Things I Learned And Wrote At Age 32
- You could not possibly feel grief if you were not first given something wonderful you did not deserve.
- Cosmetic makeup is for the superficially minded because the mature mind can only regard it as meretricious.
- When you forgive someone, you are no longer able to blame them for how you feel.
- The three excellencies of the mind:
- Intelligence: the ability to manipulate abstractions rapidly
- Smarts: quantity of knowledge
- Wisdom: timely appropriation of knowledge
- Human beings are reverse mirrors. That's why it matters what you look at.
- Everyone cares about your talents if they uncover them. No one cares about your talents if you uncover them.
- Forgiveness is not related to trust. Forgiveness is a heart issue. Trust is a mind issue.
- There are those who prepare for life and those who live.
- There are those who prepare for death and those who die.
- The truth most likely to save your life is that the problems that seem most unfixable are still fixable.
- Exercise takes care of the body, which is external. Study takes care of the mind, which is internal. Prayer takes care of the soul, which is eternal.
- When you know a little about someone, you appreciate them. When you know a lot about someone, you take them for granted. A great challenge of marriage is to know a lot about someone and still properly appreciate them.
- Consistency is a virtue so useful it can even be profitable in error.
- Humans are like the moon:
- They have no glory of their own. They can only reflect what was given to them.
- The ones who reflect no glory are they who dwell in earth's shadow.
- They are only partially visible depending on the perspective of the viewer.
- You have to stay with them through a whole season to see all their aspects. And even then, you haven't seen 50% of them, which is their dark side.
- The only morality of modern society is social acceptability.
- The solution to victimhood is not vindication for what you don't have. It is gratitude for what you do have.
- Vindication requires another to change. But gratitude is within your own capability.
- In the relationship between God and humans, God is always the first to take a leap of faith.
- The ones who need safe spaces to speak without judgment are the people whose mind you want to change.
- You should not like your beliefs.
- A belief must always be based on alethiology, not preferences.
- You cannot expect God to care much about that for which you care moderately.
- Horizontal light blinds. Top light illuminates. Be careful thinking you're enlightening others. Let providence do it.
- Jonah of the Bible was a racist.
- The difference between belief and faith is that belief is expressed in words, and faith is expressed in actions.
- The main difference between the ethos of the ancient world and the ethos of today is that today men have to be taught how not to judge God.
- The monster under the bed is of no concern. It's the monster on top of the bed that should worry us.
- The brain is the only thing that learns itself with itself; and the heart is the only thing that hides itself from itself.
- When you become useful, you also become dangerous.
- A happy person doesn't know how bad they have it.
- I used to believe humanity's greatest weakness was forgetting, but without the capability to forget, life would be irrecoverable trauma.
- Faith is nothing more than the shedding of the notion that God is bad at His job.
- I'm stupider than I should be. And so are you.
- For those in hell, atheism is literal: God does not exist.
- You can tell the depth of a person by what bothers them.
- Other than sex, ignorance is the easiest thing to sell.
- At any given moment, your life could be better, but at every given moment, you don't know how good you have it.
- Being single is easier than being married. But being married is better than being single.
- I find that faith has less to do with belief and trust and more to do with cultivating a relationship.
- More so than belief, the ultimate etymology of the word faith is loyalty.
- Of the Trinity: the Father is eminent, the Son is imminent, the Spirit is immanent, and none of them is emanant.
- People tend to think of holiness like knowledge: there is an infinite store of it in God, and humans are always trying to attain unto as much as we can, though always falling infinitely short. This is wrong. You cannot grow in holiness. Holiness is more like innocence: you either maintain it or you lose it, but you can't gain it, though it can be miraculously bequeathed.
- The mental health of a generation is predicated on how they handle boredom.
- Boredom is the cultivator of creativity.
- Boredom is the easiest path to face your personal demons, because your mind quiets down enough to hear them.
- Perceiving those who have your best interests at heart becomes significant once it's apparent that not everybody actually does.
- Knowing much is better than knowing nothing. And knowing nothing is better than knowing little.
- God never prohibits anything that is useful.
- The right thing in the wrong spirit is the wrong thing.
- Whenever you justify yourself saying, "At least I don't..." you worsen the condition of your soul and the world by the end of the sentence: your soul because you're excusing something you shouldn't accept in yourself, and the world because you are disseminating opprobrium with no call or expectation of redemption.
