[begin transmission]
Apparently post ID 20190110 captured the interest of another party.
A particular johnlocke86239 was kind enough to send me an email concerning the subject.
Sure, it might be riddled with personal attacks, but it's all in good fun.
Still there are some points (in bold) worth addressing. Can't turn down a potentially good discussion.
-------
You use the words of great minds because your little one has so few words of its own
1.
sighs softly
2.
3.
***gags loudly***
4.
5.
You just had to ask me. Fine. "Spiritual but not religious", and why it's such a trash phrase.
6.
I'll elaborate on that thought just a bit further.
7.
I promise not to let my passions get the best of me [spoiler: I break that promise], so I'll keep it short and sweet.
8.
9.
***I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you made that promise before you typed out this petulant diatribe, then went back afterwards to note that you broke the promise. If you typed both of those statements from the go, then it’s disingenuous by being affected humility. If you did mean to remain calm but then lost your cool later, then you should have just removed that line so you didn’t sound like a smug twat.***
10.
11.
When I hear someone claim being "Spiritual but not religious", I can't help but think they have no idea what they're saying.
12.
"Geez, 2B. Who the hell are you to criticize someone's deeply held and personal beliefs? Conceited much?"
13.
14.
***Yes.***
15.
16.
I think that's a fair call-out, since spirituality is commonly seen as a personal affair.
17.
Afterall, doesn't reformed Christianity stress a personal relationship with God and such?
18.
19.
***It’s also an odd way to broach a topic, by inventing a mock-response that obviously comes from a place of emotion in contrast to your calm rhetoric, but to each their own, I suppose.***
20.
21.
Well, yes. True. However, that's where I take issue with the sentiment.
22.
Professing to be spiritual but not religious carries with it a certain implication.
23.
Namely, that one intrinsically possesses the capability of understanding and navigating the transcendental on their own.
24.
That very notion is easily a thousand times more conceited than any critique I could levy upon someone else.
25.
26.
***And yet is still only 1/10 as conceited as any one paragraph you’ve typed out about this.***
27.
28.
To me, these individuals make the audacious claim that they don't need God (in any capacity) to come to know the divine.
29.
That, by their very own will and wit they can comprehend what lies beyond their own meager existence.
30.
That they can come to know that which is, by it's very definition, out of reach of human understanding.
31.
To me, that's just an insane proposition.
32.
33.
***To me, the notion that the existence of the universe can only be explained by invoking a being far more complex than the universe is an insane proposition, but I would never be one to openly criticize someone’s deeply held personal beliefs. That would be conceited.***
34.
35.
But it doesn't end there. That's just in a metaphysical sense. Let's not forget the structuralist/historical side of things.
36.
37.
"I don't need God, 2B. I don't need religion. I don't need the whole song and dance of going to church, chewing on a wafer, and sipping on some wine to know right from wrong."
38.
39.
***That is correct, though framed in childish wording to make the person that’s supposed to be espousing that belief seem less wise than you.***
40.
41.
Oh no? Then where are you going to get your sense of morality from? Reasoning, facts, and logic?
42.
43.
***No, a lot of it comes from the socialization that we all experience while growing up. Society can’t very well function if we’re all constantly stealing from each other, to say nothing of raping and murdering, so a system of rules is formed to keep the society cohesive. These rules are “morals”. You don’t need a god or religion to explain why morality exists. It’s for preserving the collective, and in doing so, the self, since we all fare better by living and working together than we would individually.***
44.
45.
Okay, then why should we not kill other people once we reach 9 billion, for the betterment of the planet?
46.
47.
***Because of that socializing, killing is, by and large, considered abhorrent. Particularly killing on a mass scale. There are allowances made, of course, such as execution and warfare, but most people would shy away from cold blooded murder, even if there was a utilitarian purpose to be served by it. But what was your point, regardless? Religion hasn’t stopped people from killing each other, far from it. Back in the good old dark ages, religion was one of the best reasons to rally the troops and drown whole countries in blood.***
48.
49.
