Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by marjoram_blues » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:47 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:29 am
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:39 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:35 pm


You really aren't bright enough to be arguing this topic. You don't have the insight to understand the particular group you are trying (unsuccessfully) to describe. It just comes across as another one of your pointless rants against what you refer to in other threads as ''atheists''.
You should try pulling your head out of your arse--there really isn't much to see up there.
As a dedicated secular progressive you are unable to discuss individulity and only recognize groups. The individual doesn't exist for you. Yet Simone is not referring to just society as a whole or the Great Beast. She is speaking of an individual's psychological slavery to force and why we remain not human. Most defend psychological slavery and are content with meaningless arguments in the struggle for prestige to justify this slavery. But there is a minority who oppose psychological slavery and are willing to make the necessary conscious efforts to acquire inner freedom.
Are you a bot? You don't seem to 'hear' anything anyone else says. How exactly am I a 'secular progressive'? Do you also believe there are only two 'colours', black and white?
:lol:
Direct personal questions could also include:
Are you a pretentious paedophile ?
Amongst other things.

Arising seems to get close to the nature of the beast but the character squirms, slips and slides so well. No wonder the continual attraction...for some. Same old, same old.

uwot
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by uwot » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:28 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:26 pm
Transcending the nature of the beast is not bending over for it. Rather it is knowledge of the forces which keep us a slave to it through the power of imagination.
The church, the military, the judiciary, economic cabals, the aristocracy/oligarchry are not imaginary. If you do nothing to resist, you are a supplicant a slave or, literally, a corpse. Far from transcending force, Simone Weil actively engaged it.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:26 pm
Where nature uses force for her purposes, Man has the potential to consciously use force for a greater good than blindly participating in nature's cycles. Simone Weil wrote of force in her celebrated essay: "The Iliad or the Poem of Force."
Indeed. She wrote that in 1939; in between fighting in the Spanish Civil War against fascists, and working in exile against nazis. So yes, she clearly thought using force to resist right-wing lunatics was "for a greater good".
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:26 pm
You seem content to be a slave to force.
As it happens, I agree with Simone Weil that people who will use force against you, must be resisted, with force, if necessary.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:26 pm
Simone describes conscious freedom from emotional slavery to force
What she said was: "The tempered use of force, indispensable to the escape from its machinery, would demand superhuman virtue, as rare as steadfast dignity in weakness." This is the version I read http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf Which bits are you claiming describe "conscious freedom from emotional slavery to force"?

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:31 pm

uwot
What she said was: "The tempered use of force, indispensable to the escape from its machinery, would demand superhuman virtue, as rare as steadfast dignity in weakness." This is the version I read http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf Which bits are you claiming describe "conscious freedom from emotional slavery to force"?
Conscious freedom is made possible by becoming capable of conscious attention, an attribute that has devolved into a rudimentary form. Man, capable of conscious attention would connect above and below and put society as well as ourselves into a human perspective. Simone describes such a society. If we are sincere we will admit how far we are from it as well as the forces which are against it and have become dominant in the world.
The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also. Simone Weil

uwot
Posts: 3251
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by uwot » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:20 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:31 pm
Man, capable of conscious attention would connect above and below and put society as well as ourselves into a human perspective.
Not god's then. You really need to cite your sources. People change their mind. Considering that Simone Weil was prepared to shoot and kill her enemies, clearly there were exceptions to her holding "every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect."
So did she say the above before, or after saying: "The tempered use of force, indispensable to the escape from its machinery, would demand superhuman virtue, as rare as steadfast dignity in weakness."

