The Nature of Religion

[rebecca702]

I have heard that Nietzsche is considered "the father of atheistic existentialism."

In this kind of existentialism, the way to face the absurdity of the world is to create a meaning for yourself. This creation of meaning ex nihilo doesn't degrade your meaning as such, as all meaning would be created meaning. In other words, creating a meaning of your own life is completely legitimate, as long as you do not base it in "objective" existence, or let it be the main "pillar" of your life. According to Kierkegaard, one would be in a perpetual state of despair (although it would be an unrealised despair that one would flee from whenever it showed itself) if one had some meaning (It doesn't necessarily have to be one single meaning; even a multitude of meanings is fragile) as the main pillar of one's life. (Wikipedia)

Seems to me most everybody is running from this despair, and religion is the method.

So then: how to separate created meaning from true insight or understanding.

[1otherS]

I have heard that Nietzsche is considered "the father of atheistic existentialism."

In this kind of existentialism, the way to face the absurdity of the world is to create a meaning for yourself. This creation of meaning ex nihilo doesn't degrade your meaning as such, as all meaning would be created meaning. In other words, creating a meaning of your own life is completely legitimate, as long as you do not base it in "objective" existence, or let it be the main "pillar" of your life. According to Kierkegaard, one would be in a perpetual state of despair (although it would be an unrealised despair that one would flee from whenever it showed itself) if one had some meaning (It doesn't necessarily have to be one single meaning; even a multitude of meanings is fragile) as the main pillar of one's life. (Wikipedia)

Seems to me most everybody is running from this despair, and religion is the method.

So then: how to separate created meaning from true insight or understanding.

A true insight or understanding is something which brings you satisfaction in an ethical manner.

[Dan Rowden]

What has ethics got to do with the truth value of an insight or piece of understanding?

[rebecca702]

Yeah, who decides what's ethical? What you think is ethical today you might not think is ethical tomorrow.

[1otherS]

Ethical behaviour is self-assertion without inflicting pain or harm upon others or even yourself.

[Pye]

The ethical is the "ought" - that which ought to be. Every utterance of an "ought" is moral/ethical in nature. For instance that we ought to love/pursue truth above all is an ethical/moral stance.

Unfortunately, less nuanced thinkers and/or philosophical enthusiasts who want create as much distinction and distance between themselves and all other religio-moral notions saw themselves off at the knees in this. Even the weakest possible zen notion of the what-is shall also put forth its "as-it-ought-to-be"-ness. The classical philosophical objection to making an "is" and "ought" (or the other way around) is one of those casualties of un-nuanced thinking. To insist, linguistically, that confusion between an is and an ought is irreconcilable within the law of identity is to give up higher nuance, higher clarity, in favor of the academic/analytic rules.

All wild children of philosophy want to think themselves independent of any "oughts" at all; any ethos of any flavor - in dread that any scent of ethics or morals would dare be attached to them - especially those that might smack of the old metaphysics from which so many have brought forth their "oughts" under dubious cover. As understandable - and even necessary - as this rebellion might be, it is pure delusion to settle into the belief that one is free of ought-to thinking. The ought is the vacuum into which all action is driven. No ought; no action. (Thus the ought becomes the is). Such a dismissal also protects a person from the need to examine their own acts; place greater import and urgency upon same.

Dan writes: What has ethics got to do with the truth value of an insight or piece of understanding?

In the case of the pursuit and love-of truth, the ought and the is are drawn together in perfection. One ought to pursue the is. I look forward to the day, Dan, when you get over your reactive allergy to any and all discourse along the moral/ethical lines; put away your childish things; your rebellious youth; and occupy the seriousness to which you already lay claim. Such a movement would prevent you from knee-jerk one-liners like these. It's an old fold you've pressed down hard upon in your gray matter. Tight and dark in this wrinkle, bereft of air, it might grow mold, fester. Iron it open, and it will dry and warm in the light.

rebecca702 writes:

Yeah, who decides what's ethical?

You do. And you'd better. Or someone else will do it for you.

