17 ms·

I don't strongly disagree on any particular point, per se, but the fact that the author's thoughts are rooted in a religious worldview felt like it was snuck in

• kerbalspacepro 8y ago
  >this world is fallen Makes the entire article essentially meaningless. How can I trust somebody with such a bizarre and unconnected worldview?
  • _bxg1 8y ago
    I mean, I would just translate to the secular equivalent, "perfection is not a real thing". More concerning is the "image of the Creator" language, which is a short step from exactly the kind of hyper-idealism that he's critiquing in the first place. He does at least acknowledge that trying to achieve perfection in the real (or "the present") world is folly, but still, it's from a very different perspective than the secular one.
    • sadness2 8y ago
      Sure, but it's a hyper-idealism which rejects the absolutely the idea of allowing a non-inclusive worldview of an individual to rule. Judeo-Christian is the author's specific worldview, but that's incidental to the stance.
      • _bxg1 8y ago
        In theory. I know plenty of Christians who would agree with his statements about this world being fallen, but who still try to move their country towards a Christian pseudo-utopia where their own values are mandated on others. Of course we can't know whether the author falls into that camp or not. EDIT: To be clear, I also know plenty of Christians who do not try and impose their values on society.
        • PavlovsCat 8y ago
          It's only theoretically possible that the author's specific worldview is incidental to their stance because there are people who have the same wordview but the opposite stance? That makes no sense. > I also know plenty of Christians who do not try and impose their values on society. Yeah, like the article for example, which raises the question why all this is floating at the top.
  • henry_bone 8y ago
    You can use your own mind. Assess the actual point of view, rather than engaging your bias the minute you detect a whiff of religion.
  • philwelch 8y ago
    I’m not religious myself, but I think you’re letting some weird biases get in the way here. The point is that the world and the work of human beings is flawed, fallible, and imperfect. Whether or not heaven exists in heaven, it certainly doesn’t exist on earth and essentially never can.
    • visarga 8y ago
      Maybe "heaven" is more like a point of view than a place. It's when ability to appreciate meets with a good situation.
    • Retric 8y ago
      That’s a very religious view. At most you can say humans are not what you wish them to be. Where a crystal may have ‘defects’ that’s meaningless for a pile of sand. Further, defects can be more useful than a perfect crystalline structure. So, to say perfection is unobtainable requires a strict definition of perfection and absolute proof it’s impossible. Both, are very high hurdles.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        >That’s a very religious view. Humans are not necessarily flawed Historically they have been. At least they're not up to our own standards. We can kill, lie, cheat, brutalize, exploit, each other, and we do so daily in the billions. We might not be total bastards, but we're no perfectly fine people either.
        • Retric 8y ago
          > We can kill, lie, cheat, brutalize, exploit, each other, and we do so daily in the billions. All of those can be very useful traits. Evolution, promotes using miliple strategies. Now, you can talk about spherical humans in a vacuum, but reality is more complex than that.
          • coldtea 8y ago
            Useful for either the survival of the species or the individual. Still, hell for those suffering them. That's the broken part.
  • leepowers 8y ago
    It's a mistake to process these ideas on the basis of trust. True, the religious angle is shoehorned at the end. But the author cites secular books and ideas throughout; these ideas and the relationships between them are worth considering.
    • kerbalspacepro 8y ago
      Imagine that a person was trying to explain to you how we knew that galaxies and so on were a certain distance away. They show that we know how to figure out Standard Candles and luminosity etc etc etc. They also claim, at the very end, to say that the earth is flat. They don't mean the universe is flat. They mean the earth is flat. Now, imagine you haven't read the article, somebody comments, "This guy said the earth is flat!" and you ctrl+f into the article and they did, in fact, write that. Should you be encouraged to read the article? They have some secular studies and ideas.
      • jakeogh 8y ago
        Paradoxically, by employing that subject, you are in a way falling for it. It's not designed to convince you the earth is flat.
