5 ms·
As usual, this is both interesting but also so generalizing as to get frustrating in places. But it’s clearly well-meaning and earnest, which makes it easier to
by dmvdoug 3y ago
As usual, this is both interesting but also so generalizing as to get frustrating in places. But it’s clearly well-meaning and earnest, which makes it easier to tolerate some of its annoyingly breezy certainty.
Then there’s this:
> Religions are collections of cherished but mistaken principles. So anything that can be described either literally or metaphorically as a religion will have valuable unexplored ideas in its shadow. Copernicus and Darwin both made discoveries of this type.
> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else.
First, anything can be either literally or metaphorically described as a religion, so that makes this an empty principle, since it either covers nothing or everything or both. (“Cheesecake is my religion.” Etc.)
Second, the footnote is literally impenetrable to me. Honestly. I can discern no coherent meaning. That everyone could adopt a principle or belief does not mean it must be false just because everyone uniformly and indistinguishably believes it and therefore nobody disbelieves it. Whether people can be distinguished from one another with respect to some belief (say, that in base 10 arithmetic that 1+1=2) has nothing to do with the truth vel non of that belief.
And honestly, I am genuinely struggling to fathom a mind that could not only believe that statement but believe it so deeply that they breezily announce it as obviously true. So it’s funny that this is the next paragraph:
> What are people in your field religious about, in the sense of being too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think?
The only, and I mean, literally only, interpretation that I can come up with is that PG is using “religion” and “religious” in enough different ways that when he mixes them, as it seems to do here, he doesn’t notice. Or he means them ONLY in the sense of “too attached to some principle that might not be as self-evident as they think.” But I have a very strong suspicion that he is definitely not using them only in that way.
- hospitalJail 3y ago>But it’s clearly well-meaning and earnest When you are famous, people give you the benefit of the doubt. When you are small fries, you are blogspam.
- dmvdoug 3y agoIt’s more a tone issue. He’s a skilled enough writer to come across as sincere and well-meaning. Whether he is or not I have no clue, I don’t know the man.
- carabiner 3y agoTraditionally, footnotes are straightforward explanations of terms or passages. Tech writers, in their grandiosity, have perverted them to contain randomass tangents that no one really cares about.
- leoc 3y agoFootnotes are mainly straightforward-enough glosses and references, but there have always been digressions (and quite often sniping) in there too. The C19 has some real specimens.
- mamediz 3y agoI like footnotes, or in this case maybe we should call "endnotes". David Foster Wallace was known to use them a lot, sometimes he would put footnotes in footnotes.
- dmvdoug 3y agoGood old postmodernist literature. So meta.
- dmvdoug 3y agoWhereas legal opinions use them either as a citation dump (known as “collecting cases”), as a place to bracket issues that are not being decided, or as a place to put a substantive response to a separate opinion in the case (if you’re an appellate court).
- enraged_camel 3y agoI used to interpret PG's self-assured tone as wisdom. Over the years though, I've come to realize what it actually is: hubris.
- KnobbleMcKnees 3y agoNot to get too memey but: why not both?
- interroboink 3y ago> annoyingly breezy certainty. I may have to steal that phrase (:
- kens 3y ago> [18] The principles defining a religion have to be mistaken. Otherwise anyone might adopt them, and there would be nothing to distinguish the adherents of the religion from everyone else. I think what's going on here is the theory that the purpose of religion is to create a trusted in-group separated from the out-group, with rules that make it difficult to casually join. [1] If you start from that premise, PG's footnote makes sense. But this ignores the fact that the largest religions really want as many members as possible and would be delighted if everyone followed their principles. [1] See for instance: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/24/there-are-rules-here/
- dmvdoug 3y agoThis is actually helpful. So, he’s saying, religions really exist for this social function of group formation/identity. Thus, we know that the principles they proclaim, which tend to be universal claims of truth, are wrong, since if those principles were true, they would defeat the real purpose of religion. Therefore, one good way to find ideas to explore is to question the principles or bracket them and see what you can do without them. That does make what he’s saying there cohere better. Of course, what he’s saying turns entirely on the ambiguity he’s playing on (which I suspected): religion in the sense of concrete historical/social human practices and religion in the sense of identifying strongly with and thus not questioning your principles. Never a good idea to hang your hat on the coatrack of suggestive language games. Or, you know, outrageous bullshit. I almost think it makes it worse, finding a coherent meaning—-which is so silly.
- sanderjd 3y agoYeah I generally enjoyed this essay overall but also bumped on that and couldn't parse the footnote. It's not just you :)