3 ms·

I initially bought up states and their interplay with belief, but I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-inte

I initially bought up states and their interplay with belief, but I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-interference with people's beliefs, is. And I think those contradictory claims are even independently both very interesting given most of the history of "western civilization".

pdonis 7y ago
> I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-interference with people's beliefs, is States don't have beliefs. Individual people have beliefs. Sometimes lots of individual people have the same beliefs. But that doesn't mean the state of which they happen to be citizens has beliefs. Also, states are not agents in themselves. States are run by humans, and those humans do things using the power of the state. So "states" don't interfere with people's beliefs by some magical power independent of the actions of humans. When states interfere with people's beliefs, what's actually happening is that certain humans are interfering with the beliefs of other humans because they claim the power of the state allows them to. Which in practice always turns out to mean certain people exercising arbitrary power over others for their own benefit, simply because they can. When I say one of the important tenets of Western civilization is states not interfering with people's beliefs, what I mean is that Western civilization is supposed to be about not letting certain people exercise arbitrary power over others for their own benefit simply because they can. States are supposed to be tools that we can use to keep such things from happening, not tools for certain people to use to do such things.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > States don't have beliefs. Individual people have beliefs. > Also, states are not agents in themselves. States are run by humans, and those humans do things using the power of the state. Yeah, so states aren't detached from human beliefs at all. A state doesn't exist independent of people, and so we must view states through the lens of the beliefs of the people running them. There's no state seperate from human belief, so to say states don't "have" beliefs is nonsense. > ... Western civilization is supposed to be ... Says who? From what epic poem are these tenets and conflicts derived? It certainly isn't from Rome circa 500 AD, when it was against the law to even write the beliefs of another faith down. So where is it from? That's the point. It's mythological - these tenets and conflicts are derived from nowhere, nothing, and no-one. There's nowhere to point and say "this is definitely 100% characteristic of the West", because "the west" is a made up concept, which has an indistinct meaning. And, if you think you can point to a particular state and say it's emblematic of the west, that clashes with your claim that only individuals can have beliefs :)
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > to say states don't "have" beliefs is nonsense. To me it's an obvious truth since states aren't agents. Not only can't states exist separate from human beliefs, they can't exist separate from human actions. When we say a state "does" something, what we mean is that humans do things and claim that the power of the state allows them to. And when we say a state "believes" something, we mean that some humans, usually those who have some particular position of power in the state, believe it. If that's what you mean by a state "having" beliefs, then we just have a difference in the language we choose to use. Otherwise you're going to have to explain to me what you mean by a state "having" beliefs since I don't know of any other interpretation of that phrase besides the one I described above that makes sense. > From what epic poem are these tenets and conflicts derived? You're the one who brought up an epic poem, not me. I'm simply giving my understanding of what "Western civilization" means. > these tenets and conflicts are derived from nowhere, nothing, and no-one Huh? You admit there are humans who have beliefs, and those beliefs include the tenets I've described. And humans who have those beliefs have expressed them in many ways, not just in epic poems. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for example. Even mythology is not "nowhere, nothing, and no-one"; myths exist and are human creations just like other beliefs--or states, for that matter. > if you think you can point to a particular state and say it's emblematic of the west I haven't. It's you who keeps dragging in states as if only states could be emblematic of the west, or anything else for that matter. The term is Western civilization. Civilization is not the same as states. As I said, states are tools that civilized humans use to help manage civilization.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      So, you've stated that non-interference in the beliefs of people is a crucial element of the West. Either that applies to all states (vacuous) or you believe that states have some power to impose or not impose beliefs. Call it what you will, but those beliefs are enshrined in those states, whether they're universal, or not. They have them. > The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for example. Why do you believe that these documents which describe the US state are emblematic of the "west"? > I haven't. Awesome, so why does Rome circa 500 AD or the constitution have anything to do with the definition or character of the "west"?

pdonis 7y ago

> I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-interference with people's beliefs, is States don't have beliefs. Individual people have beliefs. Sometimes lots of individual people have the same beliefs. But that doesn't mean the state of which they happen to be citizens has beliefs. Also, states are not agents in themselves. States are run by humans, and those humans do things using the power of the state. So "states" don't interfere with people's beliefs by some magical power independent of the actions of humans. When states interfere with people's beliefs, what's actually happening is that certain humans are interfering with the beliefs of other humans because they claim the power of the state allows them to. Which in practice always turns out to mean certain people exercising arbitrary power over others for their own benefit, simply because they can. When I say one of the important tenets of Western civilization is states not interfering with people's beliefs, what I mean is that Western civilization is supposed to be about not letting certain people exercise arbitrary power over others for their own benefit simply because they can. States are supposed to be tools that we can use to keep such things from happening, not tools for certain people to use to do such things.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> States don't have beliefs. Individual people have beliefs. > Also, states are not agents in themselves. States are run by humans, and those humans do things using the power of the state. Yeah, so states aren't detached from human beliefs at all. A state doesn't exist independent of people, and so we must view states through the lens of the beliefs of the people running them. There's no state seperate from human belief, so to say states don't "have" beliefs is nonsense. > ... Western civilization is supposed to be ... Says who? From what epic poem are these tenets and conflicts derived? It certainly isn't from Rome circa 500 AD, when it was against the law to even write the beliefs of another faith down. So where is it from? That's the point. It's mythological - these tenets and conflicts are derived from nowhere, nothing, and no-one. There's nowhere to point and say "this is definitely 100% characteristic of the West", because "the west" is a made up concept, which has an indistinct meaning. And, if you think you can point to a particular state and say it's emblematic of the west, that clashes with your claim that only individuals can have beliefs :)
- pdonis 7y ago
  > to say states don't "have" beliefs is nonsense. To me it's an obvious truth since states aren't agents. Not only can't states exist separate from human beliefs, they can't exist separate from human actions. When we say a state "does" something, what we mean is that humans do things and claim that the power of the state allows them to. And when we say a state "believes" something, we mean that some humans, usually those who have some particular position of power in the state, believe it. If that's what you mean by a state "having" beliefs, then we just have a difference in the language we choose to use. Otherwise you're going to have to explain to me what you mean by a state "having" beliefs since I don't know of any other interpretation of that phrase besides the one I described above that makes sense. > From what epic poem are these tenets and conflicts derived? You're the one who brought up an epic poem, not me. I'm simply giving my understanding of what "Western civilization" means. > these tenets and conflicts are derived from nowhere, nothing, and no-one Huh? You admit there are humans who have beliefs, and those beliefs include the tenets I've described. And humans who have those beliefs have expressed them in many ways, not just in epic poems. The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for example. Even mythology is not "nowhere, nothing, and no-one"; myths exist and are human creations just like other beliefs--or states, for that matter. > if you think you can point to a particular state and say it's emblematic of the west I haven't. It's you who keeps dragging in states as if only states could be emblematic of the west, or anything else for that matter. The term is Western civilization. Civilization is not the same as states. As I said, states are tools that civilized humans use to help manage civilization.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    So, you've stated that non-interference in the beliefs of people is a crucial element of the West. Either that applies to all states (vacuous) or you believe that states have some power to impose or not impose beliefs. Call it what you will, but those beliefs are enshrined in those states, whether they're universal, or not. They have them. > The US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, for example. Why do you believe that these documents which describe the US state are emblematic of the "west"? > I haven't. Awesome, so why does Rome circa 500 AD or the constitution have anything to do with the definition or character of the "west"?