      • PavlovsCat 8y ago
        But they're not talking about something you cannot "verify" with your own mind right now, at worst with some additional reading. You're not asked to "trust" anyone. "That person freaked out just because someone said the Earth is flat, so that their brain completely glazed over and they couldn't understand or care about anything else they said", why is that not a thing, too? To me this kind of discussion is not intellectually honest, it's not an earnest attempt -- there's plenty brilliant people of faith so I see no reason to dismiss anything out of hand like that. Don't judge a book by its cover, yet this discussion about the cover is the one that the most energy is spent on.
      • leepowers 8y ago
        It's possible to be right about the universe and the galaxy but wrong about the earth. The 90% that is accurate is still accurate even if another 10% is wrong. More pointedly - we are all in the same position as the flat-earther you posit. None of us have 100% accurate knowledge - meaning some percentage of what we believe is either false or one day will be proven false. We all have blind spots. Flat earthers have a particularly egregious blind spot. So we can be skeptical of other claims they make. But we should still engage with the stuff that makes sense and coheres. The answer to bad science is more science; the answer to bad speech is more speech.
  • coldtea 8y ago
    Not really bizarre or really unconnected. In fact, for most of history, and with very great many minds throughout history agreeing to that, it would be your objection that would be considered bizarre. You don't have to believe in a specific creator or any specific religious mythology to agree with such a statement as "this world is fallen". Even as atheist like e.g. Emil Cioran could agree with such a statement. But even if someone actually believes e.g. in the Christian god, it's almost irrelevant as to the validity of their belief that "this world is fallen". It's just a way of seeing the world -- as permanently imperfect and with fatal flaws in its construction. In fact most of our history and even personal lives agrees with this observation as well: we are ignorant of most things, we age, we get ill, we suffer, we kill each other, we are petty, and so on. And in the end, we just die, along with everybody we knew and loved. All that in an indifferent universe, that could e.g. wipe thousands of us out tomorrow with an earthquake, a tsunami, and so on. Or something of our own making, like a nuclear war. These things can be summed up in "this world is fallen", and there's nothing bizarre or unconnected about it. One might disagree and see progress etc, and even be optimistic that everything will prevail, or even see no issue with death and illness and the ills of old age, and so on. But in the main there's nothing much bizarre in saying that "this world is fallen" -- e.g. that things are incomplete, broken, and more often than not disappointing.
    • kerbalspacepro 8y ago
      Saying "the world is fallen" implies that the world fell from something. It didn't. The same rules of physics, as far as we can tell, have been plugging away since the very beginning. If you mean "The world sucks" then say that instead of saying "the world is fallen". Fallen has a very specific meaning, and using it as a poetic slush word is enough to make me not take the OP seriously.
      • coldtea 8y ago
        >Saying "the world is fallen" implies that the world fell from something. It didn't Welcome to the magic world of metaphors and symbolism...
        • 8y ago
  • cdoxsey 8y ago
    I'm not sure how serious you were, but if you're actually curious, I recommend Alan Jacob's book "Original Sin: A Cultural History": https://www.amazon.com/Original-Sin-Cultural-Alan-Jacobs/dp/0060872578 https://www.amazon.com/Original-Sin-Cultural-Alan-Jacobs/dp/.... Not particularly academic but very accessible. Or for a slightly different approach, GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html, even if you disagree with his arguments, I suspect if you give a read you'll enjoy his delightful prose. > But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. But this which is true even of inanimate things is in a quite special and terrible sense true of all human things. An almost unnatural vigilance is really required of the citizen because of the horrible rapidity with which human institutions grow old. It is the custom in passing romance and journalism to talk of men suffering under old tyrannies. But, as a fact, men have almost always suffered under new tyrannies; under tyrannies that had been public liberties hardly twenty years before. [...] > This startling swiftness with which popular systems turn oppressive is the third fact for which we shall ask our perfect theory of progress to allow. It must always be on the look out for every privilege being abused, for every working right becoming a wrong. In this matter I am entirely on the side of the revolutionists. They are really right to be always suspecting human institutions; they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child of man. The chieftain chosen to be the friend of the people becomes the enemy of the people; the newspaper started to tell the truth now exists to prevent the truth being told. Here, I say, I felt that I was really at last on the side of the revolutionary. And then I caught my breath again: for I remembered that I was once again on the side of the orthodox. > Christianity spoke again and said: "I have always maintained that men were naturally backsliders; that human virtue tended of its own nature to rust or to rot; I have always said that human beings as such go wrong, especially happy human beings, especially proud and prosperous human beings. This eternal revolution, this suspicion sustained through centuries, you (being a vague modern) call the doctrine of progress. If you were a philosopher you would call it, as I do, the doctrine of original sin. You may call it the cosmic advance as much as you like; I call it what it is—the Fall."
  • ocschwar 8y ago
    It's just a succinct way of saying the same thing a certain secular philosopher once said: "out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight has ever been made."
• perfmode 8y ago
  Nothing straight can be built from crooked timber. -Kant
  • zdragnar 8y ago
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day?
    • coldtea 8y ago
      Which is still no good, because nobody can tell which are those two times when it's right by looking at it.
      • gotocake 8y ago
        That’s the point; it’s illustrating a technicality which in no way impacts the uselessness of the clock.
      • zdragnar 8y ago
        You can never know if a clock is showing the correct time unless you have another, known good point of reference.
        • coldtea 8y ago
          Or if you trust the clock. With the broken clock, you can't ever trust it.
  • XorNot 8y ago
    No but with the 3 planes method you can progressively hone any 3 non flat planes of material to arbitrarily closer margins of perfection without need for an external reference.
  • klingebeil 8y ago
    Ironic, considering Kant also wrote in his reflections > "Es ist unmöglich, dass ein Mensch ohne Religion seines Lebens froh werde." > "It‘s impossible for a human to enjoy his life without religion."
• EdSharkey 8y ago
  None of the following statements are rational or evidence-based, but I consider them to be true: * Life is not perfect as long as there's death. * Humans cannot live in perfect harmony with one another because of our pesky evil streak. * Man-made laws cannot eliminate human evil. When philosophising at such depths, it's instinctive to get religious. It's also a handy abstraction. Also, transcending reality through worship helps with the inevitable depression that goes along with deep thoughts about this broken existence. All that said, it's no surprise to me that such irrational thinking bugs a lot of people. I'm only mildly bugged by it anymore since I found Jesus.
  • _bxg1 8y ago
    Despite some others' replies, I never meant to dismiss Christianity, much less religion in general. "It's a handy abstraction" is something I wholly agree with, which I think gets lost on a lot of self-identified "rationalists". I actually think there's a lot of value to be found in religion; the problem comes when it gets infused with a political or national identity and becomes a rallying call instead of a subject of contemplation. The red flags I saw in the article were 1) the hosting organization has a political agenda, and 2) it felt like the author tried to hide the roots of his ideas. It's possible he was just trying to avoid being judged based on his faith, which, yeah. But I've also seen people with an agenda try to propagate their religious or political ideas in a spoonful-of-sugar fashion; obscuring them within content that doesn't advertise itself as such, in hopes that it travels further. I've developed a heightened sense for that sort of thing over the years.
    • EdSharkey 8y ago
      Yeah, it's super uncomfortable for me when I see religion mixed with/imposed on politics. I cringe when I hear someone quoting chapter and verse in a political context, having that be the whole basis of their opinion, because a lot of that knowledge they rely on is ancient/dead. Your spoonful of sugar observation is just human nature; people love to spout memes like they're so clever. :) Where we might disagree though is that I believe society, laws, and justice need to be predicated on moral codes. And so it follows that we all need to be able to speak the same moral language fluently. We should be informed by relevant moral teachings in the bible, primarily, and then great philosophers and legal scholars secondarily. What's "relevant" needs to be hashed out through extended civil discourse; it can't be imposed and have any hope for acceptance. I mentioned the bible specifically because it is a high quality doc and liberates the reader rather than shackles with its moral codes and message, which to me makes it unique and worthwhile.