50.
People are mere naked apes roaming around on this pale blue dot called Earth, drifting through the empty void of space.
51.
The death of one person or even several billion does not matter much in the grand scheme of things, does it?
52.
53.
***In the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn’t. But humans mostly think on a micro-level. Our brains aren’t built to comprehend events that span hundred of years, let alone thousands or millions. Hell, a sizeable portion of people can’t even think a few decades ahead and are dooming our planet as a result. People don’t think in terms of “the grand scheme of things.”***
54.
55.
Easily, you can see that you cannot reason your way into virtuous behavior; utilitarian thinking only gets you so far.
56.
Not only would you cause the worst possible outcome, but you're not smart enough to derive the calculus required for it.
57.
58.
***Now you’re just throwing words around to sound like there’s some legitimacy to your point.***
59.
60.
Like it or not, if you're living in Westernized/Enlightened society, you're borrowing your morality from Christianity.
61.
62.
***Why are Westernized and Enlightened synonymous? There are plenty of enlightened eastern cultures. Japan and South Korea are doing pretty well for themselves, and while China is being poorly run these days, they were ahead of the western world when it came to a lot of technological advances—the printing press, paper, and gunpowder, to name a few—and there were many brilliant philosophers from their culture.***
63.
64.
65.
Borrowing from thousands of years of civilized, collective wisdom painstakingly acquired and documented by your ancestors.
66.
67.
***Oh yeah, when I think “civilized” and “wisdom,” my mind immediately goes to the history of Christianity.***
68.
69.
So that stupid, limited, singular you can scoff, think you know better, or take credit for their brilliance? Disgusting.
70.
71.
***That was some pretty poor wording. I had reread the beginning of that sentence three times before I could understand what the hell you were trying to say. But yeah, the morality of Christianity is why queer people are still struggling in to be recognized as worthy of existence in “Enlightened” cultures, so I’m not all that impressed by the rules set down by ancient desert nomads.***
72.
73.
"Spiritual but not religious". Is this really where this generation of modern man has found himself?
74.
So cold, isolated, and anxious than ever before, that he has to warm himself with the viscera of that which he helped slay?
75.
76.
***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4***
77.
78.
It's cowardice, the way I see it. I can understand it; everyone wants to feel like they're part of something grander.
79.
80.
***Nah, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe we’re part of something grander, quite the opposite. Oh dear, but without religion, how on Earth have I made it this far through life without committing atrocities in the name of the pointlessness of it all?***
81.
82.
But this phrase...it's a lazy way of trying to cop undeserved comfort without making a solid commitment.
83.
84.
***Or it’s people believing that there is more to the world than what we can see and feel, but who don’t want to be part of organizations that are frequently riddled with corruption and hypocrisy. But I can’t profess to speak for those people, as I am not one of them. I certainly wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to write a pretentious essay on what those people actually mean by their beliefs.***
85.
86.
It's all so very wretched if you ask me.
87.
88.
***An apt description of everything you’ve written.
89.
And if you really think there is a God and you want to do right by Him, then for fuck’s sake, stop ruining 2B’s image with your pedantic, pretentious, childish nattering. She’s a well developed and complex character from a brilliant game and no one should have to think of you in relation to her.***
-------
First, the title of the email :
"You use the words of great minds because your little one has so few words of its own"
In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise it's hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can't submit t, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it's somewhat arbitrary, but I don't insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word.
Allow me to borrow more words from a great mind. This is one of my favorite quotes from the protagonist Raskolnikov of
Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Are you familiar with the story? If not, let me give context to the quote for you. See, Raskolnikov is a murderer that ostensibly got away with his crime. However, he encounters a detective named Porfiry that senses all isn't right with Raskolnikov; he suspects that he is indeed a criminal. To grill him, he asks Raskolnikov about a column he wrote in school in which he posited a 'radical' theory (summarized above).
