4 ms·

The point is much more clear when taken in context with the longer speech. When taken out of context it confuses the central point. The statement about atheis

by nfw2 6y ago

The point is much more clear when taken in context with the longer speech. When taken out of context it confuses the central point. The statement about atheists not existing is hyperbole used in passing. He doesn't mean there is absolutely no difference between religious and unreligious people. He means they are often similar in non-obvious ways. The central point of the full speech is that people should be intentional about what they choose to think and care about. It's not too far from stoicism which seems pretty popular in SV/HN. The chain of points from this passage back to this central point are: - Atheists and religious people are similar in that they both have a need to find meaning in their life. - The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. - These harmful sources of meaning are often adopted by us unconsciously ("by default"). - It is important to be intentional about what we care about because if we are not, we will default to the harmful sources of meaning. I agree that there is likely some projection of DFW's own psychological issues onto non-religious people at large, and that a lot of people can live happy lives without some form of veneration. On the other hand, I think his advice is useful for some. I personally find his message about choosing your values intentionally valuable. ---- Even when taken in context, I admit his writing isn't super clear to a general audience. DFW was fond of experimental writing and also believed that writing should be tailored to the audience. His audience in this case was a liberal arts college, so he may have felt comfortable stretching his use of language.

acdha 6y ago
> The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. This why I generally lean towards the “sloppy writing” conclusion — it is indeed useful to consider your values carefully, but trying to dunk on atheists both confused the language and lead to the incorrect claim that religious beliefs are less harmful than secular ones which is easily disproven by talking to people who were mistreated by friends or family members who saw that as a religious requirement (e.g. many gay people) or whose religion embraced the same harmful behaviors (e.g. some state religions or cults, the prosperity gospel, etc.). Better writing could avoid that distraction by focusing on the common harmful classes of behavior and how to recognize those patterns in any particular system. I don’t see this as experimental language use because it’s so far from novel in this particular context and the net effect is to obscure the point rather than reach some deeper understanding.

by nfw2 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

> The alternatives that people find for sources of meaning (power, money, looks, etc) are often psychologically harmful. This why I generally lean towards the “sloppy writing” conclusion — it is indeed useful to consider your values carefully, but trying to dunk on atheists both confused the language and lead to the incorrect claim that religious beliefs are less harmful than secular ones which is easily disproven by talking to people who were mistreated by friends or family members who saw that as a religious requirement (e.g. many gay people) or whose religion embraced the same harmful behaviors (e.g. some state religions or cults, the prosperity gospel, etc.). Better writing could avoid that distraction by focusing on the common harmful classes of behavior and how to recognize those patterns in any particular system. I don’t see this as experimental language use because it’s so far from novel in this particular context and the net effect is to obscure the point rather than reach some deeper understanding.