Kevin's Watch

There's no danger to diversity, that's always going to exist. But tolerance? Ah, that is sometimes hard to maintain (and to continue some of the feelings expressed in this thread, hard to define). I like Rus' example of living peaceably with flat-earthers. One could surely let the flat-earthers pursue happiness how we would like to be allowed to seek our goals. However, if a group starts lobbying to have the "Flat Earth" theory taught as an equally viable theory along with "Sphere Earth" theory...well, I don't think I would allow that.

Ultimately, the tolerance we should be aiming for is that which allows one to follow the dictates of his beliefs (this is an over-simplification, but there's something to it, I think) and not that everyone should accept each philosophy as possibly correct and considered on the same level with other beliefs.

For example, I could be tolerant of vegans and allow them to not eat meat while they could be tolerant of me and let me eat steak. Intolerance would be me trying to sneak pieces of meat in their tofu and actively trying to turn them into meat eaters while they blow up my slaughterhouses and try to force me to give up meat.

As always, there's some gray areas. I think discussions like these, so long as all the parties involved are just trying to be understood, are good and examples of tolerance. However, a missionary knocking on your door and telling you that unless you believe what they believe, you're going to hell, that is or borders on intolerance.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Avatar wrote: Just because I call a hill what you might call a mountain, or vice versa, does not mean there are no mountains. Makes me think of two quotes myself..."to the climber, the mountain is clearer from the plain" and "You can't tell how steep it is until you're right up against it."

Does there need to be a fixed height for mountains? I would have thought that you would be arguing that there was. (Or should be.)

--A

Well, Av, generally speaking, I DON'T think you call my hill a mountain and vice versa in our discussions of absolute and relative truths. I think you say "there is no mountain". That's certainly what I take from your consistent denial of objective, overarching standards. I admit relative truths. I just say that there is an Absolute behind them. You deny that absolute, and leave only the relative. You say "everything depends", and I say that "depend" means "hang", and that there logically must be something to ultimately hang everything from (or better, that it hangs/depends on).

I've said it before - and so has Lewis - that you can't use the ideas of better or worse until you have established what is good and bad. Without your absolutes to anchor them, you can have no relative. Or, if you like, without an Arch of Time, you can have no world.

But many of us disagree. We say there doesn't need to be an absolute to hang these things on. It isn't necessary. And we seem to be managing just fine this way.

"Managing just fine"? No doubt. (Whatever that means.) Arriving at common truth? Obviously not.

Fist and Faith wrote:And when that absolute is something for which there is no evidence, and no reason to believe in, deciding to accept it as the absolute is just silly. (From our point of view, that is. Obviously, you have reason to believe. But it's the kind that cannot be shared or demonstrated, so it doesn't work for some of us.)

Quite. But my position, and the common sense that it is founded on, really is common. It begins from ideas accepted by my own ancestors for a couple of millenia, and has far more in common with the totality of human experience over time than the position of the modern skeptic does. It starts from the idea that not only am I not superior to my ancestors (the myth of evolutionism*, a major foundation of modern skepticism), but that I actually ought to learn from them - and that includes, above all, things that can't be scientifically proven/demonstrated.


*note, 'evolutionism' does NOT mean 'the scientific theory of evolution'

Fist and Faith wrote: I don't remember "Philosophy for the Schoolroom", and I only see you mentioned it above. I don't know if I agree that that is an acceptable springboard.

Sorry.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/philosophy.html

What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking. And it has this special and positive point about it, that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.

Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this--that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism.

Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad. All of us believe in St. Paul's Cathedral; most of us believe in St. Paul. But let us clearly realize this fact, that we do believe in a number of things which are part of our existence, but which cannot be demonstrated. Leave religion for the moment wholly out of the question. All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable. Let us state them roughly.

1. Every sane man believes that the world around him and the people in it are real, and not his own delusion or dream. No man starts burning London in the belief that his servant will soon wake him for breakfast. But that I, at any given moment, am not in a dream, is unproved and unprovable. That anything exists except myself is unproved and unprovable.
2. All sane men believe that this world not only exists, but matters. Every man believes there is a sort of obligation on us to interest ourselves in this vision or panorama of life. He would think a man wrong who said, "I did not ask for this farce and it bores me. I am aware that an old lady is being murdered down-stairs, but I am going to sleep." That there is any such duty to improve the things we did not make is a thing unproved and unprovable.
3. All sane men believe that there is such a thing as a self, or ego, which is continuous. There is no inch of my brain matter the same as it was ten years ago. But if I have saved a man in battle ten years ago, I am proud; if I have run away, I am ashamed. That there is such a paramount "I" is unproved and unprovable. But it is more than unproved and unprovable; it is definitely disputed by many metaphysicians.
4. Lastly, most sane men believe, and all sane men in practice assume, that they have a power of choice and responsibility for action.

Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought.

Orlion wrote:There's no danger to diversity, that's always going to exist. But tolerance? Ah, that is sometimes hard to maintain (and to continue some of the feelings expressed in this thread, hard to define). I like Rus' example of living peaceably with flat-earthers. One could surely let the flat-earthers pursue happiness how we would like to be allowed to seek our goals. However, if a group starts lobbying to have the "Flat Earth" theory taught as an equally viable theory along with "Sphere Earth" theory...well, I don't think I would allow that.

