Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

NT's don't like to hear the truth?

Page 2 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 11:48 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Nor is the human capacity for self-deception always a bad thing. I think we developed this capacity to deal with situations that appear hopeless, and when rational thinking would tell us to give up. But if we can lie to ourselves that things aren't as bad as they appear to be, we can hang in there, and maybe things will improve. At base, I think the capacity to deceive ourselves is a survival mechanism.

True . . . when I look back at some of the things I've been convinced of at the time, I realize how far off base I was. But those beliefs did get me through hard times.


Ann, I agree. This is why much of the left sneers at religion, calling it the opiate of the people. They are of course right, but fail to realize that sometimes palliatives are good things. Problems arise when the use of palliative ideas get out of hand and begin to interfere with our ability to deal with reality.

I think the problem with religion is the same as the problem with any organization - it's made up of people. The goal or teachings of the group many be good, but you can never fully trust it because it is made up of thousands of individually functioning parts. And religion calls for faith. For me, that's not a possibility.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 12:04 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Nor is the human capacity for self-deception always a bad thing. I think we developed this capacity to deal with situations that appear hopeless, and when rational thinking would tell us to give up. But if we can lie to ourselves that things aren't as bad as they appear to be, we can hang in there, and maybe things will improve. At base, I think the capacity to deceive ourselves is a survival mechanism.

True . . . when I look back at some of the things I've been convinced of at the time, I realize how far off base I was. But those beliefs did get me through hard times.


Ann, I agree. This is why much of the left sneers at religion, calling it the opiate of the people. They are of course right, but fail to realize that sometimes palliatives are good things. Problems arise when the use of palliative ideas get out of hand and begin to interfere with our ability to deal with reality.

I think the problem with religion is the same as the problem with any organization - it's made up of people. The goal or teachings of the group many be good, but you can never fully trust it because it is made up of thousands of individually functioning parts. And religion calls for faith. For me, that's not a possibility.


Ann, I can't disagree with the faith part. I'm much too literal-minded ever to be able to take anything on faith. Having said that, I think Christianity has done far more good than harm. I say this because it provides a set of immutable moral values that are very difficult for the elite class to manipulate to their advantage.

For example, when liberal humanitarians would chide the Bolsheviks over their atrocities, it was standard procedure for the Bolsheviks to scorn "bourgeois sentimentality", which was their name for conventional morality. After all, if they control what is considered right and wrong, then they decide whether it is okay to murder innocent people by the millions. When we are allowed to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong, it is human nature to do so by what is to one's own advantage.

I also agree that way too many churches have only their own interests at heart. The irony is that they are in violation of their own doctrines.



starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

04 Jun 2013, 1:29 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Having said that, I think Christianity has done far more good than harm. I say this because it provides a set of immutable moral values that are very difficult for the elite class to manipulate to their advantage.


I hate to drag the thread off-topic, but this statement is blatantly, unbelievably false. The moral values of Christianity are not at all immutable; they have changed over time. Furthermore, quite a few elites (if by "elite class" you mean the rich and powerful) are and have been using Christianity to manipulate people in all sorts of ways – to justify slavery, war, and subjugation of women, to win votes in elections, and on and on.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:45 pm

starkid wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Having said that, I think Christianity has done far more good than harm. I say this because it provides a set of immutable moral values that are very difficult for the elite class to manipulate to their advantage.


I hate to drag the thread off-topic, but this statement is blatantly, unbelievably false. The moral values of Christianity are not at all immutable; they have changed over time. Furthermore, quite a few elites (if by "elite class" you mean the rich and powerful) are and have been using Christianity to manipulate people in all sorts of ways – to justify slavery, war, and subjugation of women, to win votes in elections, and on and on.




Christianity is bad compared to what? The left? The problem with the left is they would rather focus on the petty crimes of Christianity rather than their own almost unfathomable atrocities. For starters, communism alone killed a hundred million innocents in peacetime. When you can show me that Christianity is responsible anywhere near the number of deaths that the left is, we will have something to discuss.