• n4r9 8y ago
  I disagreed with the central thesis, that dystopia necessarily arises from utopian visions. There are lots of dystopian settings throughout the last century that defy this - 1984, waterworld and mad max to name a few. For the author to go on to use this invented meaning as a counterargument to Trump's America being dystopian is disingenuous at best. I wouldn't call it a dystopia myself, but I'd hope to have better grounds for that than inventing meanings.
  • _bxg1 8y ago
    I don't think it was disingenuous because of the fact that he's clearly not a Trump fan himself. But, I do think it's a pretty minor semantic distinction to make. As for the distinction itself, I was prompted to look it up on Merriam-Webster: dys· to· pia | \ (ˌ)dis-ˈtō-pē-ə \ Definition of dystopia 1 : an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives 2 : ANTI-UTOPIA sense 2 So... the primary definition actually undercuts his thesis, while the second definition lines up. I mean it's an interesting subject of contemplation - dystopia's relationship with utopia - but he took an argumentative approach rather than a contemplative one, which I think squandered the topic a little.
  • 75dvtwin 8y ago
    Well, I think, that a second central topic of the article is the 'naming calling'. That is, using labels that previously widely used defined patterns resulting in real human-killing -- to, instead, describe a pattern that a person finds unfitting to his/her policy views. In other words, misplaced naming calling, in a way, stealing the valor from the real victims of the true dystopian past events. "... It is important to keep dystopia in its place, and in perspective. There are and have been real dystopias in the world, and imaginary ones help illustrate how utopian visions can endanger decent regimes and communities. Not every call for a border wall or “Medicare for all” is dystopian; one (or the other) may be a stupid idea, but it is not summoning 1984. ..."
• stcredzero 8y ago
  From the article: Two key identifying marks of dystopia are social regimentation and an inevitable totalitarianism. "Conform or be cast out." --Rush, Subdivisions, Signals, 1982 "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." From the article: Next, dystopia is marked by dehumanization How one tweet can ruin your life | Jon Ronson -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI From the article: The abuse of technology is another characteristic of dystopia. Google. Facebook. From the article: Next, dystopia empowers a new class of rulers and uses propaganda and state terror to maintain the power of the regime...The ultimate result of dystopia can be seen in the tragedy of an individual. Instead of only relying on state terror, there is a new brand of current day authoritarianism which is trying to use non-state power through media, social media, and non-governmental civic groups. The new twist is to erode freedom of speech, but not have it be technically illegal, because the government isn't doing it. The new twist is to erode due process and presumption of innocence, but it's not technically illegal, because trial by public opinion and media isn't a judicial process. The new twist is to disenfranchise people, but not in person, only online and in social media, because it's not "technically illegal." However, all of the above violates various principles of individual rights in spirit. To me, they are all dishonest means of having coercive, authoritarian effects on people at large, without being "technically illegal." People who actually believe in universal principles of human rights don't try and coerce people. People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people, and when they can't convince, they listen. It's authoritarians who have succumbed to groupthink who seek to use power to coerce people into acquiescence. In my life experience, it's only those who believe another group are less than human, who give up dialogue and trying to convince.
  • anigbrowl 8y ago
    There's a story in the news today about a Coast Guard lieutenant with extreme political views who was planning to go on an Anders Breivik style murder spree. Your model doesn't seem to include people who have zero interest in dialogue or persuasion and are willing to simply eliminate people they find disagreeable. Regrettably, it's not hard to find people who subscribe to eliminationist ideologies, and having found them it is not difficult to figure out the content of such ideologies. At what point do you consider the listening process sufficient for conclusions to be drawn, or any other action to be taken? If all you do is gather data and you never analyze or act upon it, what use is it?
• draggnar 8y ago
  It's right there in the word. Eu-topia: "Not place". A place that does not exist. Trying to create utopia is futile because by definition it will never exist.