Ultimately, the tolerance we should be aiming for is that which allows one to follow the dictates of his beliefs (this is an over-simplification, but there's something to it, I think) and not that everyone should accept each philosophy as possibly correct and considered on the same level with other beliefs.

For example, I could be tolerant of vegans and allow them to not eat meat while they could be tolerant of me and let me eat steak. Intolerance would be me trying to sneak pieces of meat in their tofu and actively trying to turn them into meat eaters while they blow up my slaughterhouses and try to force me to give up meat.

As always, there's some gray areas. I think discussions like these, so long as all the parties involved are just trying to be understood, are good and examples of tolerance. However, a missionary knocking on your door and telling you that unless you believe what they believe, you're going to hell, that is or borders on intolerance.

I object to the very understandings you (and everybody else today) applies to the words "tolerance" and "intolerance". They are based on a rhetorical use that calls for non-thinking.

"Tolerance!" (Dogs wag tails and pant)
"Intolerance!" (Dogs snarl and bare their teeth)

I say that there ARE some things that should not be tolerated, in which cases intolerance is the virtue and tolerance is the evil.

We should not "tolerate" poisonous mushrooms, or whateve

This is a major theme in what I've been saying about euphemisms and use of language - the aspect that Fist and others seem to want to avoid because I apparently "have an agenda" - which I see as simply attempting to demonstrate what is true and what has been done to us all without our being aware of it. We repeat the terms we get in school/college and hear in the media, not thinking about the terms themselves - taking them and how they are used for granted. Freeing one's mind involves learning to see that - that we have been indoctrinated no less thoroughly than our ancestors were in Christianity, with the staggering difference that they didn't pretend to not indoctrinate, whereas we do. I submit that the universal use of the terms (that you all use in the same way and meaning largely the same things) "tolerance", "diversity", "multiculturalism", etc, is evidence of that.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Well, Av, generally speaking, I DON'T think you call my hill a mountain and vice versa in our discussions of absolute and relative truths. I think you say "there is no mountain". That's certainly what I take from your consistent denial of objective, overarching standards. I admit relative truths. I just say that there is an Absolute behind them. You deny that absolute, and leave only the relative. You say "everything depends", and I say that "depend" means "hang", and that there logically must be something to ultimately hang everything from (or better, that it hangs/depends on).

I've said it before - and so has Lewis - that you can't use the ideas of better or worse until you have established what is good and bad. Without your absolutes to anchor them, you can have no relative. Or, if you like, without an Arch of Time, you can have no world.

But many of us disagree. We say there doesn't need to be an absolute to hang these things on. It isn't necessary. And we seem to be managing just fine this way.

"Managing just fine"? No doubt. (Whatever that means.) Arriving at common truth? Obviously not.

"Managing just fine" means I'm able to function, to survive, to thrive in this reality. Not having your absolute doesn't lead to any harm.

And not arriving at a common truth is not evidence that not having your absolute is a problem. That's your goal. I (and it seems most here) am not concerned with it.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:And when that absolute is something for which there is no evidence, and no reason to believe in, deciding to accept it as the absolute is just silly. (From our point of view, that is. Obviously, you have reason to believe. But it's the kind that cannot be shared or demonstrated, so it doesn't work for some of us.)

Quite. But my position, and the common sense that it is founded on, really is common. It begins from ideas accepted by my own ancestors for a couple of millenia, and has far more in common with the totality of human experience over time than the position of the modern skeptic does. It starts from the idea that not only am I not superior to my ancestors (the myth of evolutionism*, a major foundation of modern skepticism), but that I actually ought to learn from them - and that includes, above all, things that can't be scientifically proven/demonstrated.


*note, 'evolutionism' does NOT mean 'the scientific theory of evolution'

Something is not necessarily correct just because it has been clung to for a very long time. If there is no way to demonstrate its correctness, and if not clinging to it does not cause problems (which might be a way to demonstrate its correctness), then there's no reason to assume it's correct.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: I don't remember "Philosophy for the Schoolroom", and I only see you mentioned it above. I don't know if I agree that that is an acceptable springboard.

Sorry.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/philosophy.html

What modern people want to be made to understand is simply that all argument begins with an assumption; that is, with something that you do not doubt. You can, of course, if you like, doubt the assumption at the beginning of your argument, but in that case you are beginning a different argument with another assumption at the beginning of it. Every argument begins with an infallible dogma, and that infallible dogma can only be disputed by falling back on some other infallible dogma; you can never prove your first statement or it would not be your first. All this is the alphabet of thinking. And it has this special and positive point about it, that it can be taught in a school, like the other alphabet. Not to start an argument without stating your postulates could be taught in philosophy as it is taught in Euclid, in a common schoolroom with a blackboard. And I think it might be taught in some simple and rational degree even to the young, before they go out into the streets and are delivered over entirely to the logic and philosophy of the Daily Mail.

Much of our chaos about religion and doubt arises from this--that our modern sceptics always begin by telling us what they do not believe. But even in a sceptic we want to know first what he does believe. Before arguing, we want to know what we need not argue about. And this confusion is infinitely increased by the fact that all the sceptics of our time are sceptics at different degrees of the dissolution of scepticism.

