Wednesday, February 10, 2010

CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES - SOCIAL DYNAMICS AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT.

After the discussions these past few weeks on ILSA, I'd like to get comments on the following observations:

Conservative individuals' abuse of reasoning

Cause - Spiritual confusion, incoherent logic. Belief that individuals can use God or science as leverage for their personal agendas.

Result - emotional blackmail with HELLFIRE.

Solution - develop faith

Conservative society's abuse of reasoning - in response to liberal individuals' abuse of spirituality

Cause - Fear of other's excellence or achievements, fear of science or other more developed races.

Result - only popular opinions are accepted as truth, which is in response to intellectual blackmail with ACADEMIC EXCLUSION. Subsequently the Jewish Holocaust or global warming is denied.

Solution - organized religion, create confidence in culture so that past mistakes such as Jewish Holocaust will not happen again

Liberal individuals' abuse of spirituality -

Cause - Guilt and need for respect. Belief that ignorance and incompetence can be used as leverage to pursue personal agenda's. Excellence often achieved at the expense of others' spirituality.

Result - intellectual blackmail with ACADEMIC EXCLUSION. Accusations of stupidity and ignorance are common.

Solution - education; develop emotional intelligence; encouragement of individual wealth and intelligence, f*cking therapy!

Liberal society's abuse of spirituality - in response to conservative individuals' abuse of reasoning

Cause - Fear of envy within society.

Result - Political systems that promote equality are dogmatically prescribed. Democracy and communism are used to prevent rise in political power, which is in response to conservatives' emotional blackmail of HELLFIRE.

Solution
- meritocracy, acknowledgement of differing intelligence in races.

Crazy world!

In conclusion, a liberal (or the left) abuses spirituality and a conservative (the right) abuses reasoning. Enlightenment tipped the scale in favour of the liberal when emphasis was placed on good reasoning at the expense of spirituality. At the moment liberals rule the roost but the struggle between left and right is ongoing as the balance continually shifts due to changing external factors.

30 Opinion(s):

Viking said...

you'll have to explain this to me next time I see you!

As far as I'm concerned, the Enlightenment was such an intellectual chasm between what went before and what came after it's very difficult to limit its effects. In many ways we Are All Liberals Now! - in that Reason and critical thought have become part of our mindsets instead of superstition and blind faith (although not entirely).

the Enlightenment gave us both the language and the categories we think in, and separated, 'religion' from 'politics' from 'ethnicity' etc. as areas of discourse (which is one reason we don't understand, say, Islam).

For example, premodern people believed that their actions could influence, say, the weather- and we can't understand how anyone could think that now. but yet, in places like Africa, premodern thought patterns are still in evidence...

FishEagle said...

@ Viking, can't wait to chat in person.

I've defined liberals and conservatives according to their spiritual and reasoning characteristics. I guess that I'm saying that's where the major difference lies between the two groups.

Nobody falls precisely within a box. Within each individual the boundaries are blurred to some extent. Still, it has been a very useful discovery for me personally.

I've encountered a wall of resistance in the academic world (natural scientific field), which I felt I would never be able to penetrate. The political correctness just killed it for me. All that's changed now, somehow.

P.S. I don't know how people were polarized before the Enlightenment. I just know that because of Enlightenment, that's how it is now.

Viking said...

when it comes to Spirituality, what the Enlightenment did was to create a distinction between what can be seen and what can't - phenomena vs. noumena (Kant). For the first time, thinkers pointed out how difficult it is in practice to communicate with an unknowable being, and this had a profound influence on Christian thought.

some responded by focussing on "Experience" which became one of those big theological words that's always spelt with a Capital Letter.
It was the basis of the pietiest movement, and its net effect was to 'individualise' religion, which is currently a mark of modern spirituality. Rather than a group activity, which requires mediation from a priest or minister, pietism, or privatised religion, relies exclusively on the feelings or faith of the individual. The major downside of this is the decline of organised religion and the move from quantity to 'quality' of believers.
The difference is between Catholicism and Pentecostalism.

Dachshund said...

