4 ms·

> I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless. It is etymologically correct though: condition of being

> I despise this rhetorical technique. I find it both insulting, intellectually dishonest and useless. It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship https://www.etymonline.com/word/worship From the root worth "worth": weorþ "significant, valuable, of value; valued, appreciated, highly thought-of, deserving, meriting; honorable, noble, of high rank. * https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth https://www.etymonline.com/word/worth What do you hold in highest regard in your life? Family? Truth/honesty? Happiness? Other? (Saint) Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor. None of those things are necessarily bad in themselves—some amount are often necessary for life, and can be be used to achieve good things—but chasing them for the sake of themselves without a higher principle to guide you once acquire them has probably caused many people problems over the course of history. Asking yourself "what is the highest good in my life? what is the thing/princple that I hold in highest esteem? what do I 'worship'?" can be a good spiritual/moral exercise.

subsaharancoder 6y ago
the quality and calibre of this comment is what brings me to HN everyday..
teawrecks 6y ago
Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Try translating the passage to a language without the word "worship", or with 100 sub-distinctions, or introduce a concept like "zen" and his point falls apart. He also introduces a false dichotomy which equates "worship" with "theism". If I "worship" money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a "theist". So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up.
- IHLayman 6y ago
  > If I “worship” money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a “theist”. The Greeks had a god of wealth that they worshipped, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus. Furthermore, there is an entire page of sex/fertility deities on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities. Maybe you are conflating theism with monotheism.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Well: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity > So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up. It may be useful to go to the full source: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water * https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI The key phrase is "day-to day trenches of adult life".
rcoveson 6y ago
> Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor. The most typical substitute for Catholic god throughout human history is probably some other god (or group of gods), followed by non-theistic religion, followed by non-religious pragmatic ethics of some sort. I really don't think the quote is relevant outside Thomas' church culture. That's especially true for modern Protestants who might be tempted to think this quote applies to them; you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion. I was raised Mormon, personally, and I'm sure the once-human God worshiped by my close ancestors would be an abomination to a Catholic like St. Aquinas.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion. Deus autem est ipsum esse. God is being itself. See Summa contra Gentiles for details. Or, if you prefer Boethius, see De Trinitate: quod divina substantia est ipsum esse et ab ea est esse. The divine substance is being itself, and from it comes being.
  - rcoveson 6y ago
    The God I was taught was an entity that actually spoke, or otherwise communicated. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all spoke to him, as did Jesus. He said certain things, which means he necessarily did not say other things. If he said all possible things, he did not say anything at all (see Claude Shannon's work). I don't see the utility of a God (or the belief in a God) that is everything, or "being itself". I already have words or phrases for those concepts ("everything" and "being itself", respectively). God, to me, was a supremely good entity who created people and who communicated particular ideas to us directly or through prophets. That describes a subset of "everything". For example, I am not God, and my cat is not God. The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are?
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > The God I was taught was an entity […] For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degrees in philosophy and metaphysics. Newtonian physics and gravity is fine for most of us as well; no need to get into Einstein. But one shouldn't confuse mental shortcuts with actual reality. As Aquinas explains it, God could not be a being, even the supreme being, or any other kind of "entity". This is because if he/He is one kind of entity he is not another kind of entity. And there would have to be a reason for Him being one kind and not another kind. But that reason would be external to God, and thus God's nature would thus be contingent on something other than Himself. But then wouldn't that external reason be greater than God? Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, I.22.8-9: > [8] Moreover, if something can exist only when several elements come together, it is composite. But no thing in which the essence is other than the being can exist unless several elements come together, namely, the essence and the being. Hence, every thing in which the essence is other than the being is composite. But, as we have shown, God is not composite. Therefore, God's being is His essence. > [9] Every thing, furthermore, exists because it has being. A thing whose essence is not its being, consequently, is not through its essence but by participation in something, namely, being itself. But that which is through participation in something cannot be the first being, because prior to it is the being in which it participates in order to be. But God is the first being, with nothing prior to Him. His essence is, therefore, His being. * https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles1.htm#22 https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles1.htm#22 > The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are? The entities of the Greek pantheon are creatures. Perhaps powerful ones, but creatures not the less. That fact we use the term "god(s)" for them as well as the Christian God is an artefact of language. See Edward Feser's book Aquinas for a good treatment of this subject in more modern language. Trying to follow translated Latin can be slow going, and isn't really necessary unless you really want to go to primary sources—but one has to be mindful of terminology and ascribing modern interpretations to certain words used.
benchaney 6y ago
>It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases.
- memling 6y ago
  > The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. Now one can argue, of course, that idols only exist if God exists, and if (or since) God does not, Wallace is ipso facto wrong. On the other hand, one might also make the argument that the polytheistic impulse is really a transfer of worship of a particular thing to a properly-named deity with some window dressing, and that all moderns have really done is to disown the deities and ritual while maintaining an attachment to their blessings. Is that fair? I don't know. But I would wager that Wallace isn't being disingenuous here, even if he's being provocative. I was under the impression he was at least nominally an atheist.
  - benchaney 6y ago
    > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point. I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.

subsaharancoder 6y ago

the quality and calibre of this comment is what brings me to HN everyday..

teawrecks 6y ago

Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Try translating the passage to a language without the word "worship", or with 100 sub-distinctions, or introduce a concept like "zen" and his point falls apart. He also introduces a false dichotomy which equates "worship" with "theism". If I "worship" money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a "theist". So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up.