Now you and I have, I hope, this advantage over all those clever new philosophers, that we happen not to be mad. All of us believe in St. Paul's Cathedral; most of us believe in St. Paul. But let us clearly realize this fact, that we do believe in a number of things which are part of our existence, but which cannot be demonstrated. Leave religion for the moment wholly out of the question. All sane men, I say, believe firmly and unalterably in a certain number of things which are unproved and unprovable. Let us state them roughly.

1. Every sane man believes that the world around him and the people in it are real, and not his own delusion or dream. No man starts burning London in the belief that his servant will soon wake him for breakfast. But that I, at any given moment, am not in a dream, is unproved and unprovable. That anything exists except myself is unproved and unprovable.
2. All sane men believe that this world not only exists, but matters. Every man believes there is a sort of obligation on us to interest ourselves in this vision or panorama of life. He would think a man wrong who said, "I did not ask for this farce and it bores me. I am aware that an old lady is being murdered down-stairs, but I am going to sleep." That there is any such duty to improve the things we did not make is a thing unproved and unprovable.
3. All sane men believe that there is such a thing as a self, or ego, which is continuous. There is no inch of my brain matter the same as it was ten years ago. But if I have saved a man in battle ten years ago, I am proud; if I have run away, I am ashamed. That there is such a paramount "I" is unproved and unprovable. But it is more than unproved and unprovable; it is definitely disputed by many metaphysicians.
4. Lastly, most sane men believe, and all sane men in practice assume, that they have a power of choice and responsibility for action.

Surely it might be possible to establish some plain, dull statement such as the above, to make people see where they stand. And if the youth of the future must not (at present) be taught any religion, it might at least be taught, clearly and firmly, the three or four sanities and certainties of human free thought.

Ah. I didn't know that was its title. Yeah, as I said, far and away the best thing of his I've seen. If you'll supply a definition for "sane", we can begin. I doubt it's going to be the understanding of the word I currently have (which is most certainly not well-defined, and might not be the accepted definition), but that's ok. Even if he doesn't use the accepted definition, I just need to know what he means.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: But many of us disagree. We say there doesn't need to be an absolute to hang these things on. It isn't necessary. And we seem to be managing just fine this way.

"Managing just fine"? No doubt. (Whatever that means.) Arriving at common truth? Obviously not.

"Managing just fine" means I'm able to function, to survive, to thrive in this reality. Not having your absolute doesn't lead to any harm.

And not arriving at a common truth is not evidence that not having your absolute is a problem. That's your goal. I (and it seems most here) am not concerned with it.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:And when that absolute is something for which there is no evidence, and no reason to believe in, deciding to accept it as the absolute is just silly. (From our point of view, that is. Obviously, you have reason to believe. But it's the kind that cannot be shared or demonstrated, so it doesn't work for some of us.)

Quite. But my position, and the common sense that it is founded on, really is common. It begins from ideas accepted by my own ancestors for a couple of millenia, and has far more in common with the totality of human experience over time than the position of the modern skeptic does. It starts from the idea that not only am I not superior to my ancestors (the myth of evolutionism*, a major foundation of modern skepticism), but that I actually ought to learn from them - and that includes, above all, things that can't be scientifically proven/demonstrated.


*note, 'evolutionism' does NOT mean 'the scientific theory of evolution'

Something is not necessarily correct just because it has been clung to for a very long time. If there is no way to demonstrate its correctness, and if not clinging to it does not cause problems (which might be a way to demonstrate its correctness), then there's no reason to assume it's correct.

On the first one, what on earth are you doing here asking questions in the Close if you don't want to discover the answers or fine-tune/correct the ones you already have? Are all these discussions on abortion or the meaning of life just some kind of game?

And while something is not necessarily correct for having been accepted for a very long time, it is much more likely to contain truth than a fad or fashion of the moment. It is the same principle on which classics survive, and is called "the test of time" - because generation after generation says, "we find value (or truth) in this and think it worthy of passing on to our children.".

Fist and Faith wrote: Ah. I didn't know that was its title. Yeah, as I said, far and away the best thing of his I've seen. If you'll supply a definition for "sane", we can begin. I doubt it's going to be the understanding of the word I currently have (which is most certainly not well-defined, and might not be the accepted definition), but that's ok. Even if he doesn't use the accepted definition, I just need to know what he means.

I'd say "sane" in the sense he and I mean is not the common one used in trials of "able to express thought in a rational way", but rather, "using thought to achieve correct conclusions". A person who goes deeply wrong in their thinking could, while seeming rational, be thinking very wrong, interpreting good as evil and vice-versa, for instance, and this would be a form of insanity. An insanity of the power of higher reasoning, if you will. Such insanity would be much more common among intellectuals, because common people never go that far in their thinking - and generally have a much greater trust of tradition, that which guides most of humanity.

Thus, the nihilist professor in "Manalive" was insane, even though externally rational, and it took an apparently crazy man (who was actually sane) putting a gun to his head to strip away the nonsense he had clouded his thinking with.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZbJeHAFOSk

(It's so much fun to watch! )

rusmeister wrote:On the first one, what on earth are you doing here asking questions in the Close if you don't want to discover the answers or fine-tune/correct the ones you already have? Are all these discussions on abortion or the meaning of life just some kind of game?