- People who convert to Christianity learn God from the inside out. People who are raised in Christianity learn God from the outside in.
- Faith is not contingent upon requests. Requests are contingent upon faith.
- Faith must not be affected by expectation because our judgment is what sets the expectation, and human judgment is tainted by a limited frame.
- Do not look through anything at reality. Look through reality at all things.
- Never look at an "is" through an "ought."
- Your last hope should be your first recourse.
- It is as easy to see privilege in others as it is difficult to perceive hardship in them.
- The exact reverse is true when analyzing oneself.
- This is why nobody should speak about others' privilege as if they knew how much internal struggle accompanies it. It is also why no one should discount their own privileges when apprized of it.
"In the relationship between God and humans, God is always the first to take a leap of faith."
ReplyDeleteCan it be considered a leap of faith if God knows how we will answer? And if God doesn't know how we'll answer, how does that fit with His omniscience?
There are two theories:
Delete1. God knows every decision we will make.
2. God knows every decision we could make.
The second line of thought comes from the idea that God is omnipotent, meaning He can do all things but chooses not to do some things. So, God's omniscience means He can know all things but chooses not to know some things.
If theory two is what you believe, your question is answered.
I happen to believe theory one, but as God's knowledge of what we will do doesn't in the slightest affect our agency and choice to do those things, the statement stands: God takes a leap of faith, putting forth the effort to help us even though we have a free choice to insult, belittle, and reject Him, which the majority of us do.
Is it an act of faith if God knows how it ends? Yes, because faith has more to do with commitment or loyalty than belief - hence a cheating spouse is called "unfaithful" (disloyal). It might even show a greater commitment on God's part if He knows that certain will reject Him but still pours Himself out for them just because He can do no other, being the very substance of love.
God takes a risk putting forth an investment into each human. It's a true leap of faith because it springs from a desire to help, and it flies in the face of wasted endeavor if rejected. There's such a gesture of hope for acceptance when God puts forth that level of labor.
I know it's a hard concept to imagine because hope usually can't cohabitate with foreknowledge, but God seems to be a being that can retain both those in His dimension.
Grief: It is a wonderful sentiment -- but do you allow for the possibility that grief is possible for things which one does deserve? Can one grieve the loss of that which one deserved, or is it called something else?
ReplyDeleteThis is also a wonderful, reductive aphorism. Cannot make-up and painting be equated? If a visual artist produces artwork on canvas, what if the same artwork produced on skin? Skin does not equal seduction / deceit. Are both artworks meretricious?
RE: Talent uncovered. Either scenario requires personal ownership of talent. Whether you declare a talent vs. acknowledge talent, you assume reasonable ownership of it. This is true humility, as an honest assessment of self. This precludes self-deprecation, which ultimately is a deception, right?
RE: Prepare for life v live; prepare for death v die. Can you elaborate? The statement is beautiful and reductive, and we wonder about the nuance, which is intentionally unstated.
RE: Consistency. Can you elaborate? It seems very specifically defined. How do you understand consistency to a fault?
RE: Modern society doesn't pretend to be an authority on morality. That's why there is a legal system and a code of ethics. And there are lots of socially acceptable actions which are illegal, lots of socially accetable actions which are understood to be ethical. Do you / how do you differentiate social acceptability vs morality vs legal vs ethical? These are different fields of belief and thought.
Victimhood, as you've defined, concerns vindication vs gratitude. We like this, but it is a biased definition. You have not discussed victomhood as it relates to grace/forgiveness vs vengeance. Perhaps your definition would be more universal with internally vs externally defined factors.
"The ones who need safe spaces to speak without judgment are the people whose mind you want to change." This suggests, or at least does not preclude, that those who need safe spaces are wrong. This invalidates personal and widespread experiences of bigotry, which are not wrong but personally true. Correction: You're not trying to change their mind. You're trying to change the world and the reality in which they live. Just get that verbiage sorted before victimblaming / assigning right/wrong to victims.
Could not an alethiological hypothesis = hope or ambition? Belief, as you've defined it, is still a gamble. You acknowledge an unknown/unknownable.
RE: Jonah. We've never seen you write the word "racist", and we are impressed by the opaqueness of the statement.
