories for the most part. Although if someone asked me whether blowing up the world was beneficial or harmful, I would probably answer the former. That said, I can certainly see an argument that wiping out all life on Earth might be one way to end suffering forever. Beneficial perhaps.

To be clear, this thread is not about posting AI on this forum, but how philosophers might use AI effectively. — Banno

I agree with most of what you’ve said, and I use AI that way at work all the time. I test ideas and improve my sentences. It helps me get closer to what I want to say. I sometimes wonder if AI will replace some of the reasons people are members of forums like these.

People have been ripping off secondary sources, essays and encyclopedia extracts ad nauseam in these sorts of forums, so AI just seems like a more refined version of existing behaviours, to me.

There are some posters on forums who use every second reply to pontificate at length about the history of ideas, as if they’re teaching philosophy at a community college. AI will probably just make these guys more monotonous.

I find it much more interesting trying to understand reality for what it is than attributing everything to a divine cause. That isn't to say doing so is wrong or there is no value in doing so, but I love the epistemic pursuit of figuring things out for ourselves. — KantRemember

Fair enough. I tend to think of “reality” as a human construct, a kind of secular version of God, serving as a foundational justification for all our ills. There’s a lot of searching for the "really real" in philosophy, it seems to me. By temperament, I’m more drawn to the view that humans are meaning-making creatures who can’t help but explain things through gods, science, karma, or whatever framework they inherit or (less commonly), choose. They all work to a point, depending on one’s culture and axioms. I tend to think I’ve chosen to step aside from that impulse and not concern myself too much with explanations, except the provisional or pragmatic kind that help me as I go about my business.

My interest came primarily from 3 things. 1. My desire to learn, think critically, and challenge myself, 2. A want to understand the nature of reality, and 3. It started a few years back with a deconversion from faith when questioning the rationality behind it all - that led to questions on morality, theology, which, naturally, led me down to ontological thought, and further, what it meant to know something. — KantRemember

Thank you. Yes, that all sounds understandable. I believe that a deconversion can leave some with a big hole to fill. A lot of former Muslims and Christians often end up looking for foundationalist justifications in philosophy. Although I also find it interesting how often they rest for a while alongside New Age or Pagan groups- a kind of methadone program for hard core theism. What people believe and why is always interesting.

It might seem that a forum such as this would be ideal, but while it might help, there is a lot of very poor work hereabouts. Caution is needed. Autodidacticism can lead to eccentricity, or worse. — Banno

As an eccentric autodidact, I’d have to agree with this. He’s left out the monomaniac contingent...

I’m capable of engaging in Philosophical discourse, but I want to being able to critically engage; for my own sake, better than the above average laymen — KantRemember

One issue with doing philosophy is that there are a plethora of views about what this discourse actually is, and many camps seem to resent or denigrate other camps. Some see it as a rigorous pursuit of truth, others as a language game, and still others as a form of personal or ethical guidance or self-help. Philosophy seems to be a tricky subject because its methods, goals, and even subject matter are endlessly contested, and what counts as philosophical in one tradition may be dismissed in another.

Why are you interested?

Yes, but there are actually three sets in the traditionalist camp here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Probably more. The point isn’t their proposed solutions (which generally are of little interest to me), but rather their diagnosis of a problem and their tendency toward nostalgia projects. Whether it’s some guy on YouTube commenting on a classic movie or a social conservative writing about identity politics, the trope is generally, “Things used to be better, we took the wrong fork in the road, and now we’re cooked unless we can regain ourselves.” Or something like that. Some see that fork in the road as starting with the Enlightenment, while others think it began with Disney studios.... :wink: To me, this venerable lost golden age tale seems to have reemerged as a defining narrative of our times. Personally, I’m content to be living in my own era, with all its cultural prejudices and schisms. I find it mostly amenable.

Like I wanted to become better at math, then I became worse at English.
I know that every choice means not choosing something as well. However what I am thinking about is why the thing I lost was coming from something I wanted to get better at. — Red Sky

That helps a bit. I’ve never found this to be the case. If you’re so bad at maths that you need to devote most of your time to it, you might end up failing three other subjects. Does this then become a trinity rather than a duality?

Seeing life as a dualism seems too simple and is a pretty well worn trope in pop culture. In my experience, most situations don’t fall into two clear categories but exist along a range of possibilities. It’s often, it seems to me, more apropos to think in terms of degrees or continuums rather than strict opposites.

Yeah, I think those are fairly established criticisms. I don’t have any insights on social media since I’m not on any myself and haven’t seen much of it; this is my only forum.

But I do know a lot of young people, as many I work with are between 22 and 32. For the most part, they seem smarter, more caring, and better organised than me or my friends ever were at that age. Perhaps in part because the cost of living is so much higher than it was when I was young. Many of them are happy to attend street marches and also letterbox and try to reach others to make change. Anxiety is a big issue perhaps because there are too many competing problems. And everyone says they are dealing with trauma. I'm not sure I see all that much bubble phenomena. I see that more from hermetically sealed older people who, perhaps, have never evolved past the 1970's and seem incapable of seeing past familiar patterns and prejudices. I live in my bubble as a white, middle-aged guy in a prosperous city, working in the same industry for the past 30 years.