More than anything, I'm trying to understand myself. It often helps to understand something by holding it up to its opposite. (That would be you. ) It's also important to thoroughly examine things. Which I'm able to do here, because you challenge everything I say. I have to be sure of what I mean; what I think. So thanks for posting!

But none of this means I have any hope that we will ever come to agree on an absolute truth. It's not gonna happen. It's not my goal. Yes, it would be nice if you ever once "saw the light". It is... discomforting knowing that you believe as you do, and that you're not alone.

rusmeister wrote:And while something is not necessarily correct for having been accepted for a very long time, it is much more likely to contain truth than a fad or fashion of the moment. It is the same principle on which classics survive, and is called "the test of time" - because generation after generation says, "we find value (or truth) in this and think it worthy of passing on to our children.".

A belief held at the moment cannot be called "a fad or fashion of the moment." It is only after a belief ceases to be held that it can be seen to have been "of the moment." If it does cease to be held, it may well be because it was not correct. It could not stand up to the test of time. But you do not know that this is the case with my beliefs. Chesterton didn't write his stuff ten or twenty years ago. He wrote some of it a hundred years ago, and the stuff he wrote in opposition to was not, in all cases, brand new ideas. The beliefs you're arguing against have already been around for a very long time. Calling them "a fad or fashion of the moment" is an attempt to discredit them with a label that does not accurately apply to them. Is "slander" the correct word?

Further, a truth need not have been around as long as a long-held falsehood in order to be a truth. It can happen that the truth is seen after a long time of living under falsehood.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:On the first one, what on earth are you doing here asking questions in the Close if you don't want to discover the answers or fine-tune/correct the ones you already have? Are all these discussions on abortion or the meaning of life just some kind of game?

More than anything, I'm trying to understand myself. It often helps to understand something by holding it up to its opposite. (That would be you. ) It's also important to thoroughly examine things. Which I'm able to do here, because you challenge everything I say. I have to be sure of what I mean; what I think. So thanks for posting!

But none of this means I have any hope that we will ever come to agree on an absolute truth. It's not gonna happen. It's not my goal. Yes, it would be nice if you ever once "saw the light". It is... discomforting knowing that you believe as you do, and that you're not alone.

rusmeister wrote:And while something is not necessarily correct for having been accepted for a very long time, it is much more likely to contain truth than a fad or fashion of the moment. It is the same principle on which classics survive, and is called "the test of time" - because generation after generation says, "we find value (or truth) in this and think it worthy of passing on to our children.".

A belief held at the moment cannot be called "a fad or fashion of the moment." It is only after a belief ceases to be held that it can be seen to have been "of the moment." If it does cease to be held, it may well be because it was not correct. It could not stand up to the test of time. But you do not know that this is the case with my beliefs. Chesterton didn't write his stuff ten or twenty years ago. He wrote some of it a hundred years ago, and the stuff he wrote in opposition to was not, in all cases, brand new ideas. The beliefs you're arguing against have already been around for a very long time. Calling them "a fad or fashion of the moment" is an attempt to discredit them with a label that does not accurately apply to them. Is "slander" the correct word?

Further, a truth need not have been around as long as a long-held falsehood in order to be a truth. It can happen that the truth is seen after a long time of living under falsehood.

Wow! So are we opposites in the manner of Spiderman and Venom? Or Covenant and Lord Foul?

Seriously, I'd say that "understanding yourself" must mean understanding the true relation between you and the universe that you experience. So it can only be in relation to what is true - nothing else makes any sense.

I disagree on fashions. If something is popular and new, I don't need to wait until it ceases to be popular to declare it a fashion. Indeed, all new things are fashions until they cease to be new.

Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Agreed on hidden truths. It's just that in the things we are talking about, the probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition - on the collective opinion of our ancestors. You can point out exceptions, and I will point out that they are exceptions.

rusmeister wrote:Wow! So are we opposites in the manner of Spiderman and Venom? Or Covenant and Lord Foul?

I don't think either of those is right. I'll let you know if I come up with one. But it could be that we will be the example given in the future! How cool is that?? "You two are like Fist and Faith and rusmeister." (They'll usually follow that with, "But, man, that rusmeister guy was just so out of Fist's league, wasn't he?" )

rusmeister wrote:Seriously, I'd say that "understanding yourself" must mean understanding the true relation between you and the universe that you experience. So it can only be in relation to what is true - nothing else makes any sense.

Well then I'm sure glad I know what is true. I'm as sure I know the truth as you are that you know the truth. The difference between us is that I don't keep telling you you're wrong. The difference is not the slightest bit of evidence in favor of either of us.

rusmeister wrote:I disagree on fashions. If something is popular and new, I don't need to wait until it ceases to be popular to declare it a fashion. Indeed, all new things are fashions until they cease to be new.

And how many years, how many centuries does something have to exist before you will declare it more worthy of respect than a fashion?

rusmeister wrote:Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Agreed on hidden truths. It's just that in the things we are talking about, the probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition - on the collective opinion of our ancestors. You can point out exceptions, and I will point out that they are exceptions.

"The probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition" is an unsupportable statement. There are traditions that have been going on, uninterruped, for longer than Orthodox traditions. Some for far longer. Some aspects of the culture of Australian aboriginies have been going on for tens of thousands of years. I'm sure various Jewish traditions have been going on far longer than yours. And Hindu? If tradition means truth, does longer-running tradition indicate greater truth than relatively newer traditions? Or are these the kinds of things that are exceptions? I first thought you meant traditional things that you and I agree are not truth (I'm sure we can find some), but now I'm not sure which you mean.