RE: Ethos. Taken reflexively, you imply that ancient world ethos cateogrically did not judge God. I wonder how you define the ancient world belief system, and how you believe western lineage of gods/God changed. This is a sweet, reductive, aphoristic sentiment. It would stand better with elaboration / further definition.
RE: "The brain is the only thing that learns itself with itself; and the heart is the only thing that hides itself from itself." and, "When you become useful, you also become dangerous." These don't stand alone as universal truths. They appear to be sweet, reductive, aphoristic statements influenced/biased by personal experiences, or truths which require elaboration to hold water.
OR: "God never prohibits anything that is useful." If given the above, God endorses your danger?
RE: "People who convert to Christianity learn God from the inside out. People who are raised in Christianity learn God from the outside in." How do you couch this inequity? Or, are you arguing that people who are raised in Chrisianity are better?
RE: Reality, "Never look at an "is" through an "ought."" Why? This most immediately supports the sepration of church v state, which we don't think you're actually trying to argue.
RE: "Your last hope should be your first recourse." Again, aphorisms stand taller when they are universally applied. Please elaborate, because there seems to be many exceptions to your rule.
RE: Privilege v struggle. What privilege and struggle do you carry? This is relevant. as it informs how you write or convey truths.
I don't believe we deserve anything. We didn't ask for life, but no one except the suicidal consider life a curse. Every good thing we have was given to us. Even the things we work hard to create - the mind to do it was given to us, or why else do we think others choose not to do what we do? Our own self-created virtue?
DeleteI disagree. Skin does equal seduction, or what else do pornographic viewers expect to see? As with everything, there is a balance: so much skin is too much, and so much skin covered is extreme. Everyone needs to find that balance which, in itself, is a balance between an individual's conscience and the society in which they live. Skin doesn't equal deceit, but makeup does. Makeup today is presented by society as a way to make oneself not sexualized but presentable. This, to me, is quite sexist because the more attractive sex (and also the one more psychologically prone to take criticism to heart) is the one targeted, while the other is left alone, as if women don't have enough hoops to jump through to be "presentable" in society. Painting on skin is to draw at least slight attention and alter idiosyncratic features of the face, erasing perceived blemishes. This removes the slightest bit of humanity and should never be practiced by someone who wants to be loved with all their faults. It does not lack vanity.
Humorous self-deprecation can be a powerful tool, but yes, you are right: sincere self-deprecation is a deception.
Those who prepare for life are the ones who are waiting to order everything perfectly before they do something meaningful like get married, change careers to realize their passion, or go on an adventure, not realizing that things don't ever line up perfectly, or if they do, it's too late, and their life and opportunities for adventure are just about over. So they prepare for it but don't ever live to the fullest. Death is the opposite: some people never give it a thought, and when it comes, they die with dread. Some prepare meticulously and, when their time comes, not only is everything set up and their mind accepting of the transition now made smooth, but there is an echo of something Jesus said, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." This could be true philosophically if we take the person's legacy as a continuation and validation of their life, and it is true more literally for those who consider the spiritual realm a reality.
Consistency in error could be realized even in something like one wrong variable value that appears multiple times in a mathematical formula. It goes unnoticed until the end result is impossibly wrong. But, as long as you're not being inconsistent in the value of the variable while working it out, you can shift that one error and quickly derive the right answer. It's also true in the practical. Never shift your paradigm in the middle of working out a problem.
I don't believe that we have a well-defined code of ethics at all. Morality is a concept that can only exist with a standard. Modern society's morality has very little origin. Sam Harris did perhaps the best job of defining where it comes from, but even he has a few glaring inconsistencies within his work. For me to juxtapose your four categories, I'll reduce them to three (since I believe there is little difference between the ethical and the moral) and bring out three scenarios. What the Japanese did in Unit 731 was legal but not socially acceptable or moral. Solomon marrying 1,000 women was socially acceptable but was not legal (Deuteronomy 17:17) or moral. Practicing individual freedom of religion in North Korea is moral, but it is not legal or socially acceptable.
I don't believe my statement about safe spaces invalidated any experience of bigotry. It did peripherally criticize the remedy for it, though. Adults need to be strengthened and encouraged more than protected. Strength helps you overcome offenses; protection does not (but there is a time for that as well). The statement I made was really more of a solution to the bigotry. White nationalists, as odious and immoral as they are, those against homosexuality, those who just dislike what you like - all of them need to have a place to speak to those who disagree with them so they can talk through their thoughts. Once they feel heard, they'll be more open than they are now to hearing why people disagree with them. I also believe many people will talk themselves out of their own logical inconsistencies.