The boomer generation was probably irrationally optimistic. What could go wrong? The current generation – probably more rationally now that they must live in the world the boomer's made – might be wondering, well, what could possibly go right? — apokrisis

Nice. That's a good line.

What worries me is that the view that everything is hopeless is so useful to certain politicians and corporate interests who would like to rule without the rule of law. If too many people give up, we leave the world to them.

Sometimes I feel unsure of myself, not confidence wise but more characteristically.
For example I would be decisive in something by nature because of my thoughts, but through my same reasoning I would be careless or hesitant in others.
I'm not sure that is enough to understand what I mean. To describe it without personal example, characteristics or beliefs of mine would lead to two different opposing outcomes.
Like if I wanted to be brave in the face of danger, I would become a coward in the face of risk.
Both sides would be true, at least I think so.
I feel like every time I would try to reach out to achieve something, I would be leaving a shadow behind. Not that this has become much of a problem in my life, but I wanted the opinions of others. I wanted to explore this idea. — Red Sky

This is vague, An example would be useful. Aren’t many people ambivalent and tentative in their approaches and interactions? Rather than being dualistic creatures, we seem to operate on a continuum informed by how brave or safe we feel to take action. And some of us are less timid or more foolhardy than others. What I’ve noticed is that many younger people these days seem to experience considerable anxiety and struggle to make decisions, and as a result, are often caught up in endless “what ifs.”

It seems to me that Indian thought avoids a lot of the problems that dominate Western discourse on this issue. As I see it, the West suffers from a sort of self-inflicted metaphysical wound that stems from the Reformation, that results in a truncated world-view and closed off epistemology that has approached solipsism at the limit. Indeed, so much of modern thought has been an attempt to escape this solipsism (or a sort of moral solipsism)—to build a bridge between us and the world—or else to learn to live as self-enclosed, contingent entities. In the midst of such a "crisis" (as it is often called), any bridge beyond the sensible becomes "a bridge too far." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sounds like you have been taking Iain McGilchrist lessons. :razz:

But seriously, this frame seems especially hot again right now and includes both good and questionable practitioners who are saying similar things — John Vervaeke, Jordan Peterson, David Bentley Hart, Terry Eagleton, and a host of rising Thomists, all of whom, in their own ways, seem to be clamouring for a counter-Reformation to the Enlightenment. Or something like that. It's as if CS Lewis has influenced a new generation.

:up:

And here a paradox arises: infecting another person with an idea you don't fully understand yourself, or are naively convinced of, without sharing the responsibility for following it, seems unethical. — Astorre

I keep trying to agree with this, but I can’t. :wink:

The argument assumes that fully understanding an idea is a moral prerequisite for sharing it. Isn't it the case that human communication and learning relies precisely on partial understanding and the exchange of ideas that are still not fully formed?

I also wonder how you can successfully “infect” another if you don’t have the germ of an idea in the first place (forgive the pun).

As I said earlier, much education and exchange of ideas happens precisely this way; through the sharing of incompletely understood notions.

Morality itself seems a good example. Most of us learn to do and not to do certain things without having a fully articulated sense of right and wrong, and without being properly explained why a given thing is right or is wrong. The lessons aren’t any less useful simply because they’re incompletely understood by our parents or teachers.

I hold any number of beliefs and views that I don’t fully understand, but that doesn’t make them any less useful.


(fixed typo)

And yet some people have figured it out which god is the right one. Don't you want to be one of those people? — baker

No. I seem to be incapable of believing in any god variations. So 'right one' is not on my radar. It’s probably a matter of disposition. Are you a theist?

That we should push the religious/spiritual to sort things out amongst themselves, until only one religion/spirituality is left. — baker

I’m not sure what this means. A fight to the death until only one theism is left standing? Or a battle over first principles until only one belief system has survived scrutiny? How does this work in your view? And if one religion or spirituality remains, are you saying that this one represents the truth, or merely that it's the one that survived? And what if there are multiple paths and spiritual truths and the human urge for simplifications and reductions not applicable?

quote="baker;1018093"]I'm inclined to think that the whole point of religion/spirituality is the pursuit of wealth, health, and power.[/quote]

All spirituality? Including the aforementioned Meister Eckhart or Hildegard von Bingen?

Given what you say, where do you think you could find a source of benign, non-authoritarian people who meet your standards?
I'm not looking for "benign, non-authoritarian". If anything, I want people who are straightforward and can be relied on. — baker

Do you mean that you prefer people who aren’t hypocrites and are predictable, so that if they’re bad, it’s all out in the open?

You didn't read the link, did you? — baker

I read the I-message statement link. I also attended a seminar on this.

