Re: What is the single greatest weird tale?
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 10 February, 2022 11:07AM
Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an
> apology
> > for behaviors that neither of us find
> acceptable.
>
> I only think you are a moral nihilist, which is
> pretty clear at this point.
Yes, but simply because it is the most economical explanation. I have no irons in the fire WRT to whether religions or valid or not for those who practice them.
It's just simply that I find no satisfaction in theological explanations, nothing more than that, Platypus.
> So was H.P.
> Lovecraft, an author I admire. I don't want to
> pass judgment on either of you. I don't even
> particularly want to argue about this issue. But
> every time I mention a moral concept, like "evil",
> you seem to feel compelled to weigh in.
Yes, the questions of ethics, morality, good/evil interest me, but more from a pragmatic standpoint that a moral one.
>
> > So me, I try to figure out the motivation for
> it
> > and it falls into two main directions: all
> those
> > who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of
> > absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations,
> even;
> > or the acts they're committing seem to them as
> > fair and permissible in the context in which
> they
> > commit them.
>
> I see 3 ideas here.
>
> One, is that you are conflating the idea that sin
> exists, with the idea that all sinners are "evil,
> in a sort of absolute spiritual sense".
This is why I like to engage on these topics.
I, personally, do not recognize sin. The individual either conforms, or not, to the agreed upon social code currently in lawful force.
So while I have no respect/regard for homosexuals (or very little), I don't view their actions as sinful, or even restricted, at this point in history.
>I hope it
> is obvious that this hugely distorts the Christian
> position.
Which one? Do all the various sects and denominations even agree on that? What about predestination in Calvinism? All those who are not saved at birth seem to be damned beyond redemption.
>
> Second, is the idea that entire nations are evil
> in "a sort of absolutist spiritual sense". I can
> make no sense of this at all. My religion does
> not teach that nations have immortal souls, only
> that people do.
OK.
Then at times huge pluralities of various nations were either evil or misled on the individual level, is this how you see it?
I think functionally this is not a lot different from how I see it, except that the plurality opposed the principals of me and people like me. Not ethics, a question of force--either sufficient to for compliance to their aims, or sufficient to repel their goals.
>
> Thirdly, is the sense that you are bothered by the
> problem of how one man can judge another man's
> soul, when that other man may have been raised in
> the wrong kind of culture and taught the wrong
> kind of things, perhaps through no fault of his
> own.
OK, let me clear it up.
First, I see no soul.
Second, I don't care about the underlying reasons for why miscreants deviate from behaviors that I--and probably you--find unacceptable and are also illegal. Their "reasons" sound to me like excuses, and I'll have none of that from strangers--unproven individuals.
> This bothers you of course, because you do
> not believe in God.
No, as I explained above.
What bothers me is the possibility that those whom I find reprehensible and unbound by social of legal norms will ascend to the majority either through sheer numbers, lack of public will power to simply enforce existing laws effectively, or a combination of the two.
For the first time in my life, since 6-8 years ago, I see this not only as a possibility, but an increasing possibility.
> It does not bother the
> Christian one bit, because he DOES believe in God,
> believes that it is God's job, and God's job
> alone, to judge men's souls; and in fact that he
> as a Christian is forbidden to try to do this.
OK.
As you can see, I have no trouble sitting in judgement because a) I don't see a God taking care of this; and b) I'm not concerned with souls or afterlife, but only what happens in the present and future in common society.
>
> > I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it
> > requires an external authority that has set out
> > immutable standards, and this would be a deity;
> in
> > any event, it's a centraized authority that
> never
> > amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept
> this
> > on faith and I don't.
>
> Yes. And to the extent that we were discussing
> the attitudes of ancient pagans, I believe they
> are more likely to be on my side than yours.
Maybe so.
> They
> believed that kings, princes and entire cultures
> were subject to the will of the gods, and that
> kings and princes and entire cultures might be
> punished by the gods for their transgressions.
> They did not think that morality was man-made, or
> that there was no higher authority than the king,
> the culture, the personal superego, or any other
> human entity.
Sounds fine to me. I'm not a pagan, after all.
Here's how I see what some may view as the struggle between good and evil. I can frame it in Freudian terminology most easily but this doesn't mean that I ascribe to his precepts.
Any rational individual has something like what Freud call the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The balance of these accounts for how the individual expresses him/herself in society.
Simply put, an infant is governed by id, while an ascetic is governed by super-ego. It takes tremendous will to be an ascetic, and none at all to be a screaming 2 year old.
For rational, social adults, one must wage war against the id part, using the super-ego to create an outward-facing ego for the rest of society to see. I work hard to make sure that I keep my id in check--I use the lofty precepts contained in my super-ego, and they are basically modeling the way my parents interfaced with the world. This could have been enhance by any positive religious training, but in my case wasn't. Hence, it's unneeded at this point.