DeleteI agree, alethiological hypothesis equals hope which fuels ambition. But beliefs can be knowable because knowledge is a subset of belief. Some beliefs are not in the domain of knowledge but faith. Those have seeds of knowledge (because blind faith is always wrong) but the corpus of faith is loyalty based on certain fundamental, though rudimentary, knowledge.
Every ancient society worshipped a higher being. The atheistic ethos of modern societies is relatively new and founded upon lack of understanding of divine motive. Since there was no apprehensible justification for the coexistence of worldwide evil and divine compassion, the latter was dismissed. But the ancient world accounted for their own depth of ignorance and the possibility that there were more complicated factors than a human mind could contain, such as, for example, the inextricable web of human relations, not only laterally to everyone throughout the world but also vertically to posterity. It seems to me we think we can judge divine motive pretty well enough to dismiss it while accounting for all our actions' effects on the world and our progeny. It's the illusion of increased self-sufficiency.
Regarding the brain's self-discovery, the heart's self-concealment, and the conjunction of utility and danger, I have yet to see an exception. I don't believe these are subjective but objective truths and will change my mind if there is proof otherwise.
Yes, God endorses the potential for danger. The proof of it is in His giving of life. Life is the potential for danger. Any child can grow up to be a murderer or a caregiver. It's safer for the life not to come into the world in a sense. Does God endorse technology? All technology is the same: it is made because it's useful. Yet all technology can be used for harm and evil. Should we abolish it therefore? No.
No one, whether raised in or out of Christianity, is better. But those raised outside of the knowledge of God who journey inside know God better than those raised inside it. Those raised in Christianity think God is the aggregate of the system they've witnessed. They can't as easily see the heart of God. Those who come to God after a lifetime of being broken by the cruelty of worldly life get a glimpse of the heart of God right away. So they tend to be more fervent in reciprocating love to Him and less judgmental. The benefit of being raised under Christianity is the prevention of life-ruining involvements at a tender age, which may be the greatest advantage in life, but the danger is a tendency toward the supercilious and of course the danger of overprotection vs. strengthening which causes an Oedipal Mother complex in many churches.
Separation of church and state, while impossible to realize fully, is good and right - particularly if its two interpretations are balanced. One interpretation favors keeping the church out of the state, and the other favors keeping the state out of the church. Both should be practiced but both with exceptions. We don't want the state completely out of churches or there will be no redressing of human rights violations. We don't want the church completely out of the state or there will be no standard of ethics that is halfway consistent. Proof of this is that without a shared belief in God and the instantiation of the divine in men, the declaration of any truths to be "self-evident" implodes upon itself. But what I mean by not looking at an "is" through an "ought" (in a reversal of David Hume's ideas) is that your worldview shouldn't taint what you see in reality. Reality is supposed to be objective. Don't make your reality subjective. I see religious people do that by immediately dismissing anything that seems to challenge their understanding and irreligious people do it through the promulgation of ideas like "my truth." They are both doing the same thing.
DeleteThe person you would go to for help that you know would help but you don't want to inconvenience is your truest friend. Many people try quicker fixes rather than humbly going to those who care about them and letting them know they made unwise decisions. Many teenagers try to get out of problems without their parents because they don't want the lecture. Many people try to borrow from acquaintances to avoid straining their close friendships. And many people look to God in distress when every man has failed them. In all these cases, it's the most responsible thing to do to go to those with their best interest at heart first. It's more efficient and healthy.
White privilege is the privilege most commonly spoken of today. It accounts for subconscious cultural preferences and overt representation in society today. But the negative stigma attached to it (e.g. all white people are racist) whether true or not does create a weight in the soul that they are not permitted to talk about, lest they sound insensitive to those with less overt privileges. My only intended point is that no one can account for the possibility that as societal privilege increases, the state of the soul degenerates. If that is true, it might not be advantageous to have such privilege, unless all gain in life is to be measured superficially and politically. What is my privilege? I have too many to mention, as do most, but I try to keep my identity less stated and out of my observations of life's truths lest it taint the "is" either for me or the reader. Objectivity is the goal, and obviously I have to work hard to see around my own lenses before writing what I believe is true. Nevertheless, having experienced otherwise, I count my greatest privilege as living with hot, running water.
