Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (26073)	11/20/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Rick, For a philosophical question, a philosophical answer. Being lazy, I quote from Bertrand Russell: The natural impulse of the vigorous person of decent character is to do good, but if he is deprived of all political power and of all opportunity to influence events, he will be deflected from his natural course and will decide that the important thing is to be good. This is what happened to the early Chistians; it led to a conception of personal holiness as something quite independent of beneficient action, since holiness had to be something that could be achieved by people who were impotent in action. Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics. To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer far more wicked than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably does a thousand times as much harm. The medieval conception of virtue, as one sees in their pictures, was of something wishy-washy, feeble, and sentimental. The most virtuous man was the man who retired from the world; the only men of action who were regarded as saints were those who wasted the lives and substance of their subjects in fighting the Turks, like St. Louis. The church would never regard a man as a saint because he reformed the finances, or the criminal law, or the judiciary. Such mere contributions to human welfare would be regarded as of no importance. I do not believe that there is a single saint in the whole calendar whose saintship is due to work of public utility. I recall E posting a statement of belief which, according to defective memory, went something like this: Appeals to the beyond are useless. Whatever needs to be done must be done by us. Do you really feel that such a creed is negative? Atheists do not sit in musty cubbyholes concocting proofs of God's non-existence. We generally do not bother with it at all, unless we are disturbed by the nonsensical harangues of the purveyors of fantasy. Pope once wrote: Presume upon thyself not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is man. He was right, in my view. Do you really believe that inquiries into the nature of existence are philosophically superior to inquiries into the means by which the material existence of the people living on this planet today may be improved? I see many people, many of whom are among the most privileged ever to walk the earth, wasting their intellectual substance in frantic and futile inquiry into the color of auras, the nature of deity, and speculations into what happens after we die. In my view, they're a bunch of wankers. Don't you think this energy might be better spent in beneficient action? Don't you think that those who have by accident of circumstance been born in the comfort of the upper caste of the developed world have an obligation to try and spread those benefits we take for granted - education, health care, opportunity, and so many others - to those who do not have them? Do you believe that the abstract philosophizing of the believer is superior to the practical action advocated by the nonbeliever? If so, why? Steve

To: Rick Julian who wrote (26073)	11/20/1998 9:31:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Rick, I shall tell you this again, in the same words. I don't know why you find it a difficult concept: Atheism is not an edifice except in reactive terms, by definition. It is a statement about an edifice. The edifice is so multifarious, that any analytical statement about it that attempts to be thorough is going to be long and complex, as I gather the book you are reading must be. But every atheist has, separate from his or her reaction to the propositions credulists offer, his or her own philosophical understanding of life to forge. Atheists are only "groupable" in one regard: as the name of their "group" indicates, they don't agree with the credulists on the matter of a "God." It is as silly to criticize atheists for not being "positive" in their "atheist" aspect as it it to criticize paint thinner for not being paint or a knife for not being butter. Maybe I should have said, "to criticize paint remover that is being used to remove green paint, for not itself being red paint." So, that said, Rick, actually I do, in a humble sort of way, "consider myself a philosopher." Now, I admit that I don't kill and plunder for my beliefs or anything so dedicated as that, but even so, they add interest and dimension and significance and coherence and texture, and meaning and even "identity," to my life. I suspect the book you are reading is a book about naysaying, which I'm sure you agree is an important thing for us lucky Americans to do when ideas we disagree with and think are even possibly pernicious are being, in our view, sold to the credulous, and which is what I try to do conscientiously when subjects such as supernatural entities with purported moral authority come up. What I do is, I say, "I don't believe that is true," and try to explain why I don't. Same if the subjects of ghosts and leprechauns come up. "I don't believe in that," I say. I can tell you I would be surprised if my particular personal "philosophy," or my world-interpretation, were discussed in that long book you are reading, as this fact would surely be mentioned in a subtitle. It is considered normal in argument to stick to the subject at hand. A demand that an essay on my personal philosophy must accompany logical objections I make to certain assertions is entirely unreasonable. (But in fact, whatever one does and says reveals what one is and believes, don't you think so? And I think we all have probably, without it being our object, manifested or demonstrated or exposed our philosophical "selves" quite significantly here merely in giving our respective answers to the question under consideration-- "Is There a God Force?") Perhaps, some day, I will start a thread or write an essay expressing in detail my philosophy of life, and if I do, Rick, I will call it to your attention so that you may give your reactions to it, point out which of its elements you think unconvincing or inadequate or less conducive to the mental/emotional state you prefer to be in than are the elements found in your philosophy. In fact, if I choose to make my philosophy of life a topic for lively discussion on this or another thread on SI, I hereby invite all who are interested to join the fray. I will never say to anyone that they can't critique my assertions unless they supply a body of personal assertions that I can critique simultaneously, however rhetorically convenient I might find it to change the subject.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (26073)	11/20/1998 9:50:00 PM
From: E	Respond to of 108807

Rick, when you have finished the book about atheism, I'd sure be interested to hear your take on another book, one I've mentioned on this thread already, The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. It comes to mind because I read it so recently, I think, but also because it is such a lucid, and elegantly written, and also entertaining, book on the subject of evolutionary psychology. It isn't a "philosophical" book in its entirety, but it is in some part, as its name suggests. I think you will not enjoy it, and now that I think of it, maybe this should stand as a recommendation only to those who think a book on the subject of evolutionary psychology would interest them. It could be considered depressing by some; though not by me. It is fascinating reading. I really only wrote this post because somehow the previous one got posted twice, I noticed, and rather than just leave a blank post after deleting the supernumerary one, I figured I'd give a plug to a book I think is very enlightening indeed.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (26073)	11/21/1998 9:26:00 AM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Rick: I am god. Are you god, or merely mortal... I never knew you had such a fine-tuned sense of humor, Rick. This Philosopher/Atheist/Fat-Book note of yours is so delightfully subtle, it causes a respect for you, previously absent, to rise in my thinking. Poor Steve and E - masters of phrase and flow of words and ideas - didn't get it, did they? Steve thought you were barking up a tree; and E didn't feel you had your definitions in line. They failed to grasp that you were toying with them, deftly and delicately, didn't they? The thread, recently, has been extremely rich, you will admit. Minds such as yours, Bob's, and Terrie's (I love Steve's use of "ie") are making mince mush out of godless, soulless, mortal, aphilosophical prattlers such as E, Steve, Del, and Sam. The current contributions of this band of heathens stand alone, as attempts to use eloquence in text and logic to cover-up the essential fact that they really know they are not philosophers, such as you. (And, I am sure they could never be!) So, I retract all my past confrontations with you, Rick. I am in shame for not having detected your brilliant, ever-so-cleverly-concealed, wit. geo