What I find so...charmingly brilliant about Raskolnikov is how he primes for the idea of his innocence by associating himself with the ordinary, uncreative man rather than the somewhat criminal, creative man by making little of his own theory,
The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. By branding himself as uninspired, he hopes to establish in Porfiry's mind that he, Raskolnikov, is not a criminal. It's very subtle but I adore the psychology of this particular scene in the book.
How does that relate to our discussion? Well, in the spirit of Raskolnikov's theory, I freely admit that I am part of the inferior, ordinary group.
Material that serves only to reproduce its kind. That's exactly what I am. I use the words of people that are far more intelligent than I (and give due credit) because I find the ideas interesting. This is a personal blog afterall. I ask you, where is the shame in that? In a time where people are forgetting their philosophical and historical origins, I don't think what I'm doing is terribly egregious. Most people, including you, probably including the majority of your heroes believe it or not, fall into the very same group as I. Even when we manage to synthesize something we think of as strikingly original, it's very likely to have already been said or written by someone else much more eloquently than we could ever manage ourselves. But that's okay. The greatest minds of history didn't immediately create; first they studied. Even your very namesake, John Locke, used ideas created by Hobbes, Aristotle, and Plato. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, do we not?
In short, stay humble. You're not one to mouth off.
***I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you made that promise before you typed out this petulant diatribe, then went back afterwards to note that you broke the promise. If you typed both of those statements from the go, then it’s disingenuous by being affected humility. If you did mean to remain calm but then lost your cool later, then you should have just removed that line so you didn’t sound like a smug twat.***
Yes, that's right, you got it! The first one. I appreciate your patience and understanding. I'll take your recommendation with a grain of salt, thank you very much.
***It’s also an odd way to broach a topic, by inventing a mock-response that obviously comes from a place of emotion in contrast to your calm rhetoric, but to each their own, I suppose.***
An idiosyncrasy of mine, I apologize. The mock responses are typically common objections I hear or my own emotionally-laden kneejerk responses to thoughts I might have. Glad to see that I have your blessing to continue talking to myself.
***To me, the notion that the existence of the universe can only be explained by invoking a being far more complex than the universe is an insane proposition, but I would never be one to openly criticize someone’s deeply held personal beliefs. That would be conceited.***
I never mentioned anything about the creation of the universe. But I understand what you're getting at. That's okay, being unwilling or incapable of criticizing other's personal beliefs. You're probably much more popular than I, I'd imagine.
***That is correct, though framed in childish wording to make the person that’s supposed to be espousing that belief seem less wise than you.***
Funny you use the word 'childish'; I was expressing a sentiment I used to hold in my younger years. I'll have you know that I grew up in a Catholic family; in my teenage years I was somewhat moody (more than I am now, could you imagine?) and hypercritical of religion. It isn't until I took an appreciation for history and philosophy that I learned about it's merits.
***No, a lot of it comes from the socialization that we all experience while growing up. Society can’t very well function if we’re all constantly stealing from each other, to say nothing of raping and murdering, so a system of rules is formed to keep the society cohesive. These rules are “morals”. You don’t need a god or religion to explain why morality exists. It’s for preserving the collective, and in doing so, the self, since we all fare better by living and working together than we would individually.***
You're absolutely right when you mention socialization, system of rules, and social cohesion. Performing your namesake a service, being up-to-speed with social contract theory. But where I think you go wrong is in your assertion that you don't need God or religion to explain why morality exists. I'm not sure if you're aware, I hope you are, but a lot of the U.S.'s founding principles are based off of a Christian ethic. John Locke was instrumental in establishing some of these principles and he borrowed from Protestantism. U.S. common law is a good example of the Christian ethic operationalized. I realize you could make the argument that just because something is law doesn't make it moral. And you'd be right. But I'd argue right back that the U.S. common law is just about the most moral code of laws humankind has achieved so far.
But I'm curious. If morality isn't coming from God or religion, where is it coming from in your estimation?
