⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:28 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 3:06 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 2:39 pm "Religion" is not going anywhere, it seems...and certainly we're not descending into universal Atheism. Something else quite "religious" is going on.
I'll go along with your view of religion subsuming all varieties of superstition, but am a little surprise you exclude Atheism.
I wouldn't. But they absolutely insist they're not religious. So I can be polite, or I can be precise. You rightly chide me for opting for the former instead of the latter, perhaps.
In the past you've argued that Atheism is a religion (which I agree it is). If Atheism is a religion, descending into universal Atheism would just be a different religion, wouldn't it? Aren't all the non-theistic religions and superstitions already, "atheistic?"
I wouldn't say so. Buddhism, for example, is highly religious, if we go to an actual Buddhist country instead of taking Western Beatles Buddhism as the exemplar. But even that, I would say was the expression of a religious longing. What often happens to Atheists is that they end up worshipping at a new shrine...Humanism, Socialism, or some other "-ism" they will swear to you has none of the religious in it, but is actually corresponding to the same longings for meaning, purpose, moral direction, and existential peace that others look to conventional religion to provide.

Atheism, pure atheism, is really a gelding. It has nothing at all to offer the world except its petulant insistence that nothing will induce it to consider the possibility of the existence of God. Beyond that, it's got nothing. So maybe that kind of Atheism is "non-religious": but most cannot stand its vacuousness, and have to tack on some superstition or ideology to supply what pure Atheism cannot.
"Pure atheism?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are there pure versions of other religions? Is there, "pure Hinduism," "pure Christianity," or "pure Shintoism." I suppose one might call atheism a, "negative ideology," like those who make it their mission in life to counter some perceived evil, like, "anti-witchcraft," or "anti-spiritualism," or, 'anit-Islam," which is very popular these days. Otherwise, I don't see how it's any different than any view that one needs to defend their own beliefs or fight against what it believes are others' mistaken evil beliefs.

I do not believe there is any more religion in the word today than there was 50, 100, or 1000 years ago, because humanity is and has always been saturated with religion--there just couldn't be any more in any appreciable amount. I know you think religion is increasing. If you are right, do you think that is a good thing, bad thing, or just indifferent?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

theory wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:14 pm ...that one should look at a science to 'know' why someone commits a crime.
That's the fundamental fallacy in your entire thesis. No science will ever explain why someone does what is wrong (ignorant and self-destructive). Nothing makes anyone do anything. Everything every human being does, they choose to do.

I'm afraid you've bought a lot of psychobable nonsense. Hardly anything has done more harm then the pseudo-science of psychology. Of course they find children labeled with ADHD more likely to commit, "crimes," because psychologists drug the poor kids out of their minds, destroying their ability to learn, think, and make right choices.
theory wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:14 pm Albert Einstein's behaviour as a child may be perceived as morally reprehensible by many and a reason for preventive measures but in his time he was merely kicked out of school and otherwise accepted as he was, which enabled him to develop into a genius that contributed to human existence like few others may have could.

The story of Jabob Barnett from Indiana, USA shows a similar story. Psychiatrists told his mother that he would probably never be able to tie his own shoes because of his mental illness. His mother didn't accept the generally accepted disease perspective and instead, decided to let her son be himself. His mother decided to educate her son at home and at 14 years old his IQ was estimated at 170, higher then that of Albert Einstein.

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing, Genius, and Autism
https://www.amazon.com/Spark-Mothers-Nu ... B009QJMV8A
There's your proof. Those children whose parents protected them from government education and the influences of psychologists, like Einstein, Barnet, and Edison (also homeschooled), and many more, who where allowed to pursue their own individual interests and choose what and how to learn were able to succeeded in life.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:55 am "Pure atheism?"
:D I only mean "Atheism with nothing else added to it," i.e. no Humanism, no Evolutionary Progressivism, no Communism, and so on. Atheism vanilla style...no other flavour added. Just rejection of the idea of God.
I suppose one might call atheism a, "negative ideology,
That's ALL it really is. Once we get past that basic claim that there are no gods, there's no more that Atheism itself says. It's just negativity.
I do not believe there is any more religion in the word today than there was 50, 100, or 1000 years ago
There'd have to be. There's more people, and it seems these people have become more religious in the last century -- but but there's also a lot of weird, made-up pseudo-spirituality, too.
If you are right, do you think that is a good thing, bad thing, or just indifferent?
Well, some of it is sure better than pure negativity. But some of it is worse. I'd say it depends on the content of the ideology that's increasing, in each case.

