ilovefuzz.com

Worth pointing out perhaps that those mythologies are defined by unending struggle, which (could, perhaps necessarily) conflate being religious and being an asshole -- at the very least being complicit if not actively engaging in behaviors, trends, and stances that would appear to modern man to be nothing less than definitively assholish?

History is literally littered with examples (based both in the secular and the sacred but the former isn't part of the discussion) but the idea of "what I am doing is intrinsically good because X validates it and, conveniently, X can be used to justify anything if I make a token motion that my behavior is in service of X*" means that they're not quite as neatly distinguished as your position may wish them to be in this conversation.

*alternatively written as:"Sorry buddy. Not really my problem"?

D.o.S. wrote:Worth pointing out perhaps that those mythologies are defined by unending struggle, which (could, perhaps necessarily) conflate being religious and being an asshole -- at the very least being complicit if not actively engaging in behaviors, trends, and stances that would appear to modern man to be nothing less than definitively assholish?

History is literally littered with examples (based both in the secular and the sacred but the former isn't part of the discussion) but the idea of "what I am doing is intrinsically good because X validates it and, conveniently, X can be used to justify anything if I make a token motion that my behavior is in service of X*" means that they're not quite as neatly distinguished as your position may wish them to be in this conversation.

*alternatively written as:"Sorry buddy. Not really my problem"?

If some external idea/god/presence validates an action, isn't that the definition of extrinsic motivation? Not being petty about word choices, just not sure I follow.

Not for nothing that the X is this equation is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to being annoyed at the digs this thread takes. It's the same thing I've said elsewhere: it doesn't make sense to me that people who have lots of sensitivity to subjectivity dismiss folks who feel differently than they do. I understand why--'don't impose your perceived-objective reality on me'--but there's an element of crazy to that way of thinking. Thinking has to be grounded in some shared sense of empirical reality (if it isn't, it's a literal definition for madness).

Well now we're getting into Satre territory because it's very tempting to suggest that this person (to use the example) is a textbook example of someone acting in 'bad faith' (hee hee) and religiosity itself would be operating as an instrument of facticity.

It might be more correct to my thinking, though, to answer by saying that the belief or notion or suggestion would be justifying an intrinsic motivation, right, because there's certainly nothing in the Bible (or wherever else) that says "don't give things back if you get them at an unintended discount because otherwise Satan is winning" or "you got this discount because God loves you", at least not in a way that isn't arguably discounted by other lessons within the text: and that's another problem, because there's no real hierarchy* to what you'd want to take out of this beyond the common sense/empirical reality ones: Killing is worse than eating a fig, etc.


*This is why, for example, most orthodox churches have developed extraordinary libraries of moral theology relating to all the ways to rank the severity of various sins and the like (for Catholics this is mostly used to instruct confessors and the like).


And there's no 'dig' inherent in the X example -- it's just identifying an iteration of superior orders/command responsibility that may justify acting like an asshole (or whatever term you want) that seems to come hand in hand with tethering yourself to a lifestyle doctrine like the one being discussed.

Sorry that's probably a bit muddled I'm in the middle of putting out a fire at work (figuratively).

Mostly I'm just trying to poke at your point with the stick of existentialist inauthenticity because I enjoy a good thought exercise.

Fires will burn anyway, D. We're solving the crisis of modernity here.

I wasn't saying you made a dig--I meant the sense of 'yeah religion is so phony ha ha' that seems so base, easy, and dismissive.

Sartre joke: achieved and received.

Sort of related: if folks haven't watched 'The Good Place' (first season just wrapped)...you should. Putting on your Sartre goggles will help you get to the end a lot quicker, and you can impress your friends (which is the primary use of Sartre goggles).

IM: Ah ok now I'm following (and agree). Probably not up to continuing down this sidetrack -- which could be defined as whether being religious and being an asshole fit the nature of "a square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square"? -- at the moment though.

Also I fucking love Quinoa.

ew

It's rice but better for you

Are you saying you hate rice?

Quinoa is so good whoever doesn't like it can go suck on eggs.

...don't foist your grain objectivism on me, you dickweeds.

i love the turn this thread has taken.

EDIT:

Invisible Man wrote:Sort of related: if folks haven't watched 'The Good Place' (first season just wrapped)...you should. Putting on your Sartre goggles will help you get to the end a lot quicker, and you can impress your friends (which is the primary use of Sartre goggles).

what is this and where can i watch it?

Strange Tales wrote:Quinoa is so good whoever doesn't like it can go suck on eggs.

Qft

Also it just struck me: did DoS say he wasnt gonna continue debating minutiae? Maybe it was just circumstances and not the 180 I imagine it to be.