How can the Jewish holocaust be compared with global warming? The Jewish holocaust definitely happened whereas global warming could be another form of blackmail as in HELLFIRE.

FishEagle said...

Dach, hellfire is only a hypothetical concept used to improve our spirituality. There is no reasoning required to establish whether it is fact or fiction because there can never be proof of its existence or non-existtence. The Jewish Holocaust and global warming are concepts that require our reasoning to determine whether these things truly exist/existed or not. They are used to improve our understanding of our actual environment.

FishEagle said...

P.S Viking, I enjoy the lessons in history that you are providing.

Anonymous said...

"Hellfire is only a hypothetical concept used to improve our spirituality. There is no reasoning required to establish whether it is fact or fiction because there can never be proof of its existence or non-existence".

"Improve" our spirituality? It is an ancient Zoroastrian dogma, incorporated into Christianity (it by-passed Judaism completely) and was created by the Priest class to engender in their followers one thing and one thing only: FEAR
As to whether it can or cannot be proven, I'll refer you to Bertrand Russell: Can you "prove" that there is no teapot in orbit around the sun somewhere between Mars and the Earth? No you cannot, but the concept is not even worth considering. The same goes for heaven, hell, god, tooth fairies and elves. All these concepts are conceptually in the same philosophical set!

FishEagle said...

Anon 2.40 I agree that those concepts are in the same philosophical set. So don't consider concept of hellfire if you don't think its worth considering.

Viking said...

I agree with FishEagle on this one.

And not all 'things you can't prove' belong in the same category. Not by a long shot. Bertrand Russell was a twat in any case...

But anon is not wrong is bringing Zoroastrianism into the equation, Satan may have originated in Persia to become our 'personalised' devil-figure... but the idea of hell comes from the valley of Gehenna (Hebr. hinnom) which was a rubbish dump near Jerusalem, although the idea of fire as a purifying agent (the word 'pure' come from the Greek for fire) comes from ancient times and derives from metalworking!

FishEagle said...

Viking, do you mean you disagree with me? A typo?

Viking said...

I meant agree - but then you changed your comment!!!!!!

so now i disagree :)

FishEagle said...

Oops, sorry. Got it. :)

doob said...

Are you for real?
I'm disapointed...

"only popular opinions are accepted as truth..." "Subsequently the Jewish Holocaust or global warming is denied."

Please explain to me how these can be clasified as popular opinion? And more importantly, how can you lump Holocaust deniers and those opposing global warming into the same category?

This is such a liberal leftist tactic...

Associating those who oppose your views on a certain topic with those of fanatics.

There have been some intense and (mostly)logical discussions on this blog regarding global warming.

To still claim global warming as an undisputed fact tells me that you do not "know" it but that you "believe" it.

Dachshund said...

@doob: Nice footwork there.

Dachshund said...

@Fish Eagle: My reference to hellfire was made in jest.

@Viking: How do you compare the rift between organised and individual religion with the difference between Pentecostals and Catholics? The Pentecostals are highly organised, it's big business. Pentecostals don't do individual religion, it's reserved for fellowship meetings and church. They even have their differences resolved by their pastor. (I think perhaps you just stumbled over your metaphors there.)

FishEagle said...

@ Doob,

"Please explain to me how these can be clasified as popular opinion?"

I'm classifying their denials as 'popular opinion.' It is meant in the context that nobody really wants to deal with the discomfort of these realities.

Doob said,

"Associating those who oppose your views on a certain topic with those of fanatics."

Which fanatics would that be??

I certainly think global warming is an undisputed fact, but that is just my opinion.

One day, global warming will either be proven or disproven. I don't know which it will be. You've missed the point. The point is that it CAN be proven or disproven.

doob said...

@FE

Fanatics, as in Neo-Nazis,Exremist Muslims etc... who are at the forefront of holocaust denials.

As far as I'm concerned (and I think most other people) the holocaust is NOT a theory.

So then, how can you put those who oppose the global warming THEORY in the same category as these kinds of people?

Dachshund said...

doob, I'll tell you what the problem is. Some of the contributors here are quite young and have no recollection of the holocaust. They've seen fictionalised stories about the holocaust in movies so often that after a while it does seem to look a bit like fiction.