[rebecca702]

rebecca702 writes:

Yeah, who decides what's ethical?

You do. And you'd better. Or someone else will do it for you.

Right, I do. Based on all my own delusions, plus those of every other human being I've ever come into contact with. So it's "me" doing it plus "someone else", always in some ratio. How is this helpful, exactly?

...it is pure delusion to settle into the belief that one is free of ought-to thinking. The ought is the vacuum into which all action is driven. No ought; no action. (Thus the ought becomes the is).

I think the "ought-to" thought is simply the ego needing to do something to recreate itself in each moment. Ought-is, sure.

Such a dismissal also protects a person from the need to examine their own acts; place greater import and urgency upon same.

I don't understand that last part. Can you rephrase that?

[Loki]

Brilliant Pye! I too have noticed that QRS is very much a moral code. Even, In their radio interviews I noticed the import they placed on appealing to people's conscience. I can recall Otto Weinegger stating the the male force is moral, while the feminine force is amoral. His point seemed to be that only men are capable of morality. Kierkegaard uses words like goodness and evil quite a bit, and Quinn seems quite taken by K. It's a no brainer that QRS philosophy is very ethics based.

[1otherS]

Now that women have access to higher learning, albeit a very faulty education, they too will become more rigorous in abstract concepts like morality and goodwill.

[Dan Rowden]

Ethical behaviour is self-assertion without inflicting pain or harm upon others or even yourself.

Then "ethical behaviour" is all but impossible to achieve, and frankly, pretty damn stupid.

[Dan Rowden]

Brilliant Pye! I too have noticed that QRS is very much a moral code. Even, In their radio interviews I noticed the import they placed on appealing to people's conscience. I can recall Otto Weinegger stating the the male force is moral, while the feminine force is amoral. His point seemed to be that only men are capable of morality. Kierkegaard uses words like goodness and evil quite a bit, and Quinn seems quite taken by K. It's a no brainer that QRS philosophy is very ethics based.

So, you're conflating ethics and values then? All values, purpose and design are moral constructs?

[Dan Rowden]

Now that women have access to higher learning, albeit a very faulty education, they too will become more rigorous in abstract concepts like morality and goodwill.

What? Are you suggesting the uneducated lack morality and goodwill?

[Nick]

The ethical is the "ought" - that which ought to be. Every utterance of an "ought" is moral/ethical in nature.

This is completely false. An ought is in no way inextricably tied to morality. Unless of course you're saying a statement such as, "you ought to fish on that side of the river if you wish to catch anything", is a moral/ethical one, but then morality would less any sort of meaning I'm used to it having, and I'm sure it would for most others as well.

For instance that we ought to love/pursue truth above all is an ethical/moral stance.

If one wishes to become enlightened, i.e. free from delusion, then pursuing truth is something one must do. Saying that we ought to pursue truth in order to become enlightened is no more moral or ethical than saying we ought to add 1 + 1 in order to equal 2.

[David Quinn]

Brilliant Pye! I too have noticed that QRS is very much a moral code. Even, In their radio interviews I noticed the import they placed on appealing to people's conscience. I can recall Otto Weinegger stating the the male force is moral, while the feminine force is amoral. His point seemed to be that only men are capable of morality. Kierkegaard uses words like goodness and evil quite a bit, and Quinn seems quite taken by K. It's a no brainer that QRS philosophy is very ethics based.

The ethical basis is the valuing of truth. So yes, to the degree that we urge people to shed their delusions and start behaving sanely, we are pushing an ethical agenda.

Now that women have access to higher learning, albeit a very faulty education, they too will become more rigorous in abstract concepts like morality and goodwill.

With women, it's always "will", "in the future", "if given the opportunity", etc. They still refuse to take ownership of the past and recognize the limitations of their own natures. Nothing will ever be achieved until this happens.

They still expect everything to be handed to them on a platter.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

The ethical basis is the valuing of truth. So yes, to the degree that we urge people to shed their delusions and start behaving sanely, we are pushing an ethical agenda.

Right. Now we just need Dan to recognize this, and we're home free.

