Is the quest for equality noble?

Cephus · Jul 23, 2017

Conaeolos said:
No its a different way to describe the world.

No, it's a false way, just like describing Santa Claus as the way kids get presents is a false way of describing the world. It simply isn't true, no matter how happy people might be believing it.

You don’t spend much time teaching kids or even adults for that matter do you? Yes sometimes it is important to express "I don't know" and it is of course dishonest to make up a long lie to pretend to know something you don’t, but I don’t see that, I don’t even see people making up fictions as explanation outside a few obscure cults. In most cases I see people referring to time tested fictional(supernatural) stories to express and teach wisdom and practical knowledge.

Yes, actually, I do spend most of my professional time teaching adults. It is ALWAYS important to be honest about what we know and what we don't. It doesn't matter if you're making up the stories yourself or just propagating them, the fact is, these stories are nonsense, whether you like that fact or not.

Why were those stories created? You assume as long vague fictions for explainable things but in many cases not.

Because at the time they were created, people simply didn't have rational explanations for the things they were trying to address. That's no longer the case.

It was by wise men who wanted to teach things about the world, things that didn’t have names or frameworks, or that people weren’t getting. They found analogy and stories allowed the knowledge to take new life and speak to all. They use a religious language and practice to cultivate the passing of knowledge and wisdom.

No, it's by ignorant men who didn't like not understanding things, so in lieu of having actual explanations that corresponded to reality, they just came up with stories that made them feel good. But we don't have to do that today. We know, at least in the broad strokes, how things work. And there aren't any gods evident, or necessary, to explain reality.

The wise men were happy to tell you they didn’t know why this or that. It was later zealots and their desire to know it all that can’t admit humility. Pride is nasty bedfellow. They just wanted to teach people how to work with these things even when there remains unknowns.

Of course, you have no evidence for any of that whatsoever.

These unknown exist today. This wisdom is need today.

No, they don't exist today. Just because some people might not like the actual answers is not license to just make up emotionally comforting nonsense to cling to.

You think people learn ethic in ethics class?

No, they learn it from society, which is where ethics come from, not some magical man in the sky.

Where did I bring up that argument? Your claim is these religious people are stupid. I suggested another introspective excise: how do you know when your the smartest person in the room? I assumed you have been before…we do tend to be more intellectual than most when we come to forum to about our interest in politics.

I didn't say you personally brought it up, just that it is a common argument among religious apologists. That people "need" religion because they just aren't smart enough to get by without it. That it's a crutch for humans that would somehow fall apart if they didn't have it. Therefore, we should leave it alone. I don't buy that at all.

And frankly, there are a lot of people who come to this very forum who aren't intellectual at all. The only thing I think DP members share is an openness to talking about politics, not being intellectual in doing so. There are tons of simply reactionary, hyper-emotional, virtual fanatics when it comes to their political, and for that matter, religious beliefs and are totally incapable of stepping back and even asking themselves why they believe what they believe. I find that to be a problem.

If I simply asked you evidence you would say its more objectively rational which is meaningless when we the claim is that an objective lens has limits.

No, I wouldn't make that claim in the first place. There isn't a way to objectively quantify it anyhow.

The only way to prove my point is to encourage you to experience truth in comparison to your falsehood.

Claimed truth vs. demonstrated truth. But all fanatics claim to have truth. They claim to be bearers of special knowledge, handed down from on high. And you can't objectively experience this "truth" in any verifiable way. You just have to believe. I find that requirement to be absurd.

Conaeolos · Jul 23, 2017

ataraxia said:
Since the dawn of the scientific revolution in the 17th century or so, knowledge has become much more dynamic...

I agree but I’d add two caveats.
1. Any scientific knowledge base once in the hands of the mob will be torn to shreds, distorted or burned for ignorance. It is understood by few. If you think religion is necessary for this, you need to look no future than communists or SJW or any other group of zealots who seek orthodoxy be them religious or secular, left or right. This was more of a problem in the past due to lack of counterforce but just a big of a danger today with a new stronger orthodoxy and enforcement technology coming to combat the “printing-press” which started it all. If you don’t believe me, just wait.
2. Wisdom and knowledge are two different things. One is an abstract, a process and experiential. One is measurable, a fact and is verifiable. They serve different roles and should not be conflated.