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:15 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:20 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:31 pm
Man, capable of conscious attention would connect above and below and put society as well as ourselves into a human perspective.
Not god's then. You really need to cite your sources. People change their mind. Considering that Simone Weil was prepared to shoot and kill her enemies, clearly there were exceptions to her holding "every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect."
So did she say the above before, or after saying: "The tempered use of force, indispensable to the escape from its machinery, would demand superhuman virtue, as rare as steadfast dignity in weakness."
Sure, a human perspective reflects universal values and laws. How does that relate to respect for life? Simone entered the army.
In July 1936, I was in Paris. I don’t like war; but I found the position of those outside the war far more horrifying than war itself. When I understood that, as much as I tried to believe otherwise, I couldn’t ethically refuse to participate in the war – that’s to say, I couldn’t wish every day, every hour, victory for some and defeat for others while doing nothing myself, I told myself that I must put Paris behind me and I caught a train to Barcelona with the intention of enlisting. That was at the beginning of April, 1936.
Trans. From Simone Weil’s Écrits historiques et politiques (Paris : Éditions Gallimard, 1960).
“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
I don’t see defense contradicting her respect for life. Why allow innocent people to be killed or raped and call it respect for the sacredness of life? We may be all equal in our slavery to force but I don’t see how it relates to pacifism? She was a young pacifist but learned by experience it was a dead end.

Belinda
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Belinda » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:23 pm

Nick wrote:
Sure, a human perspective reflects universal values and laws. How does that relate to respect for life? Simone entered the army.
The lesser of two evils, innit.

Nick's chosen extracts from Simone Weil illustrate the point pretty well. This dos not mean that one has no overarching principles. It means that pro- violence or anti-violence are not useful overarching principles.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Greta » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:09 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:23 pm
Nick wrote:
Sure, a human perspective reflects universal values and laws. How does that relate to respect for life? Simone entered the army.
The lesser of two evils, innit.
Whether we tally the numbers of lives or the degree of "sin" it's always back to the trolley problem - who to save, who to spare?

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:45 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:23 pm
Nick wrote:
Sure, a human perspective reflects universal values and laws. How does that relate to respect for life? Simone entered the army.
The lesser of two evils, innit.

Nick's chosen extracts from Simone Weil illustrate the point pretty well. This dos not mean that one has no overarching principles. It means that pro- violence or anti-violence are not useful overarching principles.
You do raise an interesting question. Does the word violence refer to a physical action or an emotional state for you? I associate with an emotional state. A physical action can have either an emotional or logical basis.

Belinda
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Belinda » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:16 am

Violence is physical action, Nick. I have never known anyone, until you, who thought otherwise.

Many people experience violent emotions but curb those with reasoned responses. From the little I know of Simone Weil she was self- disciplined to a fault.

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:16 am
Violence is physical action, Nick. I have never known anyone, until you, who thought otherwise.

Many people experience violent emotions but curb those with reasoned responses. From the little I know of Simone Weil she was self- disciplined to a fault.
Yes Belinda, I am unique. That is why I'm so loveable. :)

Violence may be a physical result but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an emotional cause. Here is a typical dictionay definition:
vi·o·lence
ˈvī(ə)ləns/Submit
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
synonyms: brutality, brute force, ferocity, savagery, cruelty, sadism, barbarity, brutishness More
strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.
"the violence of her own feelings"
From this perspective nonviolent self defense leading to the death of another isn't a contradiction since it isn't motivated by negative emotion..

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Greta » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:05 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 pm
From this perspective nonviolent self defense leading to the death of another isn't a contradiction since it isn't motivated by negative emotion..
How about bulldozing someone's home to build a freeway? How about cutting healthcare payments to to sick to save money (and let the weak "drop off")? How about building a glorious new society on the remains of the indigenous society that came before? Much violence is performed coldly through pragmatic ruthlessness.

Hostility and anger can be thought of as a kind of emotional violence, although often the main victim appears to be the one who is angry.

I don't think it's helpful to redefine "violence", but we can consider the different kinds of violence, including verbal and emotional violence, which pertain to the violence's targets, aims and emotional underpinning. To that end, I thought I'd Google to see what progress has been made in that area and Wiki lists an impressive range different kinds of violence.

Life is inherently violent, a fact that is somewhat obscured by the success of our civilisations' security measures. As populations build, conflicts of interest become more intense. While tremendous progress has been made in gentrification and violence reduction in society, more wars seem highly likely in the not-so-distant future, the first hints being the breakdown of public accountability, diplomacy and truthfulness, ie. decreasing cooperation between increasingly divided groups.