Or is it only those traditions that do not agree with Orthodox teachings that are exceptions?

rusmeister wrote: Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Or, gay marriage isn't a fashion, it's a culmination of truths finally breaking free that tradition has been intentionally supressing for centuries in order to maintain power.
For instance that marriage was a power structure designed for the benefit of men in at least 3 ways: economic benefit and control, social benefit and control, and to try to soothe the male ego by ensuring the children he raised were really his own. [the inadequate sexual perfomance of men without lots of practice and training by women, and the shame men feel because of it, were part of it, too,...but secret]
Also the suppression of the fact that, no matter what anyone says, "gayness" isn't unnatural, it isn't only human or perversion, it isn't anti-survival...it isn't even necessarily "not masculine" since a fair number of the gay men I know could kick the living crap out of the "real men" who feel free to insult them.
And, as far as we can tell from actual records, the idea [part of existentialism] that there isn't any absolute truth/meaning/God is every bit as old as the idea that there is. It just kept getting shouted down, because citing the truth as your basis is an excellent way to gain followers and power.

Vraith wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Or, gay marriage isn't a fashion, it's a culmination of truths finally breaking free that tradition has been intentionally supressing for centuries in order to maintain power.
For instance that marriage was a power structure designed for the benefit of men in at least 3 ways: economic benefit and control, social benefit and control, and to try to soothe the male ego by ensuring the children he raised were really his own. [the inadequate sexual perfomance of men without lots of practice and training by women, and the shame men feel because of it, were part of it, too,...but secret]
Also the suppression of the fact that, no matter what anyone says, "gayness" isn't unnatural, it isn't only human or perversion, it isn't anti-survival...it isn't even necessarily "not masculine" since a fair number of the gay men I know could kick the living crap out of the "real men" who feel free to insult them.
And, as far as we can tell from actual records, the idea [part of existentialism] that there isn't any absolute truth/meaning/God is every bit as old as the idea that there is. It just kept getting shouted down, because citing the truth as your basis is an excellent way to gain followers and power.

Not sure what "records" you are referring to. If you mean the question of doubt, of course. People have always asked that question, and have always entertained the idea that there is no god. However, the overwhelming consensus of humanity throughout history has been to answer that question in the affirmative, and it is only in very decadent times such as ours that the tiny minority that actually says "No, there isn't" becomes respectable and gains influence. Your idea that "shouting down" (casting opponents as unreasonable) is a power ploy, and that that is the purpose of religion, is a view found nearly exclusively among people who are not religious. They are not on the inside, and in general, don't know what they are talking about. It would be as if I complained about teacher's unions as power vehicles, while never having been a teacher and never having been inside the institution, and yet, I somehow know all about it.

On the rest ("gay marriage" etc), you're avoiding my point and just expressing what you believe. My point that they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries (OK, millennia) stands. THAT is the fact, and I define it as "fashion".

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Wow! So are we opposites in the manner of Spiderman and Venom? Or Covenant and Lord Foul?

I don't think either of those is right. I'll let you know if I come up with one. But it could be that we will be the example given in the future! How cool is that?? "You two are like Fist and Faith and rusmeister." (They'll usually follow that with, "But, man, that rusmeister guy was just so out of Fist's league, wasn't he?" )

"What a woman--oh, what a woman!" cried the King of Bohemia, when we had all three read this epistle. "Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?"

"From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly.

Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Case of Identity"

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Seriously, I'd say that "understanding yourself" must mean understanding the true relation between you and the universe that you experience. So it can only be in relation to what is true - nothing else makes any sense.

Well then I'm sure glad I know what is true. I'm as sure I know the truth as you are that you know the truth. The difference between us is that I don't keep telling you you're wrong. The difference is not the slightest bit of evidence in favor of either of us.

Well, if you are trying to understand yourself, it follows that there is some truth that you have not yet discovered. So my point is that you must be pursuing truth. Which presumes some overarching standard by which you can understand yourself/that truth/those truths. And in doing this in an environment which essentially denies such an overarching standard, you can never do it. One must first admit that mutually exclusive views cannot both/all be true, and that at least one, if not both or all the participants, must be wrong.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I disagree on fashions. If something is popular and new, I don't need to wait until it ceases to be popular to declare it a fashion. Indeed, all new things are fashions until they cease to be new.

And how many years, how many centuries does something have to exist before you will declare it more worthy of respect than a fashion?

I'm back to the 'mountain quote'.

It is better occasionally to call some
mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state
in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that
there are no mountains in the world.

A new fashion might be an anthill; one that has been around for a generation might be a hill, but tradition is, generally speaking, a mountain. To people who think in terms of millenia, decades are nothing, and even a century is a short period of time. That's the framework in which I speak of tradition. Not given isolated traditions in isolated communities that provide the exceptions that y'all like pointing to as bad tradition, but that which has been commonly agreed on for a thousand years or more. We CAN say that some traditions fit this criterion, and that therefore, there IS such a thing as tradition distinct from fashion.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Agreed on hidden truths. It's just that in the things we are talking about, the probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition - on the collective opinion of our ancestors. You can point out exceptions, and I will point out that they are exceptions.