RE: Deserving and grief. You've stated objectivity as a goal of your observations of life's truths, but you've also stated that you don't believe we deserve anything when (you must know) many (the arguable majority of) people believe we deserve much of which we work for (and if belief is an umbrella over knowledge / some knowledge is a subset of belief, herein lies a plot hole). "We didn't ask for life, but no one except the suicidal consider life a curse." You preclude the idea that life is a curse to be broken, and that the resolution is to be celebrated. "Even the things we work hard to create - the mind to do it was given to us, or why else do we think others choose not to do what we do? Our own self-created virtue?" We do not underestimate self-created / vainly-assigned virtue, but we cannogt exclude the possibility that we were given minds a la roll-of-the-dice genetic permutations. We understand you come from a God-deigned and -designed belief and knowledge system -- but if you aim to be objective, do you not integrate and allow for other possibilities? Your creator-bias is the crack in the lens everywhere you claim to be objective.
ReplyDeleteSo much of your content is excellent, and fairly stretchable to cover the universal. It would more comfortably, objectively cover the statements you publish if you were to genuinely, authentically think about incorporating the modern global majority's points of view. You speak and write like a young person reading old texts, exclusively. You must see the objective limitation of this writing style.
RE: Skin = seduction. Your response is still reductive. Or, rather, it runs parallel with the infamous sentiment expressed in the Jacobellis v. Ohio Supreme Court case (1964) -- "I know it when I see it." This sentiment has been immortalized as a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters (Google). We agree with the need for balance (re: so much skin is too much, and so much skin covered is extreme). And we agree that the balance is socially/societally/culturally conditioned and defined. Middle Eastern standards will differ from Western standards, etc. You say Skin ≠ Deceit. We wonder if you include the body, or body type, in your definition of skin. One's set body type is an natural as one's skin color/composition -- but much more malleable, and also under scrutiny for being "presentable". Do you think, for example, eating disorders are a kind of deceit, for manupliating the body in an unnatural way to appear (not more sexualized, but) presentable? Eating disorders prevail in feminine/woman narratives, and we know you speak from a masculine/male point of view. We think it's wild that you're speaking about make-up at all (unless you're a woman dealing with Western standards and pressures of beauty). We think eating disorders are a kind of addiction, not to dissimilar to, and fulfilling many goals of, the make-up industry (and not exclusive to women). Your make-up = deceit thread still precludes all possibility that make-up = art, and you haven't discredited art as deception / presentation of ideals. This just isn't an unbiased, objective observation of life's truths. You've skipped a few steps in your work.
Everyone has a lens tainted by something, and the foremost filter is either atheism or theism. If I speak with a seeming "a priori" assumption of God, it's not because it's actually a priori - it's because I've considered that issue first and am now building off of it. That's why the first thing I ever wrote on this blog was how I came to the conclusion that there must be a God. I do try to to speak objectively, but we cannot speak at all if not through one of those lenses. I have found no logical consistency in the belief of human worth at all if there is no God. That's why I refer to the things in life as "given" to us.
DeleteCorrect, skin does not equal deceit. An eating disorder could only qualify as a deceit if one allowed its origin to be diabolical and therefore a deception of the devil - there is certainly no deceit committed on the part of the victim. I don't ascribe to the popular modern philosophy that certain groups are prohibited from matters of thought on any grounds. I don't believe women ought to be precluded from judgments of the sexual profligacy of men because they don't know the burn of the drive that men experience. Neither do I believe a man has no right to feel a certain message conveyed through makeup. It's true that makeup is an art - the question is whether decorative art ought to be displayed on the human face. I only contend that it cheapens the realness of human interaction. I look at makeup as misogynistic - it enables women to be uncomfortable with their true selves. I have heard and am somewhat fond of the saying that art is using a lie to tell the truth. I see that in dramas, in paintings, and all other classic artforms but not cosmetics.
How do you define vanity? Contextually, your definition seems gendered. Make-up harbors intentions of curation / alteration (however minor) and presentability, but what of traditionally masculine alterations? Good haircuts, hair products, fitted suits, three-piece suits, cuff links, metal-color-coordinated watches and belts? Are not all attempts toward presentability, regardless of gender, demonstrations of vanity and deceit? You seem more critical of feminine spaces (which just tastes misogynistic, and we hope you enlighten/correct us, the readers).