I'd also say the death of some "religions" is sometimes a sign of good things. So I'm not for defending them all, as if they were all of-a-piece. That's something only a fairly ignorant Atheist would be inclined to believe...namely the idea that all "religions" are essentially just the same in regards to value, so you have to agree with all or reject all. I don't think that at all.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:55 am
I do not believe there is any more religion in the word today than there was 50, 100, or 1000 years ago
There'd have to be. There's more people, and it seems these people have become more religious in the last century -- but but there's also a lot of weird, made-up pseudo-spirituality, too.
I didn't mean by, "weight," I meant per capita.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 am
If you are right, do you think that is a good thing, bad thing, or just indifferent?
Well, some of it is sure better than pure negativity. But some of it is worse. I'd say it depends on the content of the ideology that's increasing, in each case.

I'd also say the death of some "religions" is sometimes a sign of good things. So I'm not for defending them all, as if they were all of-a-piece. That's something only a fairly ignorant Atheist would be inclined to believe...namely the idea that all "religions" are essentially just the same in regards to value, so you have to agree with all or reject all. I don't think that at all.
So, how do you decide which is, "worse," and which of it is a, "good thing?"

Just out of curiosity, how do you define, "religion?" In other words, what is it exactly you think there is more of and what distinguishes it from any other kind of ideology?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:55 am There'd have to be. There's more people, and it seems these people have become more religious in the last century -- but but there's also a lot of weird, made-up pseudo-spirituality, too.
I didn't mean by, "weight," I meant per capita.
So you think that individually, people are "less religious," even while en masse, there is more religion?

I'm not sure what you mean.
Just out of curiosity, how do you define, "religion?"
It's not my term, so I don't really define it.

It's essentially a term imposed on a group of very disparate beliefs and ideologies, and imposed from an "outsider" view, i.e. from some skeptical position. I find that actual people who believe things don't generally refer to themselves as "religious." They tend to use their own particular name, and when they talk about "religion," they most often mean everybody else.

Still, it's become a sort of generally-accepted term, even though it's not really informative. I think it confuses the discussion more than it clarifies.
In other words, what is it exactly you think there is more of and what distinguishes it from any other kind of ideology?
Well, if you were to consult the literature on "religions," you'd find it's mostly skeptical. And secular "religious studies" courses at university generally begin with the question "what is a 'religion,'" and end up with a whole bunch of conflicting and overlapping descriptions, and no definite conclusion. It's sort of like, "We're going to study a bunch of this stuff...but we can't figure out what the parameters of it all are, so we kind of have to expect you students to go with some definition that works for you in the context in which you're working."

So it's a problem without a clear solution. But as I say, I think the problem is the coining of the term "religion" in the first place. It's better to speak of Hinduism or Taoism or Catholicism or Zoroastrianism or Scientology or Atheism or agnosticism in specific than to say, "religions." The word's just not very useful, really. It's more a term of dismissiveness than analysis.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:55 am There'd have to be. There's more people, and it seems these people have become more religious in the last century -- but but there's also a lot of weird, made-up pseudo-spirituality, too.
I didn't mean by, "weight," I meant per capita.
So you think that individually, people are "less religious," even while en masse, there is more religion?

I'm not sure what you mean.
I think you are being obtuse. I mean what I originally said:
... humanity is and has always been saturated with religion--there just couldn't be any more in any appreciable amount.
"Saturated," means you cannot get it to absorb any more. I mean what Mencken wrote:
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for religion, and so long as they thirst for religion, it will remain a weapon over them. I see no way out. If you blow up one specific faith, they will embrace another.
Whether there are eight or eight billion people in the world, they will all be religious with the exception of a tiny fraction of individualists who will not be noticed.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 pm
Just out of curiosity, how do you define, "religion?"
It's not my term, so I don't really define it.

It's essentially a term imposed on a group of very disparate beliefs and ideologies, and imposed from an "outsider" view, i.e. from some skeptical position. I find that actual people who believe things don't generally refer to themselves as "religious." They tend to use their own particular name, and when they talk about "religion," they most often mean everybody else.