"The probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition" is an unsupportable statement. There are traditions that have been going on, uninterruped, for longer than Orthodox traditions. Some for far longer. Some aspects of the culture of Australian aboriginies have been going on for tens of thousands of years. I'm sure various Jewish traditions have been going on far longer than yours. And Hindu? If tradition means truth, does longer-running tradition indicate greater truth than relatively newer traditions? Or are these the kinds of things that are exceptions? I first thought you meant traditional things that you and I agree are not truth (I'm sure we can find some), but now I'm not sure which you mean.

I disagree. I think that my statement is supportable. I'm talking about probability, not absolute facts. If ALL OTHER factors are equal, and 999, 990,000 people throughout history more or less agree on certain concepts of morality - I'll take the idea of monogamy, for example - and 10,000 people disagree, who is more likely to be right in terms of being normal and healthy humans, and who is more likely to be wrong? In terms of probability, it is far more likely that a small minority is unhealthy than that most humans throughout history consistently got it wrong until this 'elite' came along. Once it is admitted that there is such a thing as probability, and that tradition, in the sense I am talking about of common agreement and of passing on a heritage, does unite people across time, as democracy theoretically unites them across space, then my idea has support.

Fist and Faith wrote:Or is it only those traditions that do not agree with Orthodox teachings that are exceptions?

I think you know by now that I admit varying degrees of truth in different faith traditions, and that a great many of them agree to a considerable extent with my own faith tradition (Orthodoxy). The ones that don't agree (present tense, referring to the early 21st century) really are exceptions, and some that now do not agree agreed as recently as 50 or 100 years ago. In short, they have abandoned tradition, and so have made themselves exceptions. They are not yet the rule; they could conceivably become the rule someday (and I think this likely) and it will be a dark time for humanity when they do, although few can imagine that now. Most hope for a Star Trekkian future where man solves his problems without God. To which the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn ought to ring:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote:If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible that main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Wow! So are we opposites in the manner of Spiderman and Venom? Or Covenant and Lord Foul?

I don't think either of those is right. I'll let you know if I come up with one. But it could be that we will be the example given in the future! How cool is that?? "You two are like Fist and Faith and rusmeister." (They'll usually follow that with, "But, man, that rusmeister guy was just so out of Fist's league, wasn't he?" )

"What a woman--oh, what a woman!" cried the King of Bohemia, when we had all three read this epistle. "Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?"

"From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly.

Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Case of Identity"

Well! I never!!

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Seriously, I'd say that "understanding yourself" must mean understanding the true relation between you and the universe that you experience. So it can only be in relation to what is true - nothing else makes any sense.

Well then I'm sure glad I know what is true. I'm as sure I know the truth as you are that you know the truth. The difference between us is that I don't keep telling you you're wrong. The difference is not the slightest bit of evidence in favor of either of us.

Well, if you are trying to understand yourself, it follows that there is some truth that you have not yet discovered. So my point is that you must be pursuing truth. Which presumes some overarching standard by which you can understand yourself/that truth/those truths. And in doing this in an environment which essentially denies such an overarching standard, you can never do it. One must first admit that mutually exclusive views cannot both/all be true, and that at least one, if not both or all the participants, must be wrong.

That's only how people with your type of worldview insist things must be. It is not necessarily how things must be. It is not necessarily how things are.

It does not follow that there is some truth that I have not yet discovered. It just means I am still learning about myself, and deciding how I do and will view whatever truths I have already found. How I will fit myself into this world.

I have found the Truth. Or, to put it more accurately, I have come to see the way things are. All of us - because of the unique way all of our brains are wired, and because of the unique set of experiences we have each had with all the other uniquely wired brains in our lives - want, and require, certain things. Some are things we do want and need; others are things we do not want, and cannot have. We attempt to acquire the things we want and need. We attempt to avoid the things we don't want and cannot accept. Our worldviews are how we reconcile the things that are actually physical facts of existence with these wants and needs.

If you want to call this Truth, that's fine. But it's no more a truth than is the fact that gravity works in such-and-such a way, or that images reflect off of mirrors. It's simply the way things are. And it is certainly not an "overarching standard" kind of thing. It is nothing to be judged. No worldview is "better" than another. They are all simply the way each individual makes sense of it all.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I disagree on fashions. If something is popular and new, I don't need to wait until it ceases to be popular to declare it a fashion. Indeed, all new things are fashions until they cease to be new.

And how many years, how many centuries does something have to exist before you will declare it more worthy of respect than a fashion?

I'm back to the 'mountain quote'.

It is better occasionally to call some
mountains hills, and some hills mountains, than to be in that mental state
in which one thinks, because there is no fixed height for a mountain, that
there are no mountains in the world.

A new fashion might be an anthill; one that has been around for a generation might be a hill, but tradition is, generally speaking, a mountain. To people who think in terms of millenia, decades are nothing, and even a century is a short period of time. That's the framework in which I speak of tradition. Not given isolated traditions in isolated communities that provide the exceptions that y'all like pointing to as bad tradition, but that which has been commonly agreed on for a thousand years or more. We CAN say that some traditions fit this criterion, and that therefore, there IS such a thing as tradition distinct from fashion.