ReplyDeleteWe don't discount your prepare for life v prepare for death thread. But can you fathom people who prepare for life in such a way that they actually fulfill the meticulous planning for death, as such, an echo of Jesus? Isn't that the ideal?
RE: Consistency in error, you just seem to be reiterating the scientific method of experimentation in a way which seems, to you, profound. Of course you don't change the variable in the middle of an experiment. Of course you change the variable in the next experiment. The analysis is the same for scientific v social experiments. If you have ever coded (computer science), the program will work if all things are consistent, right, and true (according to programmatic / functional design). If there is a line of broken code (which can be difficult to suss out, when troubleshooting 5,000 lines of code), it can also simply be an inconsistency (NOT a consistency, to a fault; it can be a one-off, single key-stroke error). You change that one line, and it works. Separately, do you really think humans tend toward consistent to a fault? We rather think that humans tend toward inconsistency, full stop.
RE: Ethics v Morality. If you invalidate the premise (rather than question it; if you question it, you unravel some stitches and ask about its construction; invalidate it, you throw it off the table), we could never cover more ground in argument. You simply combined the two (ethics v morality). Do you claim there is zero difference? Do you not think this is a bias / a subjective read on life's truths? As for the original statement, "The only morality of modern society is social acceptability." Do you really think so low of the secular citizen? Do you think this could be conditioned within your own life experience (do you think you're regurgitating sermoned truths), or do you think you came to this conclusion yourself after rigorous, cross-discipline examination?
I use the dictionary definition of vanity: excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. I don't think more negatively of the vanity of one gender over another. Women happen to have gravitated to makeup more than men. If men wore makeup (as they have in centuries past - in France, for example), I would be equally critical of them. The masculine alterations you have mentioned actually apply equally to women. Note that I have never condemned the cut of women's hair or products, fitted dresses or apparel, elaborate purses, coordinating watches, belts, shoes, etc. I don't think women are being vain in those categories, nor men (though obviously many men do go overboard with it, and there is plenty of room to exhibit an equally execrable degree of vanity of which I disapprove). No, I do not believe efforts toward presentability go under the category of deceit. I also own that women regard makeup as an expression of presentability and not deceit, but I think that is a misjudgment. I'm merely proffering that a society that teaches women that makeup is necessary for self-presentation (but not for the men) is teaching them that they are not enough (but men are). I disagree with that. It's the authenticity of a human face that is attractive to a mind that wants something deeper. It's the trueness of the person that is desirable, not the façade.
DeleteRegarding "preparing for life in such a way that they actually fulfill the meticulous planning for death:" absolutely. You're right: it is the ideal. If there's any difference between our statements it would only be in wording and how we define the terms - not in contradiction of ideas.
I also agree with you that humans tend toward inconsistency. That's why I made the statement about the virtue of consistency; even when you're wrong, logical consistency will help you align yourself rightly.
I conflate ethics and morality because I have never heard anyone provide me with a viable distinction between the two. I don't think this is bias for two reasons: 1. The dictionary seems to equate them as being principles that govern behavior as right and wrong. 2. I'll be happy to retract my viewpoint if you can distinguish them intelligibly to me. Bias can sometimes be felt through how begrudging you feel about changing opinion. I do feel the typical citizen unwittingly takes the public opinion as his arbiter. Why do so many evangelicals feel that an unliteral interpretation of Genesis is heresy? Because his immediate society feels that way. How would he feel if the ministry and all his religious acquaintances felt either was acceptable? He'd feel at ease with others' interpretations and be less dogmatic. Secular society isn't exempt from this. It happens en masse, and it's less noticeable outside religious circles. I'm not exempt from it.
RE: Safe spaces. Thank you for the concession. "Adults need to be strengthened and encouraged more than protected." It is interesting and problematic as it regards to the objective, but we do not diametrically oppose. The rest of your response reads as a targeted advertisement. We appreciate that white nationalists require safe spaces as much as the next citizen -- but we do not and cannot trust, as has been historically demonstrated in the year of 2022 (for the sake of national safety), that they will "talk themselves out of their own logical inconsistencies." Since you brought the argument there, how do you couch white nationalists? You seem uncharacteristically sympathetic / defensive.