They still expect everything to be handed to them on a platter.

Maybe we're just lazy. But then again, a man who won't work to earn his own money is also lazy.

[Dan Rowden]

David,

The ethical basis is the valuing of truth. So yes, to the degree that we urge people to shed their delusions and start behaving sanely, we are pushing an ethical agenda.

Right. Now we just need Dan to recognize this, and we're home free.

That's not going to happen, as I agree with Nick and not David on this one. I see no reason to conflate values and morality. I certainly exploit people's moral sensibilities to try and get them to re-evaluate their values, but that's a somewhat different matter.

They still expect everything to be handed to them on a platter.

Maybe we're just lazy. But then again, a man who won't work to earn his own money is also lazy.

Or smart. And women wanting to be fated isn't about sloth.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Or smart. And women wanting to be fated isn't about sloth.

You'll have to explain why it is so different. How isn't it smart for women to want men to do the hard work?

[David Quinn]

David,

The ethical basis is the valuing of truth. So yes, to the degree that we urge people to shed their delusions and start behaving sanely, we are pushing an ethical agenda.

Right. Now we just need Dan to recognize this, and we're home free.

That's not going to happen, as I agree with Nick and not David on this one. I see no reason to conflate values and morality.

It comes down to the definitions of these things. Urging people to adopt particular values and to change their behaviour accordingly can easily be considered an ethical agenda.

The term "morality", on the other hand, has absolutist overtones, which makes it inappropriate.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Or smart. And women wanting to be fated isn't about sloth.

You'll have to explain why it is so different. How isn't it smart for women to want men to do the hard work?

It might be smart if there were consciousness involved.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

It might be smart if there were consciousness involved.

In my case, I'm conscious that I'm being lazy. And since the main difference between men and women is testosterone levels, and high testosterone has a correlation with ambitious behavior, laziness seems to be a luxury that some men cannot afford, and explains to my satisfaction why some men (those that reach the top) tend to be better achievers than women.

[Dan Rowden]

It comes down to the definitions of these things. Urging people to adopt particular values and to change their behaviour accordingly can easily be considered an ethical agenda.

The term "morality", on the other hand, has absolutist overtones, which makes it inappropriate.

I'll agree with that where a distinction between ethics and morals is made, as "ethics" has broader meaning, technically and classically. But it's a close call.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

It might be smart if there were consciousness involved.

In my case, I'm conscious that I'm being lazy.

I know. I've no problem with conscious sloth. It's far better than a mad, unconscious Protestant work ethic.

And since the main difference between men and women is testosterone levels, and high testosterone has a correlation with ambitious behavior, laziness seems to be a luxury that some men cannot afford, and explains to my satisfaction why some men (those that reach the top) tend to be better achievers than women.

Men are more likely to take risks, probably driven by testosterone, at least in part, which is why they tend to get to the top more.

I'm frankly not sure unconscious laziness even exists, other than through its outward appearance. That is, most people we call lazy have some sort of underlying pathology or illness which stops them doing what most unconscious people do, unconsciously - and that is, strive and work and gather and go batshit crazy doing stuff, any stuff. In other words unconscious people tend to express a kind of mania. They don't have time to be lazy.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Men are more likely to take risks, probably driven by testosterone, at least in part, which is why they tend to get to the top more.

I don't think men owe their advantage to risk-taking. I take a lot of risks and I'm still not an achiever. The advantage that men have is that they are never happy or satisfied. They always want to climb higher. What women lack is motivation (due to being too comfortable), and I believe this comes from low levels of testosterone.

I admit that I wish I had more motivation. In general, I don't seem to be able to give a damn about anything. My only consolation is that many people are worse off than I am. Yes, I know -- not a smart consolation.

[rebecca702]

They still expect everything to be handed to them on a platter.

Maybe we're just lazy. But then again, a man who won't work to earn his own money is also lazy.

How does it make sense to equate philosophical/intellectual laziness with physical/situational laziness?

[Shahrazad]

Because it's all laziness. I don't see why one is better or more useful than the other.