***Because of that socializing, killing is, by and large, considered abhorrent. Particularly killing on a mass scale. There are allowances made, of course, such as execution and warfare, but most people would shy away from cold blooded murder, even if there was a utilitarian purpose to be served by it. But what was your point, regardless? Religion hasn’t stopped people from killing each other, far from it. Back in the good old dark ages, religion was one of the best reasons to rally the troops and drown whole countries in blood.***
Where I was going with my point is that a morality based most purely as reasoning exists as utilitarianism. But utilitarianism results in very anti-human outcomes if followed faithfully (which I don't think people are capable of doing anyway). So I used the example of the planet and humanity's eventual overpopulation. A bit hyperbolic, I admit, but I hope that clarifies some things. Either way, I don't think either of us are fans of utilitarianist thinking.
I'm totally with you in your reference to the Crusades. I'm not trying to make the case that religion hasn't had direct involvement in the bloodier parts of human history. But to say that religion HASN'T stopped people from killing each other? You're either extremely ungrateful or not considering the larger scope of human history. Civilizations are founded on religion (at least the ones that last), and civilization is protection from nature, including other humans trying to kill you. Bit of Hobbes for you there. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, religion formed the social fabric necessary for people to cooperate and create civilizations that protected them from nature, including each other. It's still true to this very day (U.S. common law).
***In the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn’t. But humans mostly think on a micro-level. Our brains aren’t built to comprehend events that span hundred of years, let alone thousands or millions. Hell, a sizeable portion of people can’t even think a few decades ahead and are dooming our planet as a result. People don’t think in terms of “the grand scheme of things.”***
We're in agreement.
***Now you’re just throwing words around to sound like there’s some legitimacy to your point.***
This is where I was getting that utilitarianist thinking leads to anti-human outcomes and that people aren't capable of following it faithfully, simply by virtue that it is impossible to identify and measure every single variable required to make the calculation that would lead to the greatest possible good for the majority. Hope that clarifies things.
***Why are Westernized and Enlightened synonymous? There are plenty of enlightened eastern cultures. Japan and South Korea are doing pretty well for themselves, and while China is being poorly run these days, they were ahead of the western world when it came to a lot of technological advances—the printing press, paper, and gunpowder, to name a few—and there were many brilliant philosophers from their culture.***
They're synonymous because the Enlightenment first took foot in Western countries (i.e. Europe, the American colonies). It's by no accident that these countries were also the first to industrialize, but I elaborated on that in my previous essay. But to touch upon your point, of S. Korea and Japan doing well for themselves while China isn't. That's no accident either. Japan was the first Asian country to successfully industrialize thanks to U.S. influence around 1850. S. Korea joined the modern capitalist economy led by the U.S. during the 1950s and flourished as a result. Meanwhile China, thanks in part to it's rough history with foreign invaders remained closed off to the rest of the industrialized world and didn't industrialize until the 1950s. Worse still, their sympathies with Communist doctrines stunted their economic development and prevented them from entering capitalist markets until the 1980s.
Did you know that famine is now all but nearly eradicated in China? I read somewhere that children are now an average of two inches taller than their 1970's counterparts. To what may we attribute this? The prevailing theory is their transition to market capitalism. Modern capitalism is an Enlightenment idea, one that the Western world adopted and are enjoying both the rewards and horrors of still to this very day.
That isn't to say that your statements of pre-Enlightenment Chinese technological superiority and philosophical contributions are unwarranted. It isn't my argument that Asian nations are devoid of any merit. However, it is my argument that because Christianity prevailed in the West and established the conditions for the Enlightenment to occur, the Western nations benefited and developed MUCH faster than their Asian counterparts.
***Oh yeah, when I think “civilized” and “wisdom,” my mind immediately goes to the history of Christianity.***
I wouldn't be so quick to mock. If you investigated for yourself, you'd see that a lot of things you take as foundational owe their existence to Christianity. Of course, if you turn to the Crusades you're going to see nothing but brutality, but show me a worthwhile ideology that people haven't died or killed for. I find your naivete entertaining, how you seem to think Christianity is antithetical to civilization and wisdom. You remind me of those childish socialists that complain about 'the system' on their Twitter feeds, on their $800 smartphones, from the comfort and security of their apartment, after a day's work at their air-conditioned, safe, and well-compensated job. So unaware of broader historical context, the privileges afforded to them, and the genealogy of ideas that conferred those privileges.