Yes. I agree that there is a difference between tradition and fashion. But, first, I don't agree that tradition equals right/correct/good. There are traditions that I consider to be evil. (The female genital mutilation that was discussed in the Tank, is an easy example. But those who have been practicing it for many centuries disagree.) And often enough, a tradition is not good; it is simply good enough. Societies can exist for a long time with things happening a certain way, even if they could be better. It's no big deal women are largely subservient to their husbands. Not slavery; not beatings. But the husband mades every decision for the family. It's really not a problem, though, is it? They are fed; the children are plentiful, and fed; the crops are grown; etc. It's just traditional.

Second, I believe you will always find a way to discount any tradition that does not agree with Chesterton, and claim it is not a tradition because ___. If you haven't already worked out all the criteria that will accomplish this, you'll do so on a case-by-case basis.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Some ideas are indeed fashions - they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries; for example, "gay marriage" is undeniably a fashion by that definition. It DOES accurately apply and is by no means slander. Ditto for existentialism. (Fortunately, the latter has remained a fashion of the intellectual elite - a classification that I do not always see as positive.)

Agreed on hidden truths. It's just that in the things we are talking about, the probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition - on the collective opinion of our ancestors. You can point out exceptions, and I will point out that they are exceptions.

"The probability of truth is heavily on the side of tradition" is an unsupportable statement. There are traditions that have been going on, uninterruped, for longer than Orthodox traditions. Some for far longer. Some aspects of the culture of Australian aboriginies have been going on for tens of thousands of years. I'm sure various Jewish traditions have been going on far longer than yours. And Hindu? If tradition means truth, does longer-running tradition indicate greater truth than relatively newer traditions? Or are these the kinds of things that are exceptions? I first thought you meant traditional things that you and I agree are not truth (I'm sure we can find some), but now I'm not sure which you mean.

I disagree. I think that my statement is supportable. I'm talking about probability, not absolute facts. If ALL OTHER factors are equal, and 999, 990,000 people throughout history more or less agree on certain concepts of morality - I'll take the idea of monogamy, for example - and 10,000 people disagree, who is more likely to be right in terms of being normal and healthy humans, and who is more likely to be wrong? In terms of probability, it is far more likely that a small minority is unhealthy than that most humans throughout history consistently got it wrong until this 'elite' came along. Once it is admitted that there is such a thing as probability, and that tradition, in the sense I am talking about of common agreement and of passing on a heritage, does unite people across time, as democracy theoretically unites them across space, then my idea has support.

As I've said before, the human race has not practiced monogamy. The closest humanity comes to monogamy is serial monogamy. How many people do you know that have had only one sex partner in their lives? Anybody reading this? Anybody either of us knows in real life? Me? (No. Even I, with my extraordinary lack of insight into women, have had more than one.) You? Where's monogamy in our species?

Genetically, humanity is the result of this polygamy. None of us is the result of generations of monogamous couples. All of us have ancestors who were the result of extra-marital affairs; second/third/fourth marriages; premarital sex; etc. How many people have half-siblings? I do. My children do. My father does. My ex-wife does. Her father does. Her half-sibling has children with more than one partner.

Monogamy is a myth. It has never been practiced by the majority of humans.

rusmeister wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Or is it only those traditions that do not agree with Orthodox teachings that are exceptions?

I think you know by now that I admit varying degrees of truth in different faith traditions, and that a great many of them agree to a considerable extent with my own faith tradition (Orthodoxy). The ones that don't agree (present tense, referring to the early 21st century) really are exceptions, and some that now do not agree agreed as recently as 50 or 100 years ago. In short, they have abandoned tradition, and so have made themselves exceptions. They are not yet the rule; they could conceivably become the rule someday (and I think this likely) and it will be a dark time for humanity when they do, although few can imagine that now. Most hope for a Star Trekkian future where man solves his problems without God. To which the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn ought to ring:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote:If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible that main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.

And yet, when men have remembered God, they have had Crusades; Inquisitions; beaten their children weekly, assuming the kids did some bad stuff that nobody knew about; held back knowledge by threatening those who would educate others with excommunication, or worse means; and on and on. How many "exceptions" to the case do you have to see before you see that they are not exceptions? Those of all belief systems have committed atrocities, and have created glories. Not each individual of any belief system, but the groups in general.

rusmeister wrote: Your idea that "shouting down" (casting opponents as unreasonable) is a power ploy, and that that is the purpose of religion, is a view found nearly exclusively among people who are not religious.

FWIW, I don't think that only religions play with the truth for power, nor that all religions do it all the time, and certainly not that everyone who beilieves does so. I don't even believe it's the reason most "gather together." Nevertheless, the shouting down does happen, and happens often in important ways, on various scales, in subtle and unsubtle guises.
I might say that, in certain aspects, diversity and tolerance among faiths is a "fashion," by your defintion. [and only some groups show it].

On the rest ("gay marriage" etc), you're avoiding my point and just expressing what you believe. My point that they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries (OK, millennia) stands. THAT is the fact, and I define it as "fashion".

Not actually avoiding the point. Saying the social treatments and structures of the 2 things [marriage and homosexuality] didn't exist to allow gay marriage to happen under any circumstances. Now, here, they do, and the people who DON'T want it are simply expressing logically unsupportable prejudice [intolerance], since homosexuals are not any of the "bad" things they're historically/religiously/traditionally described as. I suppose that might make it "fashion," under your definition. But you include entire fields of thought with long histories as fashions, and I don't think that fits.