Unlike Christianity, I can't think of a single nice thing to say about the left, and we can start with its incapacity to come to terms with its own flaws.



starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

04 Jun 2013, 1:46 pm

[quote="Thelibrarian"]
Christianity is bad compared to what.[/quote

I never said Christianity was bad. Try reading what I actually typed.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:49 pm

starkid wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Christianity is bad compared to what.[/quote

I never said Christianity was bad. Try reading what I actually typed.


Gosh, am I supposed to believe you were trying to make Christianity sound good?



starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

04 Jun 2013, 1:50 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:

Gosh, am I supposed to believe you were trying to make Christianity sound good?


I never said Christianity was good. TRY READING WHAT I ACTUALLY TYPED. No, let me spell it out for you. You made two statements that were false. I explained to you why they were false. There was no value judgment there whatsoever.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

starkid wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:

Gosh, am I supposed to believe you were trying to make Christianity sound good?


I never said Christianity was good. TRY READING WHAT I ACTUALLY TYPED. No, let me spell it out for you. You made two statements that were false. I explained to you why they were false. There was no value judgment there whatsoever.


I know what you said, I responded, and I stand by my response. Don't waste my time with silly games.



starkid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

04 Jun 2013, 1:58 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:

I know what you said, I responded, and I stand by my response. Don't waste my time with silly games.


No, you responded to what you assumed I was saying. Maybe you are confused because I accidentally quoted your statement about Christianity being good in addition to the two false statements you made. The idea that Christian values are immutable and that the elite class cannot easily use Christianity for it's own ends are the false statements I was referring to. If you can't see that and insist on trying to guess at how I feel about Christianity after all this explaining, I give up.



Last edited by starkid on 04 Jun 2013, 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 2:12 pm

starkid wrote:
...in addition to the two false statements you made. The idea that Christian values are immutable and that the elite class cannot easily use Christianity for it's own ends are the false statements...


Regarding the immutability of Christian values, "An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition." (from Wikipedia)

I'm not sure I would link the concept with God or any theology, but I do believe that there is good and evil. Some things are right and some are wrong. And this right/wrongness is not dependent on time. For example, it is always wrong to treat people as slaves (even though it was at one time thought to be right.) These things are immutable.

But, the churches associated with Christianity have changed a lot over time - again, the human element.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 2:41 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
starkid wrote:
...in addition to the two false statements you made. The idea that Christian values are immutable and that the elite class cannot easily use Christianity for it's own ends are the false statements...


Regarding the immutability of Christian values, "An infinite and changing God is inconceivable; indeed it is a contradiction in definition." (from Wikipedia)

I'm not sure I would link the concept with God or any theology, but I do believe that there is good and evil. Some things are right and some are wrong. And this right/wrongness is not dependent on time. For example, it is always wrong to treat people as slaves (even though it was at one time thought to be right.) These things are immutable.

But, the churches associated with Christianity have changed a lot over time - again, the human element.


Ann, thank you. What my critic is using is a tactic developed by the Frankfurt School called Critical Theory, which is essentially casting wild, irresponsible charges while hoping at least a little bit of it sticks. Dirty politicians do the same thing; it's what they call mudslinging. Had my critic made any informed, intelligent charges, I would have been happy to respond in kind.

As far as right and wrong go, properly defined right is that which enable human beings to cooperate and form functioning societies. Evil is anything contrary or inimical to this goal. The problem is that when we are allowed to form our own morality, which is the codification of what is good and evil, we will inevitably form our morals to work in to our own advantage, which actually isn't morality at all. It's self interest.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 2:58 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
The problem is that when we are allowed to form our own morality, which is the codification of what is good and evil, we will inevitably form our morals to work in to our own advantage, which actually isn't morality at all. It's self interest.

I suppose that's so. I like to think that people will adhere to morality, but without guidance this is probably fantastical thinking. I remember a theory called "enlightened self-interest." But it gets worn down when others don't pull their weight.

Seems like religion is receding from the role of societal guidance these days. I think perhaps we've entered the age of enlightened consumerism. If something is deemed desirable by the necessary number of people, it is good. And the pursuit of its consumption is good.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 3:12 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
The problem is that when we are allowed to form our own morality, which is the codification of what is good and evil, we will inevitably form our morals to work in to our own advantage, which actually isn't morality at all. It's self interest.