I fully recognize that sounds arrogant; I'm not clever enough to mask it. No, that's a lie, I can. But I'm unwilling, because I'm only mirroring the approach you came at me with. It makes for a better drama anyway, having you antagonize me over an opinion piece right out of the gate. Writing to you, I feel a small pang of pity at the stunning amount of historical unawareness you've demonstrated. Like I said before, I used to be hypercritical of religion too. I was an angry little NPC much like yourself at one point. But scholarship and an openness to ideas goes a long way in remedying that. I strongly invite you to look into the matter yourself, and that our exchange with all of it's zingers and gotchas doesn't prove to be terribly discouraging.
***That was some pretty poor wording. I had reread the beginning of that sentence three times before I could understand what the hell you were trying to say. But yeah, the morality of Christianity is why queer people are still struggling in to be recognized as worthy of existence in “Enlightened” cultures, so I’m not all that impressed by the rules set down by ancient desert nomads.***
Well I hope you understand now, since you've behaving exactly as I predicted. You're caricaturing because you have zero sense of history and you're arrogant enough to think that you know better. So tell me, what entirely original ethic have you formulated that has the potential to give rise to powerful, stable, blossoming nations AND propagate through time for several thousands of years?
If you're angry at Christianity because of the way some fundamentalists treat LGBTQ people, I'd highly suggest you revise your stance. That's like being anti-science because of the atrocities Unit 731 committed. Any human institution or ideology can be used for malice, Christianity is no exception. Now, to address your point more directly, I want you to think
very very carefully about what you said. And have a look at this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
Please bring your attention to the map on the right hand side of the page. Could you please point out for the rest of the class which Enlightened countries enforce a penalty, imprisonment, or death for same-sex intercourse? Funny, I think only un-Enlightened countries do that.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that LGBTQ issues have only been part of public discourse since the 1960s, and from then great strides have been made in the Western countries. Even I've witnessed the progress made over the past few decades as there's substantially less stigma when it comes to being gay or lesbian than in the 90s. Remember when Ellen DeGeneres came out? Perhaps not if you're Gen Z. But anyway, that received a hell of a lot of fanfare because she was an openly lesbian television figure, of which there weren't many. Nowadays its so common it has earned it's own trope: token gay character. Not exactly something that would happen if a culture were truly oppressive, is it? Now I will grant you that the last two letters, T and Q are finding themselves in a contentious spot these days. What makes them exceptionally problematic is the convoluted mess that the issue has become, contaminating an already complicated issue with nonsensical sociopolitical ideology. That's...well, we can reserve that conversation for another time.
***Nah, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe we’re part of something grander, quite the opposite. Oh dear, but without religion, how on Earth have I made it this far through life without committing atrocities in the name of the pointlessness of it all?***
You think we're part of something lesser? Do elaborate. Also, I'd have to ask you, how is your life going? What accomplishments are you the most proud of? Are you satisfied with where you're going in life? And believe it or not most nihilists don't commit atrocities. The ones that don't kill themselves sit there, paralyzed or unmotivated, and rot. Only the ones that have been wronged so deeply turn malignant.
***Or it’s people believing that there is more to the world than what we can see and feel, but who don’t want to be part of organizations that are frequently riddled with corruption and hypocrisy. But I can’t profess to speak for those people, as I am not one of them. I certainly wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to write a pretentious essay on what those people actually mean by their beliefs.***
Could very well be. I think you've only described naive idealists however, because it's not a problem of Christianity or any religious system for that matter to be riddled with corruption and hypocrisy, but a problem of human nature. So, Mr.
johnlocke86239, mind filling me in on what it means to be "Spiritual, but not religious" ? All you've made clear to me is what being not religious is. Please address the other half, if you'd be so kind.
[end transmission]
