8 ms·
Not going to defend Hasidism, but this article was pure contempt. As CS Lewis would call it, chronological snobbery: > Barfield never made me an Anthroposophi
by cdoxsey 9y ago
Not going to defend Hasidism, but this article was pure contempt.
As CS Lewis would call it, chronological snobbery:
> Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my “chronological snobbery,” the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also “a period,” and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them.
- lmm 9y agoContempt is sometimes warranted. If the descriptions in the article are accurate (from the spitting to the running over with a car), contempt is absolutely the appropriate response and the kind of temporal relativism that denies that is wrong.
- codingdave 9y agoIt may be warranted, but it is not productive. If you really want change, you need to understand the reasons behind people's culture and actions, and have an open dialogue about those reasons.
- humanrebar 9y agoAgreed. If we think conversation and reason do not solve problems, we have, to some degree given up on democracy based on universal suffrage. If we think we can't reason with people, we start thinking elections are illegitimate. After all, if people are that unreasonable and easily to manipulate, elections are only about who is lucky and has better psychological tricks on their side.
- musage 9y agoIf you think the CS Lewis quote is relevant at all, show how > the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and/or > the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited apply here. Not accepting a straw man isn't refusing dialogue, to the contrary. > If you really want change, you need to understand the reasons behind people's culture and actions How was that applied to, say, the end of segregation in the US? Why is the perspective of the people who get mistreated suddenly not sufficient? Instead of comforting abusers primarily with victims just a statistic, I'd say comfort and protect the victims, and let abusers find their own way, or no way. If they can change, fine, if they can't, that's also fine.
- annabellish 9y agoYou can, and often must, understand the reasons behind people's actions while still condemning them - but you should condemn the actions, not the people.
- AllegedAlec 9y agoWhy? If people make condemnable actions, they become condemnable themselves.
- simonh 9y agoWhich is preferable to you. That those people be punished appropriately for their actions but continue to believe that they were justified; or that those people are genuinely persuaded they were wrong, repudiate their former beliefs and actions and work to undo the damage. Personally I believe in both, where criminality is concerned. Appropriate sanctions and rehabilitation are the ideal. For non-criminal prejudice and discrimination, I think the latter is perfectly acceptable.
- lmm 9y agoAs with any other bad thing people do, our response should include compassion and understanding - but it should also include clear condemnation. Sometimes telling people bluntly that their culture and actions are wrong and unacceptable in this day and age is the productive line, e.g. the Pitcairn sexual assault trial was seen as cultural imperialism at the time, but from interviews now one gets the impression it ultimately resulted in a substantial positive change.
- humanrebar 9y agoScorn for spitting at strangers is warranted. Outrage at unpunished murder is appropriate. Extrapolating those feelings to an entire people group is wrong. It's still possible to value people for the content of their character while tolerating their loafers and the style of hat they wear.
- celticninja 9y agoNobody's hat ever intended me harm because I chose to wear a different hat.
- humanrebar 9y agoYep. And we can't blame Jacob for the sins of Benjamin just because they wear the same hat.
- celticninja 9y agoCorrect, but whatever hat you wear if it talks to you and tells you to do stuff you should probably ignore it and seek medical advice.
- lmm 9y agoYes and no. Individuals are of course responsible for their own actions. But individuals who choose to form a community that very deliberately lives in a particular way and sets itself apart from the rest of society, that choice is a reflection of their character - indeed it's a decision I expect they would say they wanted to be judged by. And at that point it's fair to judge them on the overall societal consequences of their chosen way of living, positive and negative.
- nerdponx 9y agoOnly if you hold the same content for equally-backward Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc fundamentalists.
- lmm 9y agoOf course.
- MichaelMoser123 9y agoall the Hasidim are to be blamed for this as a group? (Some other guy will tell you that all the Jews are to be blamed as well) I think blaming a group as a whole had a name - bigotry.