IHLayman 6y ago
> If I “worship” money or sex, no one would seriously say that makes me a “theist”. The Greeks had a god of wealth that they worshipped, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutus. Furthermore, there is an entire page of sex/fertility deities on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_love_and_lust_deities. Maybe you are conflating theism with monotheism.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Concepts shouldn't be dependent on the language they're conveyed in, though. Well: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity > So even if we accept his warped use of the term "worship", his claim that atheism doesn't exist still doesn't hold up. It may be useful to go to the full source: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Water * https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI The key phrase is "day-to day trenches of adult life".

rcoveson 6y ago

> Thomas Aquinas said that the four typical substitutes for God are wealth, pleasure, power, and honor. The most typical substitute for Catholic god throughout human history is probably some other god (or group of gods), followed by non-theistic religion, followed by non-religious pragmatic ethics of some sort. I really don't think the quote is relevant outside Thomas' church culture. That's especially true for modern Protestants who might be tempted to think this quote applies to them; you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion. I was raised Mormon, personally, and I'm sure the once-human God worshiped by my close ancestors would be an abomination to a Catholic like St. Aquinas.

throw0101a 6y ago
> you probably don't even know God in Thomas' opinion. Deus autem est ipsum esse. God is being itself. See Summa contra Gentiles for details. Or, if you prefer Boethius, see De Trinitate: quod divina substantia est ipsum esse et ab ea est esse. The divine substance is being itself, and from it comes being.
- rcoveson 6y ago
  The God I was taught was an entity that actually spoke, or otherwise communicated. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all spoke to him, as did Jesus. He said certain things, which means he necessarily did not say other things. If he said all possible things, he did not say anything at all (see Claude Shannon's work). I don't see the utility of a God (or the belief in a God) that is everything, or "being itself". I already have words or phrases for those concepts ("everything" and "being itself", respectively). God, to me, was a supremely good entity who created people and who communicated particular ideas to us directly or through prophets. That describes a subset of "everything". For example, I am not God, and my cat is not God. The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are?
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > The God I was taught was an entity […] For day-to-day operations, believing in such an entity is 'fine', as carrying around some more complicated idea can bog one down. Most of us don't have degrees in philosophy and metaphysics. Newtonian physics and gravity is fine for most of us as well; no need to get into Einstein. But one shouldn't confuse mental shortcuts with actual reality. As Aquinas explains it, God could not be a being, even the supreme being, or any other kind of "entity". This is because if he/He is one kind of entity he is not another kind of entity. And there would have to be a reason for Him being one kind and not another kind. But that reason would be external to God, and thus God's nature would thus be contingent on something other than Himself. But then wouldn't that external reason be greater than God? Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, I.22.8-9: > [8] Moreover, if something can exist only when several elements come together, it is composite. But no thing in which the essence is other than the being can exist unless several elements come together, namely, the essence and the being. Hence, every thing in which the essence is other than the being is composite. But, as we have shown, God is not composite. Therefore, God's being is His essence. > [9] Every thing, furthermore, exists because it has being. A thing whose essence is not its being, consequently, is not through its essence but by participation in something, namely, being itself. But that which is through participation in something cannot be the first being, because prior to it is the being in which it participates in order to be. But God is the first being, with nothing prior to Him. His essence is, therefore, His being. * https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles1.htm#22 https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles1.htm#22 > The stories that the ancient Greeks tell about Hades or Zeus or Dionysus are not true of God. Would you say that they are? The entities of the Greek pantheon are creatures. Perhaps powerful ones, but creatures not the less. That fact we use the term "god(s)" for them as well as the Christian God is an artefact of language. See Edward Feser's book Aquinas for a good treatment of this subject in more modern language. Trying to follow translated Latin can be slow going, and isn't really necessary unless you really want to go to primary sources—but one has to be mindful of terminology and ascribing modern interpretations to certain words used.

benchaney 6y ago

>It is etymologically correct though: condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown. The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases.

memling 6y ago
> The etymology is not even close to being relevant. Conflating two different meanings of the word "worship" and implying their equivalence is dishonest and deeply unsound. That is true even if it is the definition of worship fits in both cases. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. Now one can argue, of course, that idols only exist if God exists, and if (or since) God does not, Wallace is ipso facto wrong. On the other hand, one might also make the argument that the polytheistic impulse is really a transfer of worship of a particular thing to a properly-named deity with some window dressing, and that all moderns have really done is to disown the deities and ritual while maintaining an attachment to their blessings. Is that fair? I don't know. But I would wager that Wallace isn't being disingenuous here, even if he's being provocative. I was under the impression he was at least nominally an atheist.
- benchaney 6y ago
  > Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but it seems to me that Wallace is actually arguing the point: that these two senses are in fact an artificial distinction, that people are inherently religious, that they are inherently worshipers, at least of a sort. It seems like he is saying that wherever we find our identity is a god that we worship. It is perfectly fine for him to argue that they are equivalent (though I disagree). The issue is relying on the etymology of the word worship to argue that point. I'd also like to clarify that while I disagree with Wallace, the accusation of dishonestly was directed at throw0101a, who made an absurd etymology based argument after it had already been pointed out that such arguments are flawed.