So it can be harder for younger people to accept that the holocaust was real, it happened, six million Jews were murdered. Whether one is pro- or anti-Zionist - which is a separate issue, in any case - the holocaust was an indisputable reality.

If the Jews in Hollywood would stop harping about it in movies it might seem more real and we might see less holocaust denialists and neo-Nazis lurking around. That's the irony of it.

Viking said...

-Dachs

I noticed I didn't explain myself well. I'm making a distinction between group vs individualised religion and not between organised and disorganised religions!

catholicism (with a small c) administers the sacraments evenly to everyone, and leaves private beliefs up to each person, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, Pentecostals are more discriminating, and are into 'statements of faith' and suchlike to restrict membership to those who are believers. Both approaches have merit, but they are entirely different philosophies.

Dachshund said...

@Viking: What do you mean by catholicism with a small c? Anglicans? I think the Nicene creed is pretty much a statement of faith, but no matter.

FishEagle said...

@ Dach said, "My reference to hellfire was made in jest." Yes, simply hilarious.

"Some of the contributors here are quite young and have no recollection of the holocaust. .........after a while it does seem to look a bit like fiction." You seem to have misunderstood and I don't think any of the contributors have ever denied the existence of the Holocaust. Least of all me.

@ Doob, it is not only the fanatics that deny the Holocaust or global warming. It is the right that tends to deny it, which could be a fanatical or moderate right. The point is that because of an 'abuse' of reasoning these things are being denied by the right. The extent of the fanatisism is probably determined by the degree of abuse. But you just made your own assumption that it should be the fanatical right.

The only difference between the Holocaust theory and the global warming theory is that the one has already been convincingly accepted by society at large, due to the fact that the subject was researched enough to make a conclusion about the impacts of the phenomenon. The effects of global warming are still being studied and there is no proper understanding of it. In future, if the global warming theory is convincingly accepted it will be because the subject has been sufficiently researched to draw a conclusion about the impacts of the phenomenon. Both the Jewish Holocaust and global warming certainly ARE theories. One has been convincingly proven as fact, while the other hasn't.

Dachshund said...

"I certainly think global warming is an undisputed fact, but that is just my opinion. [You don't just think something is an undisputed fact or have an opinion about it, you either know it or you dont.]

"One day, global warming will either be proven or disproven. I don't know which it will be. You've missed the point. The point is that it CAN be proven or disproven."

FE, can you please make up your mind whether global warming is an undisputed fact or whether anyone is missing the point that an undisputed fact can, at an indefinite future stage, still be proven or disproven, but you don't know which it will be, but you still think ..

What are you thinking?? Or are you "sinking"? As in, hello, call out the German coastguard.

FishEagle said...

Dach, global warming is a theory and the impacts still need to be proven convincingly to society at large. I happen to work in the environmental sciences and I'm already convinced that it's real due to my personal exposure to environmental issues. Of course the way in which something is reasoned about differs between the individual and society at large. However, the processes for both individuals and society to determine whether global warming is real or not, are still reasoning processes and have nothing to do with spirituality.

FishEagle said...

Am I the only one that is getting frustrated? These things are elementary.

FishEagle said...

Hang on. Since I didn't write this post very well and in a format of shorthand notes, I will apologise for my last comment.

Dachshund said...

FE: The thread got a bit snarled up when religion was mixed up with global warming.

FishEagle said...

Dach, there was no mix up with global warming and the Holocaust. Both are theories and both theories have been denied the reasoning required by society to make decisions about the appropriate mitigative action, if mitigative action is needed in the case of the Holocaust, or in the case of global warming.

FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FishEagle said...

To add on to my last comment, there are only two differences. One is that we've had more time to overcome society's denial of the Jewish Holocaust compared to the denial of global warming. But time makes no difference to the fact that the left is abusing spirituality, while the right is abusing reasoning. It's irrelevant. The other difference is the topic. But the topic is also irrelevant. I could have used an endless number of examples from the social and natural sciences. It still doesn't change the fact that the left is abusing spirituality, while the right is abusing reasoning.