I've been around long enough to have witnessed some very let's call that "vocal" preachers fall away from what they preached. A Buddhist monk who preached in a fire-and-brimstone mode and then a few years later disrobed. Another one who committed suicide. A Christian preacher who eagerly threatend me with eternal damnation, but who, after some back-and-forth, said, "But I'm a seeker just like you".
Then the more secular examples, like Marie Kondo.

Such incidents left me with a bitter taste. Many of these preachers have directed so much hatred and contempt at those they preached to -- and for what? — baker

So where does this leave you? What are your conclusions?

I think many of us have seen all of the above and worse. For several decades now, I've argued that, for the most part, people interested in pursuing religion, spirituality, and higher consciousness are as flawed, careless, and ambitious as any other group of people. And the Buddhists I have known are as bungled as of them, with substance abuse, violence, and dysfunctional behaviors.

None of this tells us whether their beliefs are true or not.

Given what you say, where do you think you could find a source of benign, non-authoritarian people who meet your standards?

Such a discussion of power is a way to distract from the actual power issues. — baker

How so?

It's the you-mode of talking that is auhoritarian. I've referred to this many times, many times. — baker

Like the comments presented by baker when arguing?

That's your projection. — baker

I went to some lengths to describe authoritarianism to you, — baker

you'd surely had some seminars on the topic, — baker

But I think you're trying to argue that when you do it it's philosophical and factual...

Someone like Pope Francis might seem like an all-round nice guy, but he still believed, and preached, eternal damnation for everyone who doesn't live up to the RCC's standards. — baker

I didn't mention any popes and do not think of Francis as a good guy, just a better pope.

And Christian preachers from other Christian denominations preach the same, just in favor of their own respective denomination. — baker

Didn't Jesus preach such things too? Isn't one problem here the notion that there may be a God who is a thug and a bully? If this is the case, then those hellfire preachers are correct and tough shit, baker, we're all fucked when we die if we didn't worship this thing in the right way. And your inadequate human understandings of power or justice matter not a jot...

But I still maintain that I have encountered preachers who do not appear to peddle authoritarian ideas; their God is ineffable, with no hell or banishment and no single, right way to worship or be a person.

I've always talked about the *uses* of power. But somehow, the Western PC discourse rules out any talk of power, as if any talk about power is talk about the abuse of power. — baker

I don’t think this is accurate. Isn’t the discourse of power one of the most common topics in Western PC circles? Isn’t that exactly what they’re often satirised for: the Foucauldian obsession with power?

IIRC, we've had this conversation before. I went to some lenghts to describe authoritarianism to you, and was surprised that you don't notice it. I assumed that working in the field of mental health, you'd surely had some seminars on the topic, especially on the modes of communication. Alas ... — baker

This feels more like a personal attack, with a passive-aggressive flourish. “Alas...” really? “You’d surely had some seminars”? I don’t understand why you need to make such snide comments.

As I said, I’ve experienced some Christian preachers who do not evoke a discourse of power. What you describe isn’t present in any "modes of communication". Your comment, “was surprised you don’t notice it” seems more like a jibe.

As long as they teach Christian doctrine, they can't be anything other than authoritarian. Because Christianity is based on an argument from power, it can only be authoritarian. — baker

Say more about that, since the opposite is the more common argument. And yes, before you say anything, I’m well aware of the history of Christianity. I’m more interested in your idea that there’s no possibility Christianity can be anything but authoritarian.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that, deep down, you are either a latent believer or a dormant believer? — Astorre

No. But I think you’re asking that because you can’t conceive of how my response could be rational, and so you assume it must belong to the realm of magical thinking. :wink:

Excellent. Now add a layer of responsibility: promoting something you're unsure of, you don't know the consequences, and you shift all the responsibility for following you onto the follower. — Astorre

I’m not convinced that’s how it works. You’re not including the ineffable (the sense of the numinous), the importance of which can only be conveyed without any inherent expertise. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a believer in God to say that the truth ultimately lies not with him but with God, and through following a path and that all he (the preacher) can do is point in the right direction. To have a strong intuition and vocation, not to mention faith that this is the right way, is enough. And as we’ve already discussed, there are many types of preachers, and not all of them claim to represent divine authority or have definitive answers.

Now bear in mind I am an atheist and have no special fondness for religion or faith.

That was a significant emotional exaggeration. — Astorre

I can accept that you were using hyperbole; it just seemed out of context.

In this thread, the question seems to be: is it ethical to propagate something you don't fully understand or something you believe in without foundation (for example, if you've simply been brainwashed). A "preacher" in this context isn't necessarily an imaginary priest of some church, but anyone who advocates something. — Astorre

So you're saying that this thread is about whether it’s morally acceptable to promote or advocate for ideas that you don’t really understand or can’t justify rationally?

That’s certainly not what I thought the paradox was about. Yes, I think it’s acceptable to promote or advocate ideas you don’t fully understand or can’t justify rationally. Most people do so regularly, whether it’s their advocacy of climate change action, democracy, religion, or world peace. :wink: I don't think it's primarily a moral question, it's more a question of insight and wisdom. In life I don't take it for granted that anyone knows what they are talking about... me included.