Still, it's become a sort of generally-accepted term, even though it's not really informative. I think it confuses the discussion more than it clarifies.
In other words, what is it exactly you think there is more of and what distinguishes it from any other kind of ideology?
Well, if you were to consult the literature on "religions," you'd find it's mostly skeptical. And secular "religious studies" courses at university generally begin with the question "what is a 'religion,'" and end up with a whole bunch of conflicting and overlapping descriptions, and no definite conclusion. It's sort of like, "We're going to study a bunch of this stuff...but we can't figure out what the parameters of it all are, so we kind of have to expect you students to go with some definition that works for you in the context in which you're working."

So it's a problem without a clear solution. But as I say, I think the problem is the coining of the term "religion" in the first place. It's better to speak of Hinduism or Taoism or Catholicism or Zoroastrianism or Scientology or Atheism or agnosticism in specific than to say, "religions." The word's just not very useful, really. It's more a term of dismissiveness than analysis.
OK, but, you used the word when claiming there is more religion in the world today, so what I was asking is what do you mean when you use the word. What is it you are referring to when you say there is more of it in the world today? I don't want examples. I don't want to know how others us the word. I want to know how you use it and how any possible example can be identified as a religion. How do I know one when I see (or learn of) one?

Perhaps I'm asking for what you do not really believe, which is fine. I don't want to badger you about something that doesn't really matter to you. If you are using religion only to refer to ideologies in general, I'd have no argument with or question about that.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 4:26 pm I mean what I originally said:... humanity is and has always been saturated with religion--there just couldn't be any more in any appreciable amount. "Saturated," means you cannot get it to absorb any more.
That would mean that ALL people are "religious." I can't really disagree with that, depending on what you mean. But "saturated" would require that, since "there just couldn't be more..." as you put it.

But it's interesting...you exclude yourself? You somehow are better than that?

99% of the world's population, as you quote Mencken saying, are "religious," even though some don't know they are, and others deny they are...but you and Mencken, alone among humanity, perhaps, have magically escaped the delusions of non-religiosity that other people have, and are the only non-idiots?

Just checking.
they will all be religious with the exception of a tiny fraction of individualists who will not be noticed.
That would seem to confirm it: you regard yourself as part of that "tiny fraction"?

How did you achieve such clarity and self-awareness? There must have been some moment when you became such a rare exception. Or were you simply born better than the rest of us? :wink:
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 pm
Just out of curiosity, how do you define, "religion?"
It's not my term, so I don't really define it.
OK, but, you used the word...
I don't know what other word people will accept in its place. They insist on using it, despite it being essentially a non-informative term.
what I was asking is what do you mean when you use the word.
I was trying to use it in the way I perceive others trying to use it. But I would prefer a different word. If you want to choose another, one more telling than that, I'm happy to go along. I agree that the term is problematic.
If you are using religion only to refer to ideologies in general, I'd have no argument with or question about that.
Ideologies. Hmmm. Well, not maybe quite right, but better in at least one way: it recognizes that some ideologies are believed in exactly the same way that some of the worst "religions" get believed. And that's certainly true.

Atheism would be like that, of course. So would Socialism, and at times, Humanism...and a variety of other such "-isms." Critical Theory is another quasi-religious ideology...there are a number around.

But I'm not trying to be evasive. I have genuine problems with the term "religion."

I'll try, though. I guess if I could stipulate a definition, I'd prefer to think of it in terms of the belief in false 'gods,' conceiving the idea of 'gods' in the broadest sense...so including things like belief in the salvific power of a political movement, or belief in inevitable progress, or belief in essential human goodness, or belief in technological transcendence...all of that.

But consequently, I would also say I'm not at all "religious." I recognize, however, that others would insist I am, but for different reasons than I would accept. So again, I don't know how to render the word useful in a way comprehensible both to you and me, and also to anyone else reading along. That's not easy to do.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 4:26 pm I mean what I originally said:... humanity is and has always been saturated with religion--there just couldn't be any more in any appreciable amount. "Saturated," means you cannot get it to absorb any more.
That would mean that ALL people are "religious." I can't really disagree with that, depending on what you mean. But "saturated" would require that, since "there just couldn't be more..." as you put it.