Rus wrote:I think you say "there is no mountain".

Nope, I just say that your mountain isn't necessarily my mountain.

--A

Vraith wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Your idea that "shouting down" (casting opponents as unreasonable) is a power ploy, and that that is the purpose of religion, is a view found nearly exclusively among people who are not religious.

FWIW, I don't think that only religions play with the truth for power, nor that all religions do it all the time, and certainly not that everyone who beilieves does so. I don't even believe it's the reason most "gather together." Nevertheless, the shouting down does happen, and happens often in important ways, on various scales, in subtle and unsubtle guises.
I might say that, in certain aspects, diversity and tolerance among faiths is a "fashion," by your defintion. [and only some groups show it].

On the rest ("gay marriage" etc), you're avoiding my point and just expressing what you believe. My point that they are both recent and have not been supported by generations of people for centuries (OK, millennia) stands. THAT is the fact, and I define it as "fashion".

Not actually avoiding the point. Saying the social treatments and structures of the 2 things [marriage and homosexuality] didn't exist to allow gay marriage to happen under any circumstances. Now, here, they do, and the people who DON'T want it are simply expressing logically unsupportable prejudice [intolerance], since homosexuals are not any of the "bad" things they're historically/religiously/traditionally described as. I suppose that might make it "fashion," under your definition. But you include entire fields of thought with long histories as fashions, and I don't think that fits.

On "shouting down", I was working from your comment:

It just kept getting shouted down, because citing the truth as your basis is an excellent way to gain followers and power.

The idea that it gets shouted down because it introduces falsehood and heresy. I wonder if you are familiar with the Chestertonian understanding of "heresy"?

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical. The Bohemian, with a red tie, ought to pique himself on his orthodoxy. The dynamiter, laying a bomb, ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox.

If you understand that heresy can be a real clear and present danger, then you can grasp that "shouting it down" might be motivated by genuine concern for both the individual and society, much as you might want to shout down demands to legalize pedophilia. It would be unreasonable of me to characterize an attempt to squash pedophilia as simply a means of gaining followers and power. There are genuine reasons why it should be suppressed, which I hope you can see. Having grasped that, it can be possible to see why people would be similarly motivated to crush heresy and be completely reasonable, generous and liberal in doing so.

Again, you are using the word "intolerance" as an unqualified evil; does not my suggestion that one ought not tolerate poisoned mushrooms put the lie to that idea? Once you grasp that intolerance of some things is a virtue, you can see that

Furthermore, you say opposition to "gay marriage" is "unsupportable". But it IS supportable - it's just that the forms of direct support that you have heard haven't convinced you. This is going to lead me back to my promise to Fist to lay out a rational argument (whether you accept it or not) that does not require religious belief to understand.

Also, you say "long histories". I say that we have definitions of "long". You seem to measure it in decades; I measure it in millenia. To the latter, nothing measured by the former standard will seem long at all - it will be quite short.

Avatar wrote:

Rus wrote:I think you say "there is no mountain".

Nope, I just say that your mountain isn't necessarily my mountain.

--A

I think it adds up to the same thing.
You refuse to take a stand on any mountain, and so there is no necessary mountain AFAYC. That's what I've consistently gotten from you for over several years. That is how I continue to understand your position.

Truth and indeed some of what science uses to describe 'facts' about our universe are only truths until more 'facts' are uncovered'. We describe gravity by explaining its effects. We drop a ball and it falls to the ground. So you could say that its a fact that that ball 'will' fall to the ground every time you drop it.. but its only a fact until that time when it doesnt.

Some of that is deductive science which is not really dealing in 'facts' but instead probability. Example: You go outside and the parking lot is completely wet. You might say.. wow it rained outside by noticing the effect..but that doesnt make it a fact that it rained. Since it had been raining alot lately you might jump to the incorrect conclusion that it rained and for you...in your worldview at that time.. it rained. But if later you found out that the fire dept had been testing hydrants you might change your mind and say.. oh it didnt rain.. it was just the fire hydrants.. but even then you might be jumping to conclusions... because it still might have rained.

For centuries everyone, including the religious authorities of the time, believed that the earth was flat... and there are even terms like 'the 4 corners of the earth" which is not possibly since the earth is round(ish). So until we had this new information that told us 'factually' that the earth is round... we hold a 'truth' that the earth is indeed flat.

You people go to fast for me. I can't keep up. Its hard enough in the MMT thread.

Fist and Faith wrote: It is well beyond obvious that not everyone accepts that there is any "external something." It is also beyond obvious that we will never all accept the same external something. Therefore, we will never be able to use that as our way of thinking clearly or communicating meaningfully.

Yes, yes, huh? I'm not proposing we all need to agree on something external in order to communicate w/each other. I'm saying, b/c of that something, we can, whether we acknowledge it or not. Otherwise, if this universe came from nothing, there is no agreement, so your question about easy stuff is would be no. Or, maybe we could agree today, but tomorrow, who knows? Thankfully, no one actually lives like this, this only applies in the theoretical world. And there's a basis for rational thought, a reason we can think clearly, but no one has to understand that reason in order to gain the clear thinking, the basis is there regardless.