...would you think of a doctor who only sticks to his traditional training he got in medical school as "ancient wisdom" and something sacred never to be questioned?

He would be a faith healer not a doctor like any non-studied healer. Verifiable knowledge is improved from analyzing clinical research which needs to be challenged and updated. The future of medicine will never come from religious or ancient texts(beyond perhaps suggestions), although the doctors may benefit from the contemplative exercises within. The enemy of medicine is orthodoxy, which comes in all flavors be them religious or be them secular. It’s driven by the emotion of pride. Pride arises in all of us and only wisdom can help us learn to tame it.

A unexamined prideful doctor with their orthodoxy will do as much harm if not more than a faith healer. Pride blinds the eyes. It narrows compassion. It distorts purpose. It can bring one out of shame and inaction but it is not the only emotional motive out of the trap. Wisdom is needed in our doctors as much as the knowledge of medicine, you just need to examine a bit closer.

You don’t tame the emotions with logic. You don’t argue a beast with reason, you must outsmart it.

Train kids in one and attack the other and you will see your results, but you may be shocked at the product.

But those are all ancient wisdom.

You may notice none of the ancient stories studied and focused on by religion put emphasis on these practices. Those were all likely practiced by the wise men of old, and are referenced in passing surely because they were the best or common knowledge of the time. Wisdom is not exclusive to anyone or requiring any special knowledge. When you go about educating yourself in the knowledge it is not too long before you learn you will always know less than you don’t. This is wisdom coming through as is the wise choice to specialize and focus your study going forward while ever being open to learning in all avenues.

Similarly, "ancient wisdom" taught us...

Haha…”spare the rod, spoil the child" speaks of the far worse and more destructive parenting of neglect and permissiveness(not to say it is good to hit your child)…to put the focus on childhood abuse and trauma on authoritarian parents is completely not in line with the data and revealing. Not to mention “might was right” up until very very recently and the balance that allows it not to be is fragile, to say the least.

Maybe if those child psychologists which struggle spent some time in their training gaining wisdom, not just the research they wouldn’t have such trouble as they could show these parents how they could get better results in terms they understood. Teach instead of lecture. Which is why you actually see the resistance. They use religious language to retort because that is what they know. The fault here is with the professional, who has the time and propagative to fight for the truth but choose instead righteous ignition.

There is many an educated and knowledgeable abusive parent, blame religion all you want for every poor example there a 9 to the counter-point. A wise man will adapt.

Religion was fine for a pre-scientific society...

You can choose to believe that if you like, but ancient wisdom warns us that such a body of inquiry has risen before and timelessly orthodoxy fights and eventually wins over science. You can’t increase wisdom with increase knowledge. You need both. You can’t cheat or pretend with wisdom. Only wise men can utilize knowledge, in the hand of unwise the tools of creation turn to the weapons of war.

Conaeolos · Jul 23, 2017

Evilroddy said:
Conaeolos:

The ideal of equality is often a noble one but the means by which that ideal is brought into practice often fall short of such lofty idealism. How one works to establish equality can validate or invalidate the nobility of equality. Economic equality achieved by gently promoting charity and redistributing with consent is not the same as endorsing robbery to achieve equality. Raising all up through better education is not the same as wiping out all critical thought in the killing fields of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Legal and political equality in a society is not the same as chaotic anarchism and violent societal paralysis in parts of early 20th Century Spain. The means can invalidate the ends so the ends never justify the means.

Equality is an ideal which should guide us towards improving the human condition and our societies but overly zealous pursuit of equality can produce nightmares which extinguish humanity and evoke the most bestial natures of our species.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I am starting to question whether there is a soft means to pursue the purpose of equality. Can you give but not take?

What would your examples be…

Conaeolos · Jul 23, 2017

Cephus said:
No, they don't exist today.

What? You don’t think we deal with un-scientifically understood forces today? Or deal with real world problems that description offers by science give no solution too - like emotions?