ReplyDelete"...but the corpus of faith is loyalty based on certain fundamental, though rudimentary, knowledge." We really like this. This lends itself to a more objective observation of life's truths. It is a gross assumption. And you could write better framing every "objective" aphorism with this beautifully rudimentary standard.
RE: The definition of God/gods in Western society. "The atheistic ethos of modern societies is relatively new and founded upon lack of understanding of divine motive." You assume the divine motive in (in your self-identified objective observations of life's truths). You dismiss the coexistence of worldwide evil and divine compassion on logically shaky ground (because you assume the divine). We dunno -- you claim pseudo-objectivism at every turn, but you assume so much. If you won't engage with the truths outside of your assumptions, might you modify your blog title? Your byline is beautiful: "I will answer any reasonable question along any topic posited to me." You do answer all questions posited to you. But do you answer them reasonably and objectively, integrating as many viewpoints as you can? Because you seem to most immediately dismiss the viewpoint opposite of you (divine motive v cosmic randomness) as soon as you start a sentence. If your goal is to convert the opposers, you might start with the opposing viewpoint, and dismantle it (therefore leading them to your own conclusion), to greater effect (than if you started with the viewpoint / people which agree with you). We suppose our ultimate criticism is, why don't you employ the Socratic Method more often? You're / your writing style is built for it, and it would be far more effective in influence, persuasion, and conversion. (A significant sidebar: The desire for efficacy, influence, persuasion, and conversion would reveal your ulterior designs, which would denigrate your self-professed aim at the objectivity of life's truths. Our simple-stupid, root question for you? Are you trying to ask people more questions to guide them to your truth(s), or are you passive-aggresively, reductively telling people what's true so they Must agree with you? Do you recognize the difference between these two pedagogical styles?)
I'm sympathetic toward the suffering of humanity. White nationalism is a plague and a scourge. They suffer from rot of the soul and can't see it. I have no sympathy for the philosophy - just the humans. Who is willing to put forth effort to save them from their ignorance by lending them an ear with the risk that they may never open up to change? No one. So they remain disconnected, diseased, and propagating. I admit it's a risk to give them safe-spaces (the opportunity to speak their hatred). If we take that risk, they might not change - if we don't take the risk, they will not change.
DeleteIt's good admonition for me: start with the opposing viewpoint, and dismantle it, or rather: say why I haven't agreed to it yet. I think that is how I approach more direct questions. As for cosmic randomness, if I haven't addressed it, it's because I've found it inextricable from atheistic nihilism which I can't accept as long as the existence of love, the Solar System's fine-tuning for life, evolution of life from non-life, and materialization of matter defy its logical consistency on a scientific and metaphysical front. There's a lot packed in there, but that explains some of the groundwork for my acceptance of God's existence. Everything I perceive after that will be at least that much tainted. And the reverse is true for those who accept atheism to be a reality. Additionally, I abhor passive aggression and certainly do not wish that among my pedagogical stylings.
RE: Brain's self-discovery, the heart's self-concealment. Does the heart not learn? Does the brain/mind/soul not conceal? (We know we've lumped brain, mind, and soul together in this calculation. We're still not necessarily disagreeing, but. How do you define the heart v brain? That would help us understand your reductive argument.)
ReplyDeleteRE: The intersection of utility and danger. We do not discredit this intersection, we just wish you more naturally wrestled with nuance. Could you not start at the statement, greater utility = greater power? And with power comes great responsibility AND/OR danger? You leap to utility's danger too quickly for the logical observation of life's truths (which more and more, you must realize is an human-ambitious premise). Within Literature and Film, the modern goal is to start at The Latest Possible Moment. When do you start the story? Not at the beginning, but at the earliest moment Most Relevant to the audience. You started with utility but skipped over power and responsibility, straight on to danger. There are entire stories told, and lessons learnt, and truths demonstrated, in between.
RE: Those raised in or out of Christianity. We appreciate your arguments. But we'd like to add that, although "they tend to be more fervent in reciprocating love to Him and less judgmental", they also tend to reflect the most fire and brimstone. There's nothing quite like the extreme purity of the convert, afterall. But also, PROPS to fitting in the Oedipal Mother complex in many churches. Unexpected and refreshing! Still teasing and reductive. GO ON, LET LOOSE.
