3 ms·
Eh, I always want one of these secular communities to take off and flourish but they never seem to. Possibly the principals of "think for yourself", "relative
by jqm 11y ago
Eh, I always want one of these secular communities to take off and flourish but they never seem to.
Possibly the principals of "think for yourself", "relative and perspective", "freedom of association" are antithetical to these kind tight knit groups. It's a shame in some ways and definitely more lonely. But, looking at the types of people some more radical religions attract, possibly lonely is the better option.
In the meantime, if we really need a community support group without the superstition and hoopla, I guess there is always the possibility of joining a street gang....
- TeMPOraL 11y agoCommunities are defined by what they can't do as much as by what they want to do. You can't make sacrifice for something bigger than yourself if the group doesn't demand anything at all. That is, what I believe, the primary problem with Catholicism in the west today - they don't enforce anything. Military has a code. Street gangs have codes. There is something about a shared and enforced set of rules, however inflexible, that binds people together.
- rayalez 11y agoThe question is whether it is the kind of community that should exist, that you want to be a part of. And the answer is - no, it is not.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI disagree. The primary practical benefit of a common, strictly enforced set of rules is that it solves a great many of coordination problems (think prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons). The problem isn't usually with a single greedy individual who wants to profit off the group; it's with the (apparently) natural human tendency to optimize for one's own benefit first. It's fine when one person does it, but when everyone does it, everyone loses. So a set of enforced common rules is a thing that keeps the group both from getting overrun by freeloaders and by self-destructing because of the usual human stupidity.