I didn't say you personally brought it up, just that it is a common argument among religious apologists. That person "need" religion because they just aren't smart enough to get by without it. That it's a crutch for humans that would somehow fall apart if they didn't have it. Therefore, we should leave it alone. I don't buy that at all.

I bring up the river example again. A man who calls it brother and knows nothing of how it works but still learned to make his living by it may still have much to teach the man who knows exactly how it works. A distinction must be made between objective-knowleage and practical-knowledge.

Smartness has nothing to do with it.

And frankly, there are a lot of people who come to this very forum who aren't intellectual at all. The only thing I think DP members share is an openness to talking about politics, not being intellectual in doing so. There are tons of simply reactionary, hyper-emotional, virtual fanatics when it comes to their political, and for that matter, religious beliefs and are totally incapable of stepping back and even asking themselves why they believe what they believe. I find that to be a problem.

I will not lie, I am starting to agree with that sentiment based on the limited amount of civil discourse I can find.

Claimed truth vs. demonstrated truth. But all fanatics claim to have truth. They claim to be bearers of special knowledge, handed down from on high. And you can't objectively experience this "truth" in any verifiable way. You just have to believe. I find that requirement to be absurd.

The man who tells you, you just have to believe a piece of his esoteric knowledge on faith, like “belief in Jesus will save your eternal soul” is a charlatan and a con-man. On that, we can agree…

Cephus · Jul 23, 2017

Conaeolos said:
What? You don’t think we deal with un-scientifically understood forces today? Or deal with real world problems that description offers by science give no solution too - like emotions?

Not the things that gave rise to religion. The number of things we don't understand get smaller and smaller, just like the space to hide gods gets smaller and smaller. And science does give answers to emotion, it's just that people want to act like children and be overly-emotional instead of deal with reality on its own terms. People are their own worst enemy.

I bring up the river example again. A man who calls it brother and knows nothing of how it works but still learned to make his living by it may still have much to teach the man who knows exactly how it works. A distinction must be made between objective-knowleage and practical-knowledge.

Except again, that doesn't actually work. People need to learn how things actually work, not just cling to primitive superstitions about how their ancestors thought things worked. Their ancestors were wrong. They are wrong. Ignorance is not an excuse.

I will not lie, I am starting to agree with that sentiment based on the limited amount of civil discourse I can find.

Discourse doesn't have to be civil to be correct. Nobody has to shiver in their booties and refuse to disagree with blatantly wrong beliefs because the people that believe them might get crabby and feel unhappy because they get disagreed with. If the goal is truth, factual, objective, demonstrable truth, then how someone feels is entirely irrelevant to the goal. I don't care if I make you happy. I couldn't care less if you're miserable. I care if what you believe is justifiable, and sorry to say, it just isn't. You can either cry and whine and kick your feet over that fact, or you can be an adult, step back and rationally and intellectually evaluate the things you believe in light of the facts, not your emotions.

Pick one.

The man who tells you, you just have to believe a piece of his esoteric knowledge on faith, like “belief in Jesus will save your eternal soul” is a charlatan and a con-man. On that, we can agree…

Nothing should be believed on blind faith, period. If it cannot be rationally and objectively justified then it should not be believed, period. Feelings are irrelevant to reality. Yet that's all the religious have to go on. That's sad.

Evilroddy · Jul 23, 2017

Conaeolos said:
I am starting to question whether there is a soft means to pursue the purpose of equality. Can you give but not take?

What would your examples be…

Conaeolos:

New-World Potlatching perhaps?

I'm not sure why you think givers cannot also take?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Conaeolos · Jul 23, 2017

Cephus said:
science does give answers to emotion, it's just that people want to act like children and be overly-emotional instead of deal with reality on its own terms. People are their own worst enemy.

LOL, I am a very pragmatic person. I have to get people to do things they don’t want to do almost everyday despite it being the most logical option they resist. How I deal with this is complex. So you keep rationing with them “Oxs”, but I’ll warn you now by the time you get them to go an inch the harvest season will have long past.