RE: Separation of church and state. We agree it is impossible to fully realize, and is only good and right if its two interpretations are balanced. And we love that you've read Hume. But, "I see religious people do that by immediately dismissing anything that seems to challenge their understanding and irreligious people do it through the promulgation of ideas like 'my truth'." Do you really see yourself innocent of this? After how much you have failed to consider?
RE: "Your last hope should be your first recourse." We like the personal-level illustration. We even like the binary blanket statement, "In all these cases, it's the most responsible thing to do to go to those with their best interest at heart first. It's more efficient and healthy." But how do you objectively define those with our best interest at heart? Can you objectively break this down, or do you assume the "you know it when you see it" / "the truth has a certiain ring to it" argument? Or, do you assume no objective authority as it relates to this definition?
The heart does learn, but it learns through the mind. The mind does conceal, but it conceals through the heart. The only exception I can think of is if one chooses to identify forgetfulness as concealment, though I wouldn't. That's merely a judgment call. I define the heart as the seat of emotions and attitudes and the mind as the domain of thought.
DeleteIt's true that I passed over power or ability to reference danger, but such is the way with thought presentation. Sometimes the steady walk-through of each point is tedious, and the jump to an unseeable link is engaging. A professor of mine once made the claim that the ice ages were the reason why Wisconsin is known for cheese. I've scarcely been as delighted by such a ridiculous claim ever since. But as he walked through why it was the case, step by step, I saw that it was undeniable. I wouldn't have changed his presentation if I could. It's true: the ice age is the reason Wisconsin is known for cheese. And utility is the reason danger exists. So I leave my presentation as is.
I don't see anyone as innocent of dismissing what challenges their understanding. I just try to eliminate as much dismissal of foreign thought as I can. No one knows how much they've failed to consider.
Those who have your best interest at heart have to be weighed by commitment. And commitment can be weighed by sacrifice. Those are the markers of which I'm aware by which goodwill can be measured.
RE: Privilege vs hardship. Our main criticism is that you seem to balance privilege and hardship, tit for tat. Objectively, privelege does not balance / cancel out hardship. They are different, and incomparable, truths. Apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteIt is sweet that you include hot, running water as a privelege. However, we do recognize it as a charming first-world-vs-third-world, not an authentic-in-my-own-daily-life, argument. Can you measure the silence by a thousand cuts, being a woman in a men-dominated industry? Can you measure the pain by a thousand cuts, being a person of color in a Western country built off slave labor and men-only democracy (in either 5th Century Athens or modern day Western Democracy)?
You assume you are equipped to write objective observations of life's truths as a white man in an increasingly progressive secular Western society. You write as though you are, most simply illustrated, "color-blind". You write citing old texts and scenarios. There is no objective observation of truth, without some identity reference points and biases, or erasure of other identities.
You assume you can write the objective observation of life's truths. Who can do that, but God? Would you not reconsider the title OR aim of your own, excellent and useful, blog? The title is "Annotated Observations Of Life's Truths". The aim is objectivity, which implies universality / ubiquitousness.
Wouldn't this blog benefit from a better / more honest definition regarding title, or aim and / or audience? You're well-received in your particular world. But how do you fair against the world God gave you to face and lead?
We challenge you because we believe you're the best and can do better.
I don't find any justification for the claim that privilege and hardship are not linked. I think they are inversely proportional: one end of the scale dangling in the practical world and the other in the psychological. I get a similar message from Fyodor Dostoevsky's works: there are people who enjoy incredible benefits from a variety of sources, including misdeeds, but pay for it in the unseen realm (in THIS lifetime, not after). I believe he was right, and I think those with greater privilege in some areas have unseen demons in other areas they themselves probably haven't noticed/acknowledged.
DeleteNo, I cannot measure the silence or pain of anyone.
I don't assume I can write objectively. I can only do my best to aim for it.
I believe the fact that "observations" is in the blog title will render all the requisite concessions of subjectivity endemic to the human experience. No observation occurs but through a person tainted with subjectivity.
wait why was jonah a racist ?
ReplyDeleteJonah was told to preach to the Assyrians so they would be saved. He hated them as a class of people. He disobeyed God by going in the exact opposite direction. His prejudice was so strong that even after God knocked enough sense into him to preach to their capital city, he was very upset that they responded positively to his word and repented. So, it wasn’t about what they did, it was about who they were as a people. He wanted God to destroy them and ends his story railing against God for helping them to change and improve their ways.
Delete