But it's interesting...you exclude yourself? You somehow are better than that?
How interesting. As far as I know, I have not expressed an evaluation, one way or the other, regarding having religion as either good or bad. That someone who does not embrace a religion is, "better," is your evaluation, not mine.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm 99% of the world's population, as you quote Mencken saying, are "religious," even though some don't know they are, and others deny they are...but you and Mencken, alone among humanity, perhaps, have magically escaped the delusions of non-religiosity that other people have, and are the only non-idiots?
Of course Mencken and I aren't the only individuals who do not swallow any religion at all. It's a minority, I admit, and like all minorities, is generally misunderstood, judged, and hated, but unlike most minorities the, "evil irreligious," hold nothing against those who misunderstand them and only wish them well, and for the most part, will be invisible (like most millionaires) in this world. They are certainly no threat to anyone else's ideology.

Since no religion is embraced by more than some fraction of humanity, even the largest, it necessarily means, even if any religion were correct, all the others (embraced by the remaining majority of mankind) have to be wrong. An honest religious individual has to admit, if his own religion is correct, all the others are wrong and all those who embrace those wrong religions are either intentionally evil or suffering from some defect which makes them believe what is not true. Mencken called those who believe what is not true, "idiots." All religious consider those who reject their religion, "idiotic?" Mencken just agrees with all the religious about all other religions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm Just checking.
Thanks for the sincere concern.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm
they will all be religious with the exception of a tiny fraction of individualists who will not be noticed.
That would seem to confirm it: you regard yourself as part of that "tiny fraction"?
Actually I do not consider myself, "a part," of any collection. Only collectivist always want to identify people in terms of classes and categories. I'm a human being, period. I have two legs, but the doesn't make me a member of some group called two-legged beings (including humans, apes, and all birds). Good grief!
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm How did you achieve such clarity and self-awareness? There must have been some moment when you became such a rare exception. Or were you simply born better than the rest of us?
You amaze me. So, it is your opinion that those who do not embrace someone's religion has more clarity and self-awareness than others?

Do you realize how absurd it is to say, "There must have been some moment when you became such a rare exception. Or were you simply born better than the rest of us?"

It's like driving a car. Everybody is born a non-driver. No one, "becomes," a non-driver, they just never learn how to drive or get a license. Everybody is born non-religious. No one becomes non-religious they just never learn about a religion or embrace one. It's not something one does, its something one just never does, which almost everyone else in the world does. Statistically it's an anomaly and in most societies an oddity. Only the religious and collectivists think in terms of superiority or inferiority having anything to do with what others believe or belong to.

The non-religious certainly do not think a Catholic is inferior because he's Catholic, but every Catholic thinks anyone who's not Catholic is inferior. So I assume you believe because you are a Christian, you have, "more clarity and self-awareness," than those who are not. Why would that be? Just your superior nature? [If you don't think your view is better than any other, you can say so.]
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 2:00 pm
Just out of curiosity, how do you define, "religion?"
It's not my term, so I don't really define it.
Based on that, and everything else you said subsequently, there does not seem to be much point in discussing, "religion," as such, because there is no fundamental attribute you would accept that clearly differentiates religion from other intellectual views, that is, there is no fundamental concept that identifies religion as religion and not just someone's personal philosophy or view of life.

I have no objection to that. I think it is going to make it very difficult for you to discuss with others anything in the context of what others mean by religion, but that will be your personal problem. It certainly doesn't have to be ours.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:40 am That someone who does not embrace a religion is, "better," is your evaluation, not mine.
It's Mencken's, apparently, whom you quote with approval...unless you think "idiot" is a neutral term.
...the, "evil irreligious," hold nothing against those who misunderstand them and only wish them well...
Yes...I remember them from the Third Reich and the Stalinist gulags...very nice people, those. :roll:
Since no religion is embraced by more than some fraction of humanity, even the largest, it necessarily means, even if any religion were correct, all the others (embraced by the remaining majority of mankind) have to be wrong.
Yes, of course.
An honest religious individual has to admit, if his own religion is correct, all the others are wrong and all those who embrace those wrong religions are either intentionally evil or suffering from some defect which makes them believe what is not true.
Yes, or deceived. They could be well-intended but misled. We don't have to call them mentally-ill, far less "idiots, whatever Mencken may think.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm Just checking.
Thanks for the sincere concern.
Not "concern." I just had to ask, since it's the logical conclusion if you regard 99% off the world as idiots. I don't presume you put yourself in that category, unless you tell me you do. But if you don't, then some explanation is the obvious next step.
Only collectivist always want to identify people in terms of classes and categories.

So you don't place yourself in the 1% of non-idiots, and Mencken categorizes them?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm
How did you achieve such clarity and self-awareness? There must have been some moment when you became such a rare exception. Or were you simply born better than the rest of us?
You amaze me. So, it is your opinion that those who do not embrace someone's religion has more clarity and self-awareness than others?
I'm just asking how you became blessed to be in the 1% of people who are non-idiots.
It's like driving a car. Everybody is born a non-driver. No one, "becomes," a non-driver, they just never learn how to drive or get a license.
Well, put it this way: how did you manage to avoid the "idiot" trap into which 99% of humanity allegedly fell? Give us your secret, then.
I assume you believe because you are a Christian, you have, "more clarity and self-awareness," than those who are not.

No. But I do assume that what God has said about us is true, and that provides much more clarity than those who disbelieve Him can have. I can take no credit. He's just way smarter than the rest of us are.
...there is no fundamental concept that identifies religion as religion and not just someone's personal philosophy or view of life.
I think there's truth to that. People think "religion" is a special category, one entirely distinct from, say Atheist creeds. I don't think that's true at all. That's why I dislike the word. People use it all the time, but nobody really knows what it means.

It's kind of like the word "idiot." People use that a lot, without explaining what they mean, or why they choose that term.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am
...the, "evil irreligious," hold nothing against those who misunderstand them and only wish them well...
Yes...I remember them from the Third Reich and the Stalinist gulags...very nice people, those.
Why do Christians so often resort to name-calling and vitriol.

I'm sorry, but you are demonstrating that kind of irrational prejudicial hatred those who embrace ideologies so often demonstrate toward those who do not share their views. The term, "evil irreligious," is an epithet used by those who embrace some ideology (religious or otherwise), like Muslims, Nazis, Marxists, socialists, social-justice warriors, and Christians for anyone who does not share their ideology, just as you refer to anyone who doesn't happen to embrace Christianity (or any other ideology) as the same as a Nazi or Communist. [Both Nazism and Communism were and are flaming ideologies.]

Individualist who neither embrace or identify with any ideology do not vilify others for their beliefs. The recognition that most ideological beliefs require an enormous amount of credulity or gullibility is not meant to insult anyone. Individualists have no reason to fear, or even dislike others because of what they believe. Others mistaken views do them no harm, and are often very interesting and entertaining people, and except when direct threats, are almost always a source of some value to the individualist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am ... if you regard 99% off the world as idiots. I don't presume you put yourself in that category. Of course not. So what?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am So you don't place yourself in the 1% of non-idiots, and Mencken categorizes them?
Its not a class or category of a kind or something one belongs to, it is a category of a state, like living, dead, well, sick, or pregnant. People stupidly treat such things as classes, but of course no sick person considers themselves sick because they belong to the, "sick class," of people.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm
How did you achieve such clarity and self-awareness? There must have been some moment when you became such a rare exception. Or were you simply born better than the rest of us?
You amaze me. So, it is your opinion that those who do not embrace someone's religion has more clarity and self-awareness than others?
I'm just asking how you became blessed to be in the 1% of people who are non-idiots?
Here's your mistake. It's the prevailing mistake about humanity itself. Nothing makes anyone what they are. What any human being does or makes of himself is by that individual's own conscious choice. All that I've learned I had to choose to learn and do the work required to learn it. I had to make the choices not to let anything else, no feeling, no reliance on anyone else's authority, no desire or difficulty interfere with the best non-contradictory reason I am capable of. All that I am is the result of every choice I have ever made, good or bad.

Anyone could do the very same thing. Most never do. Why? To answer that question you would have to ask every individual why they made the choices they made. It is not possible to know why anyone else chooses not to learn all the possibly can, not to think as well as they possibly can, to give in to feelings, or desires, or discomforts, or to slide and think they can away with it. I don't know and you don't know why others make the choices they make. You can ask them, and they can tell you something, but you can never know for certain if they are telling you the truth--even if they've convinced themselves they are.
It's like driving a car. Everybody is born a non-driver. No one, "becomes," a non-driver, they just never learn how to drive or get a license.
Well, put it this way: how did you manage to avoid the "idiot" trap into which 99% of humanity allegedly fell? Give us your secret, then.[/quote]
I just did. It's no secret. Even you could do it. :P As I said, I do not know why most people do not choose to think for themselves and allow someone or something else to provide them with what they believe. I know it is an evasion of one's responsibility for one's own life, and I believe most people are terrified to be totally responsible for everything they think, choose, and do. I do not know why. Based on what others themselves claim, I'm convinced most people hate reality and hate the truth that describes it and will seek and embrace anything that promises them an escape from the ruthlessness of that reality.

If you sincerely want to know why so few people never discover the truth, please see my articles: "Why Do Most People Believe What Is Not True?" and why they prefer to embrace some ideology, "Ideology—Hatred Of Reality."
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm
I assume you believe because you are a Christian, you have, "more clarity and self-awareness," than those who are not.

No. But I do assume that what God has said about us is true, and that provides much more clarity than those who disbelieve Him can have. I can take no credit.
You just did.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:02 pm It's kind of like the word "idiot." People use that a lot, without explaining what they mean, or why they choose that term.
I'll explain it. It refers to those who have so corrupted their own minds with what they have chosen to learn and not learn and the nonsense they have chosen to fill them with they are no longer able to discern or even desire to know the truth, resulting in an extreme credulity that can be deceived by almost anything. It's a chosen condition.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Walker »

Choice ...


- Relying on choice to answer why is an intellectual cop-out.
- Choice is just a roadblock to understanding.
- Choice is a stopping point beyond which lies the answer to why.
- Choice is a rest-stop for those too ostensibly tuckered out to go beyond and find understanding.
- Every choice has a reason.
- Every reason is a cause.*
- Finding the cause to a reason that underlies a choice objectively answers why a choice is made.
- The red pill or blue? There really is no choice.


* Every time has a season
Every contract has a clause
Faustis made a bargain ...

:lol:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:35 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am
...the, "evil irreligious," hold nothing against those who misunderstand them and only wish them well...
Yes...I remember them from the Third Reich and the Stalinist gulags...very nice people, those.
Why do Christians so often resort to name-calling and vitriol.
You mistake my tone. I'm not feeling vitriolic, and I'm not "name-calling." I'm calling up a couple of counter-cases to your postulate.

I'm just pointing out that being "irreligious" does not at all make one "misunderstood," nor does it contribute to making such people "wish others well." I am pointing out a couple of clear cases where they outcome you suggest most certainly did not happen.

I wasn't accusing you. You are not they.

But it's clear that being "irreligious" or "individualistic" does not make one automatically some sort of saintly victim. Manifestly, even brutal dictators are often both. But these things may well be used to rationalize being the worst kinds of imperious aggressor, as in the cases cited.
The recognition that most ideological beliefs require an enormous amount of credulity or gullibility is not meant to insult anyone.

Yeah, it kind of is. :? That is, unless you think "idiot" is a term of endearment or something.

At the very least, it's an imperious affirmation of the "irreligious" person's self-perceived specialness.

And this is why I want to know more about how you achieved such specialness that you arrived in the special 1% of the world who are not, as per Mencken, "idiots." If you have compassion for others, you at least should be kind enough to tell them how to attain the special 1%ness they lack...
What any human being does or makes of himself is by that individual's own conscious choice. All that I've learned I had to choose to learn and do the work required to learn it.

Well, tell us all about that. What did you "learn," how did you come to "learn" it, when 99% of us didn't, and what "work" did you do, in specific, to attain your present state?
Anyone could do the very same thing. Most never do. Why? To answer that question you would have to ask every individual why they made the choices they made. It is not possible to know why anyone else chooses not to learn all the possibly can, not to think as well as they possibly can, to give in to feelings, or desires, or discomforts, or to slide and think they can away with it. I don't know and you don't know why others make the choices they make. You can ask them, and they can tell you something, but you can never know for certain if they are telling you the truth--even if they've convinced themselves they are.
This actually encourages me think you don't actually know how you came to be in the 1%.

As you say, it has to do with "every decision a person ever makes," or so you say. Yet you insist "anyone could do the same thing": it's hard to imagine they could, if even you, in the blessed 1% can't explain how to get there.
It's like driving a car. Everybody is born a non-driver. No one, "becomes," a non-driver, they just never learn how to drive or get a license.
Well, put it this way: how did you manage to avoid the "idiot" trap into which 99% of humanity allegedly fell? Give us your secret, then.
I just did. It's no secret. Even you could do it.

Yeah, you said that.

And then essentially said it was impossible to know how to do it, because it involves every decision ever made, and so none in specific.

Bluff. I have to call bluff. If there's no particular road to where you are there's no way anybody could have followed your path, and it's not true that "anybody could do it."

I think you're taking for granted you and Mencken are just naturally in the 1%. Maybe. Let's see.

But let's consider another possibility: it may well be that only 1% of the population is so totally un-self-aware about who they really are, how they formed their opinions, and how they ended up where they are, that they just assume they are in the elite 1%.

How do you know that's not the case?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:45 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:35 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am
Yes...I remember them from the Third Reich and the Stalinist gulags...very nice people, those.
Why do Christians so often resort to name-calling and vitriol.
You mistake my tone. I'm not feeling vitriolic, and I'm not "name-calling." I'm calling up a couple of counter-cases to your postulate.

I'm just pointing out that being "irreligious" does not at all make one "misunderstood," nor does it contribute to making such people "wish others well." I am pointing out a couple of clear cases where they outcome you suggest most certainly did not happen.

I wasn't accusing you. You are not they.

But it's clear that being "irreligious" or "individualistic" does not make one automatically some sort of saintly victim. Manifestly, even brutal dictators are often both. But these things may well be used to rationalize being the worst kinds of imperious aggressor, as in the cases cited.
By your own broad definition, brutal dictators are NOT IRRELIGIOUS, they are ideologues with as much religious fervor as any radical evangelical.

How can you compare statists with individualists who have no interest in any social/political ideology, no interest in, "saving mankind," or, "creating the right society," even a, "free society." Individualists do not support any government, any war, any intentional interference in anyone else's life. You may not agree with that view, but no true individualist [not just the crackpots that claim to be individualist] has ever been instrumental in any human caused atrocity. I'd say that's a virtue.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am
The recognition that most ideological beliefs require an enormous amount of credulity or gullibility is not meant to insult anyone.

Yeah, it kind of is. :? That is, unless you think "idiot" is a term of endearment or something.

At the very least, it's an imperious affirmation of the "irreligious" person's self-perceived specialness.
It's a term of description. If someone's feelings are hurt by that description, it's their problem. Life is tough and believing the world is supposed to be where, "never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day," is a sad Utopian dream.

I guess you could call not being gullible enough to swallow every preacher's, teacher's, politician's, and con men's lies special. It certainly is rare, but available to anyone who chooses to do the hard work of thinking for themselves.

Don't worry about those who have chosen to make the effort not to be idiots. It's the one's who have chosen to not be special that will be the cause of problems.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:45 pm And this is why I want to know more about how you achieved such specialness that you arrived in the special 1% of the world who are not, as per Mencken, "idiots." If you have compassion for others, you at least should be kind enough to tell them how to attain the special 1%ness they lack...
What any human being does or makes of himself is by that individual's own conscious choice. All that I've learned I had to choose to learn and do the work required to learn it.

Well, tell us all about that. What did you "learn," how did you come to "learn" it, when 99% of us didn't, and what "work" did you do, in specific, to attain your present state?
Anyone could do the very same thing. Most never do. Why? To answer that question you would have to ask every individual why they made the choices they made. It is not possible to know why anyone else chooses not to learn all the possibly can, not to think as well as they possibly can, to give in to feelings, or desires, or discomforts, or to slide and think they can away with it. I don't know and you don't know why others make the choices they make. You can ask them, and they can tell you something, but you can never know for certain if they are telling you the truth--even if they've convinced themselves they are.
This actually encourages me think you don't actually know how you came to be in the 1%.

As you say, it has to do with "every decision a person ever makes," or so you say. Yet you insist "anyone could do the same thing": it's hard to imagine they could, if even you, in the blessed 1% can't explain how to get there.
Well, put it this way: how did you manage to avoid the "idiot" trap into which 99% of humanity allegedly fell? Give us your secret, then.
I just did. It's no secret. Even you could do it.

Yeah, you said that.

And then essentially said it was impossible to know how to do it, because it involves every decision ever made, and so none in specific.
So this is tough for you to figure out. You think that one can become an engineer by one day just making the specific decision to be and engineer. Well that does not work. To become an engineer requires thousands, perhaps millions of decisions. Every time the student decides to open the book and study, decides to do the research for his required papers, chooses to study instead of going to the beer bash. To finally achieve becoming an engineer will require right choice, after right choice, after right choice. It is the sum of all one's choices and chosen behavior that are what that person is. There is no, "one,"choice that determines what an individual is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:45 pm Bluff. I have to call bluff. If there's no particular road to where you are there's no way anybody could have followed your path, and it's not true that "anybody could do it."
What are you talking about. I don't care what you think. I have been trying to answer your questions sincerely, because I thought you were interested in my views. I didn't realize you thought we were in some kind of contest or game to be won.

Why would I be bluffing? Who am I trying to fool? I don't care what you are anyone else thinks of me. I don't really care if you believe me or not (though there's no point to our discussion if your not going to.)

I really do think I'm not an idiot and that anyone who believes anything taught by any ideology because it is what that ideology teaches is an idiot and I really think 99% of human beings embrace some ideology.

Call me a liar, or stupid, or idiot, if that's what you think. Lots of people do. I don't really care, but it does discourage me from believing in your sincerity.

I've already explained that everyone is at any moment the sum of their choices. I'm am certain I have no special intellectual abilities, and all that I know and have achieved have been because I chose to learn all I possibly could and think as well as I possibly could, and that anyone could make the same choices and do the same things. Why don't they? I've already answered that too, but you obviously aren't truly interested in my answer to that or you would have read the articles I referred to.

I think that is part of the answer. You don't want to know the truth and evade anything that might make you have to think for yourself because you like the idea that something else can provide you all the answers, and confuse repeating what your ideology teaches for thinking .
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 12:58 am I think you're taking for granted you and Mencken are just naturally in the 1%. Maybe. Let's see.

But let's consider another possibility: it may well be that only 1% of the population is so totally un-self-aware about who they really are, how they formed their opinions, and how they ended up where they are, that they just assume they are in the elite 1%.

How do you know that's not the case?
I think the same way you could if you chose to honestly think about what you already know, unless your gullibility has already so corrupted your ability to think correctly you can no longer truly think.

Don't worry about it. If individualists are wrong, it won't do you any harm, and they won't complain about the consequences of their choices if they are wrong and expect everyone else to have, "empathy," for them and to pick up after them. I think that's a virtue too.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:14 am By your own broad definition, brutal dictators are NOT IRRELIGIOUS, they are ideologues
Yes, I think that's so. But you can't say they aren't "irreligious" and "individualistic." A guy like Stalin presses both of those buttons hard.

But I see you want to believe there are also...
... individualists who have no interest in any social/political ideology, no interest in, "saving mankind," or, "creating the right society," even a, "free society." Individualists do not support any government, any war, any intentional interference in anyone else's life.
So these are "individualists," you say. But everything that you use to define them is what they "do not support," or do not "have an interest in." The whole definition is negative.

And you say they're 1% of the population, and you and Mencken are examples? And they're wondrously free of normal human falllibilities, and benign and hurt nobody?

And everyone else is "idiots."
I have been trying to answer your questions sincerely, because I thought you were interested in my views.

I am. And I keep asking you a very straightforward question, and you keep not answering it.

How did you manage to end up in this wonderful 1%, by a route so simple that, as you say, anyone can do it?
I've already explained that everyone is at any moment the sum of their choices.
That's a terribly vague answer, because "choice" describes practically everything a person can do, and "sum" means "all of them put together." That's certainly not some simple trick "everyone" can master.

How did you master it? Just answer the question.

And if you can't, maybe there's no answer. Because maybe that's not the way things actually are. That's what I mean by "bluff."
...you would have read the articles I referred to.
How about just answering the simple question? It's not a hard one, and it requires no "articles" : how did you do it?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ⚖️ Retributive Justice and 🦋 Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:54 am How about just answering the simple question? It's not a hard one, and it requires no "articles" : how did you do it?
I'm not sure what kind of hubris makes you think anyone else is obligated to answer your questions, especially in light of the fact I have answered the same question at least three times:
What any human being does or makes of himself is by that individual's own conscious choice.
Don't worry about those who have chosen to make the effort not to be idiots.
I've already explained that everyone is at any moment the sum of their choices. I'm am certain I have no special intellectual abilities, and all that I know and have achieved have been because I chose to learn all I possibly could and think as well as I possibly could, and that anyone could make the same choices and do the same things.
So, once again, "how did you do it?" I chose it.

Have you got that, now?
Post Reply