I suppose that's so. I like to think that people will adhere to morality, but without guidance this is probably fantastical thinking. I remember a theory called "enlightened self-interest." But it gets worn down when others don't pull their weight.

Seems like religion is receding from the role of societal guidance these days. I think perhaps we've entered the age of enlightened consumerism. If something is deemed desirable by the necessary number of people, it is good. And the pursuit of its consumption is good.


Ann, you make some very astute observations. The catch with morality, as with laws, is that both are designed for those tempted to violate their precepts. For example, if I were made immune from murder laws today, I wouldn't kill anybody, but some people would. If nobody had any desire to kill others, there would be no need for murder laws. Since moral rules were also developed for those who are tempted to violate them, for laws and moral rules to work, we can't be allowed to pick and choose what we will obey and what we won't.

OTOH, being force-fed morality is contrary to our notions of freedom and individuality. It's a delicate balance, and one we don't have worked out very well.

Concerning "enlightened self interest", it sounds as if you are referring to the theory from classical capitalist economics. Since this is what currently governs modern Western societies, it leaves something to be desired.

As far as "enlightened consumerism" goes, what you are describing sounds a lot like a 19C English theory called Utilitarianism, which posits the greatest good for the greatest number. While it sounds good on paper, Utilitarianism has some fatal flaws, the most serious of which is consequentialist morality.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 3:25 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as "enlightened consumerism" goes, what you are describing sounds a lot like a 19C English theory called Utilitarianism, which posits the greatest good for the greatest number. While it sounds good on paper, Utilitarianism has some fatal flaws, the most serious of which is consequentialist morality.

A difference being that in enlightened consumerism the goals and sanctifying aspects of participation are the pursuit, capture and consumption of consumer goods. People adorn themselves in company logos and identify with specific brands of pop or have a fondness for a certain actor. It's sad. These things are so empty.
Maybe this is the consequence of enlightened self interest mixed with capitalism.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

04 Jun 2013, 3:36 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as "enlightened consumerism" goes, what you are describing sounds a lot like a 19C English theory called Utilitarianism, which posits the greatest good for the greatest number. While it sounds good on paper, Utilitarianism has some fatal flaws, the most serious of which is consequentialist morality.

A difference being that in enlightened consumerism the goals and sanctifying aspects of participation are the pursuit, capture and consumption of consumer goods. People adorn themselves in company logos and identify with specific brands of pop or have a fondness for a certain actor. It's sad. These things are so empty.
Maybe this is the consequence of enlightened self interest mixed with capitalism.


Ann, is this your theory, or did you read this somewhere? If you read it, may I ask where?

FWIW, regular enlightened self interest is a term describing the outcome of Adam Smith's invisible hand, wherein society functions best when we all pursue our self-interests. Of course, there are also fatal flaws with this theory....

As far as people adorning themselves with company logos and such, this is just a guess, but I think it is related to people who are fanatical about sports. If I'm right, we're talking about a form of identity--something all people need.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

04 Jun 2013, 3:42 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
As far as "enlightened consumerism" goes, what you are describing sounds a lot like a 19C English theory called Utilitarianism, which posits the greatest good for the greatest number. While it sounds good on paper, Utilitarianism has some fatal flaws, the most serious of which is consequentialist morality.

A difference being that in enlightened consumerism the goals and sanctifying aspects of participation are the pursuit, capture and consumption of consumer goods. People adorn themselves in company logos and identify with specific brands of pop or have a fondness for a certain actor. It's sad. These things are so empty.
Maybe this is the consequence of enlightened self interest mixed with capitalism.


Ann, is this your theory, or did you read this somewhere? If you read it, may I ask where?

It might be other people's theory too, but I'm just musing.

Quote:
As far as people adorning themselves with company logos and such, this is just a guess, but I think it is related to people who are fanatical about sports. If I'm right, we're talking about a form of identity--something all people need.

I suppose, but it seems so vacuous. I've never been into sports though. I agree with people needing a form of identity. I suppose these are harmless enough.