I don't and haven't needed a reason beyond simply doing what I think is the "right" thing in any given situation. Some might need or want this, and some form of authority could supply this additional resolve. I don't much care *how* a person wins his own war against his animal nature--his id--only that he does so on a consistent basis.
The bad thing for me is that on encountering a person with insufficient control of his id, if I cannot avoid this person, I find that if I must deal with them at length, I have to adopt their behaviors simply to maintain parity, at least. And it's these times that I'm a supporter of organized religion. because I think they help great those who otherwise come up short in terms of self-restraint.
I don't think you need this external reason to believe, Platypus: I feel sure that you'd take care of your id in any event.
>
> > And "natural law" is simply
> > substituting the word "Nature" for "God".
>
> Feel free to have that argument with a fellow
> atheist who is NOT a moral nihilist. It's really
> not my fight.
>
> > I can see the elements of these behaviors in
> > myself and in others. With the aid of my early
> > parental training, I formed ethical habits that
> > permit me to survive/succeed without resorting
> to
> > any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.
>
> Well then, you have what I would call a "moral
> sense". You have a theory ("early parental
> training") explaining how this moral sense came to
> be.
Yes. I am not amoral.
> HP Lovecraft would have called his moral
> sense "aesthetic". But regardless of how your
> moral sense came to be, you have a philosophy that
> tells you that any moral perceptions you have are
> pure delusion, with no basis whatsoever in any
> external reality.
Yes.
> Nonetheless, you say you can
> and do follow your moral sense. And, in a
> meaningless world (as you suppose it to be), why
> not? And perhaps in doing so, you are a better
> person than many a devout Christian. That is not
> for me to judge.
I don't even think it's necessary, unless I begin to transgress.
>
> > But there are lots and lots of others who don't
> > feel so constrained, nor do they view
> themselves
> > as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest
> > transgression is that they got caught, as they
> see
> > it.
>
> So now you raise the thorny problem of how to
> judge the souls of men who may, through no fault
> of their own, have been born or raised with a
> deficient or inaccurate moral sense.
As I said before, another person's "reasons" sound a lot like "excuses". I don't care about any possible shortcomings in one's past so far as how they affect current behavior. I *do* care about how closely they hew to acceptable behavior in general society.
> But I've
> already told you the Christian answer. We DON'T
> judge his soul. We leave it to God to do that.
> The God that you don't believe exists.
Yes, OK.
>
> So my suggestion to you is that we not have these
> debates every time I mention a moral concept. I
> have answers to all your questions. They are just
> not answers that you can accept because you reject
> the concept of God (or gods, or karma). We will
> only go round and round in circles.
Yes, this is fine. Makes sense.
>
> > So what to do? I look for them and keep well
> away
> > from them, and the actual societal answer (for
> our
> > nominally lawful society) is to separate these
> > individuals, however many there are, from the
> rest
> > of society. They could be incarcerated,
> > euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live
> among
> > others like themselves.
>
> In an ancient or medieval world, prison was rarely
> a practical nor a humane solution.
Mostly, prisons were a place to restrain one until final punishment was administered.
You couldn't very well sentence a criminal to death the day after tomorrow, and expect him to present himself at that time.
> Exile,
> execution, or perhaps a good thrashing, were the
> only methods available.
Transportation was good.
> But when a man was
> executed for a crime, the idea was rarely to pass
> judgment on his soul, which the Christian religion
> forbids. Rather, the formula was often to have a
> ritual where God was asked to have mercy on the
> soul of the executed man. Criminal justice was a
> necessary but regrettable duty performed for the
> protection of the community.
Yes. The primary function of public punishment was to deter those who morally straddle the fence, and also to clearly connect certain prohibited behaviors with public demonstrations of disapproval.
>
> > All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate
> > power--power being the ultimate wildcard in
> human
> > society.
>
> Pagans did not believe that (human) power was the
> ultimate wildcard in human society.
Fine, but you're not talking to a pagan.
>
> > And here's the central irony: the instant that
> the
> > social misfits that I described have sufficient
> > power and will, it is *their* code (or
> non-code)
> > that will be the norm, and we'll be
> marginalized.
> > Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.
> >
> > In sense, Howard was right about all this.
>
> Not sure what you are saying here. Howard's work
> is somewhat amoral, from a purely Christian
> perspective, but I don't think he was a moral
> nihilist. I would say that overall, the evidence
> is very much against this idea.
I think he saw the same thing as I do, but preferred to combat it rather than to finesse it, as I do. This desire to combat wrong-doing (by one's own standards) creates a tension because the combat, itself, may be contrary to acceptable social behavior.
I mean, in my gut, I'd *like* to directly combat wrong-doers, but I need to find other, less emotionally fulfilling, but functionally satisfactory methods.
I guess this is responsible post-modernism, Platypus... :^(
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 11:55AM by Sawfish.