Once the dust has settled from the upcoming entropic storm, progress towards greater peacefulness will continue apace.

Impenitent
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Impenitent » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:19 am

"only the dead have seen the end of war" - Santayana

-Imp

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:28 am

Greta wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:05 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 pm
From this perspective nonviolent self defense leading to the death of another isn't a contradiction since it isn't motivated by negative emotion..
How about bulldozing someone's home to build a freeway? How about cutting healthcare payments to to sick to save money (and let the weak "drop off")? How about building a glorious new society on the remains of the indigenous society that came before? Much violence is performed coldly through pragmatic ruthlessness.

Hostility and anger can be thought of as a kind of emotional violence, although often the main victim appears to be the one who is angry.

I don't think it's helpful to redefine "violence", but we can consider the different kinds of violence, including verbal and emotional violence, which pertain to the violence's targets, aims and emotional underpinning. To that end, I thought I'd Google to see what progress has been made in that area and Wiki lists an impressive range different kinds of violence.

Life is inherently violent, a fact that is somewhat obscured by the success of our civilisations' security measures. As populations build, conflicts of interest become more intense. While tremendous progress has been made in gentrification and violence reduction in society, more wars seem highly likely in the not-so-distant future, the first hints being the breakdown of public accountability, diplomacy and truthfulness, ie. decreasing cooperation between increasingly divided groups.

Once the dust has settled from the upcoming entropic storm, progress towards greater peacefulness will continue apace.
Does karma leading to destruction and death have an emotional source provoking a violent reaction or is it just an impartial reaction to universal laws of force?

Nick_A
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:35 am

Impenitent wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:19 am
"only the dead have seen the end of war" - Santayana

-Imp

Of course if reincarnation is a reality you may find that like Sisyphus getting nowhere, you may find yourself on the battlefield again defending your honor in one form or another.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Scapegoats for Secular Progressives

Post by Greta » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:55 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:28 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:05 am
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:19 pm
From this perspective nonviolent self defense leading to the death of another isn't a contradiction since it isn't motivated by negative emotion..
How about bulldozing someone's home to build a freeway? How about cutting healthcare payments to to sick to save money (and let the weak "drop off")? How about building a glorious new society on the remains of the indigenous society that came before? Much violence is performed coldly through pragmatic ruthlessness.

Hostility and anger can be thought of as a kind of emotional violence, although often the main victim appears to be the one who is angry.

I don't think it's helpful to redefine "violence", but we can consider the different kinds of violence, including verbal and emotional violence, which pertain to the violence's targets, aims and emotional underpinning. To that end, I thought I'd Google to see what progress has been made in that area and Wiki lists an impressive range different kinds of violence.

Life is inherently violent, a fact that is somewhat obscured by the success of our civilisations' security measures. As populations build, conflicts of interest become more intense. While tremendous progress has been made in gentrification and violence reduction in society, more wars seem highly likely in the not-so-distant future, the first hints being the breakdown of public accountability, diplomacy and truthfulness, ie. decreasing cooperation between increasingly divided groups.

Once the dust has settled from the upcoming entropic storm, progress towards greater peacefulness will continue apace.
Does karma leading to destruction and death have an emotional source provoking a violent reaction or is it just an impartial reaction to universal laws of force?
You are referring to cause and effect. It just is what it is. Thus, the idea is to not engage in "causes" with undesirable "effects", and this notion holds whether one believes that death wipes the slate or whether there are after effects.

Many have strong opinions as to what kind of behaviours in this life lead to a wonderful or dreadful next life, or that finally exempt people from The Wheel and who can then spend a far more relaxed time in a gentler dimension. Trouble is, each religion has its own doctrine, their own methodology, and none seem very capable of credibly substantiating those knowledge claims.

Meanwhile, religions have used scary threats about retribution beyond the grave as a means of people control for millennia. Why should any theists be believed with their unsubstantiated claims since they ALL claim to be the only one to know the Truth?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests