4 ms·

>>Who criticizes any great general or conqueror in history for leaving his family behind, and why not? Many people (mainly pacifists) criticize such great gene

by tmptmp 10y ago

>>Who criticizes any great general or conqueror in history for leaving his family behind, and why not? Many people (mainly pacifists) criticize such great generals for being war-thirsty or violent. I think, Buddha is rightly criticized for not performing his duty towards his family and then going on preaching other people to care for all other people. Other point, I think, Buddha is rightly criticized for is to do with non-violence: too much insistence on non-violence actually resulted in tolerance of even the intolerants and which is not good. It reminds me what Obama rightly said while receiving Noble peace prize: "But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason." [1] [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-presiden...

wahern 10y ago
Arguably one of the functions of religion is to induce people to work for the benefit of the larger community at the expense of themselves and their family. That's not an insignificant feat given the evolutionary pressures to cheat the community for the benefit of yourself and your relations. It shouldn't be surprising that religion will, on the one hand, pay lip service regarding familial obligations, while ultimately emphasize attending to the community's needs and propagation of the religion. Often times the latter (community and religion) will be defined in terms of familial obligations. And familial obligations (especially filial obligations, e.g. obeying your parents) serve to prime people's acceptance of external authority, such as adoption of framing devices and conceptual models. I'm not trying to be cynical. The tensions are obvious and must be resolved somehow. Sometimes inevitable contradictions must be swept under the rug or explained away. And often times one role serves multiple, seemingly contradictory functions. The complexity is compounded as the self-identifying community grows larger and deeper. Religion is hardly the only area of social life that must handle these issues, and I don't mean to bash religion or to circumscribe the roles and functions of religion. Similar tensions and contradictions can be found _within_ family life. In any event, like a Zen Koan if you think to literally about the problem--filial vs individual vs community obligations--you'll miss the forest for the trees. I don't think there's an answer except to accept the contradiction and attempt to maximize service to your obligations (in as much as you accept them). Obviously how you qualitatively and quantitatively measure things will strongly dictate where the optimum is, and different religions will counsel different equilibriums for identical circumstances.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>And familial obligations (especially filial obligations, e.g. obeying your parents) serve to prime people's acceptance of external authority, such as adoption of framing devices and conceptual models. Can you elaborate a bit on framing devices and conceptual models? I didn't quite get it. >>In any event, like a Zen Koan if you think to literally about the problem--filial vs individual vs community obligations--you'll miss the forest for the trees. By forest exactly what are you referring to? BTW, we must not miss the parental and other familial obligations too. >>Obviously how you qualitatively and quantitatively measure things will strongly dictate where the optimum is, and different religions will counsel different equilibriums for identical circumstances. Very well said. I liked this very much. So much for the people (especially some religion apologists) who insist that all religions are equal as their core messages are same.
  - wahern 10y ago
    By framing devices I meant things like, most simply, obedience to authority. Arguably one of the defining elements of Confucianism is an equivocation between filial duties, on the one hand, and duties to increasingly distant and abstract social relations on the other. By contrast, in Christianity you just have "obey your parents" on the one hand, and "render unto ceasar what is his" on the other, which doesn't dictate the particulars of how authority operates in a society to the same degree that it's dictated by Confucianism. But also, for example, devices that teach you to think of the good of the community as a good accruing directly to you. In other words, a hijacking of selfishness. Many religions teach that good deeds and sacrifice will accrue a benefit to you in an afterlife. I just didn't want to suggest that religion necessarily turns people into sheeple, to be inevitably abused by elites. That's often a consequence, but that's hardly always the case. And that's a possible consequence of culture more generally, not just religion. In this sense I think of culture as the underlying phenomenon that makes religion and other forms of complex social organization possible in the face of the counter-veiling Darwinian genetic forces; as opposed to culture referring to the beliefs and habits of a particular community. And I usually distinguish religion from other social structures by reliance on magical thinking, though magical thinking is hardly exclusive to religion. I don't have a degree in psychology or anthropology or anything, so my personal models and definitions aren't academically rigorous. Though I studied international relations in undergraduate school, and I ended up reading quite a lot of economic, sociologic, and anthropologic literature on these issues.

by tmptmp 10y ago

wahern 10y ago

Arguably one of the functions of religion is to induce people to work for the benefit of the larger community at the expense of themselves and their family. That's not an insignificant feat given the evolutionary pressures to cheat the community for the benefit of yourself and your relations. It shouldn't be surprising that religion will, on the one hand, pay lip service regarding familial obligations, while ultimately emphasize attending to the community's needs and propagation of the religion. Often times the latter (community and religion) will be defined in terms of familial obligations. And familial obligations (especially filial obligations, e.g. obeying your parents) serve to prime people's acceptance of external authority, such as adoption of framing devices and conceptual models. I'm not trying to be cynical. The tensions are obvious and must be resolved somehow. Sometimes inevitable contradictions must be swept under the rug or explained away. And often times one role serves multiple, seemingly contradictory functions. The complexity is compounded as the self-identifying community grows larger and deeper. Religion is hardly the only area of social life that must handle these issues, and I don't mean to bash religion or to circumscribe the roles and functions of religion. Similar tensions and contradictions can be found _within_ family life. In any event, like a Zen Koan if you think to literally about the problem--filial vs individual vs community obligations--you'll miss the forest for the trees. I don't think there's an answer except to accept the contradiction and attempt to maximize service to your obligations (in as much as you accept them). Obviously how you qualitatively and quantitatively measure things will strongly dictate where the optimum is, and different religions will counsel different equilibriums for identical circumstances.

tmptmp 10y ago
>>And familial obligations (especially filial obligations, e.g. obeying your parents) serve to prime people's acceptance of external authority, such as adoption of framing devices and conceptual models. Can you elaborate a bit on framing devices and conceptual models? I didn't quite get it. >>In any event, like a Zen Koan if you think to literally about the problem--filial vs individual vs community obligations--you'll miss the forest for the trees. By forest exactly what are you referring to? BTW, we must not miss the parental and other familial obligations too. >>Obviously how you qualitatively and quantitatively measure things will strongly dictate where the optimum is, and different religions will counsel different equilibriums for identical circumstances. Very well said. I liked this very much. So much for the people (especially some religion apologists) who insist that all religions are equal as their core messages are same.
- wahern 10y ago
  By framing devices I meant things like, most simply, obedience to authority. Arguably one of the defining elements of Confucianism is an equivocation between filial duties, on the one hand, and duties to increasingly distant and abstract social relations on the other. By contrast, in Christianity you just have "obey your parents" on the one hand, and "render unto ceasar what is his" on the other, which doesn't dictate the particulars of how authority operates in a society to the same degree that it's dictated by Confucianism. But also, for example, devices that teach you to think of the good of the community as a good accruing directly to you. In other words, a hijacking of selfishness. Many religions teach that good deeds and sacrifice will accrue a benefit to you in an afterlife. I just didn't want to suggest that religion necessarily turns people into sheeple, to be inevitably abused by elites. That's often a consequence, but that's hardly always the case. And that's a possible consequence of culture more generally, not just religion. In this sense I think of culture as the underlying phenomenon that makes religion and other forms of complex social organization possible in the face of the counter-veiling Darwinian genetic forces; as opposed to culture referring to the beliefs and habits of a particular community. And I usually distinguish religion from other social structures by reliance on magical thinking, though magical thinking is hardly exclusive to religion. I don't have a degree in psychology or anthropology or anything, so my personal models and definitions aren't academically rigorous. Though I studied international relations in undergraduate school, and I ended up reading quite a lot of economic, sociologic, and anthropologic literature on these issues.