But please do tell, me: what does ”science” say that helps you if you are say lacking motivation from no purpose? …CBT? …psychotherapy? Say if your pride has grown to the point of distain in your fellow human being? Knowing the right-truthful answer and dealing with everyone around who can’t see it as they don’t have the cognitive abilities let along the education? What does science tell you of a career to choose? Why does science tell us to do about evil? What does science tell us about parenting? What about an abusive parents? A corrupt government? A liar? A toxic relationship? The right kind of government?

Not nothing (you don’t have to answer if not some clever insight)…but in all cases it provide descriptions maybe even the odd tool or warning or guideline but not maps, not comprehensive instruction manuals, not processes. There are many unknowns in this world the scientific and logical doesn’t address it all and never can or will…life is a dance, it’s music, its art.

And you can favour technique, you can study it, master it, practice it but sometimes all that and a novice will still beat you blind. Life is funny that way. Dealing with the unknown and forces too complex or dynamic to fully master or comprehend is an important apart of living that life.

Except again, that doesn't actually work. People need to learn how things actually work, not just cling to primitive superstitions about how their ancestors thought things worked. Their ancestors were wrong. They are wrong. Ignorance is not an excuse.

OR else what?

Discourse doesn't have to be civil to be correct. Nobody has to shiver in their booties and refuse to disagree with blatantly wrong beliefs because the people that believe them might get crabby and feel unhappy because they get disagreed with. If the goal is truth, factual, objective, demonstrable truth, then how someone feels is entirely irrelevant to the goal. I don't care if I make you happy. I couldn't care less if you're miserable.

I am not sure why you seem to have taken that statement as having made any reference to you. I was only agreeing I have seen much here to confirm your stated observation. I find you quite intellectual albeit controlled by many of the same emotions you seem to distain.

I care if what you believe is justifiable, and sorry to say, it just isn't.

You don’t even know what I believe beyond a basic outline. We can’t even agree on enough terms to have a productive conversation let alone compare the validity of our methodologies. So you go ahead and feel that. If you really think it, please show me the logical error. Simple map. Use just math if you’d like, chances are I can fill in the gaps. Just show where my stated beliefs do not equal my stated reasoning.

You can either cry and whine and kick your feet over that fact, or you can be an adult, step back and rationally and intellectually evaluate the things you believe in light of the facts, not your emotions.

I always evaluate both…want to guess why?

Adults are highly emotional creatures…acting adult is hardly the same as taming ones emotions.

Nothing should be believed on blind faith, period. If it cannot be rationally and objectively justified then it should not be believed, period. Feelings are irrelevant to reality. Yet that's all the religious have to go on. That's sad.

Who said anything about blind faith? There is a big difference between choosing a subjective truth and taking a blind leap of faith in an unfounded belief verses taking a subjective truth as worthy of a leap of faith.

Suppose you meet God, exactly as you conceive Him. Do you reject that based on skepticism and the fact others can’t verify? Why because its causing you harm? Or your family? Your boss? Assuming none, do you still take drugs to numb that out of the assumption it makes your life better? What if it doesn’t? Do you stop? What is the limit?

You're an atheist…so I can assume you believe we only have this life. Can we not then agree at least above all arguments of this nature: should not everyone live this gift of life to the fullest in the here and now?

Conaeolos · Jul 23, 2017

Evilroddy said:
Conaeolos:

New-World Potlatching perhaps?

I'm not sure why you think givers cannot also take?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Of course they do. It just feels like inequality seems so natural why such fighting to stop it? When we ignore it instead of encourage it, it seems to get better on its own.

Reparations causes a thousand times the wars of inequality.

Evilroddy · Jul 24, 2017

Conaeolos said:
Of course they do. It just feels like inequality seems so natural why such fighting to stop it? When we ignore it instead of encourage it, it seems to get better on its own.

Reparations causes a thousand times the wars of inequality.

Conaeolos:

Entropy and isorder are "natural" and yet we build ordered cities, homes and societies in opposition to the natural order. Struggling against the natural order is quintesentially human. Equality is no different. There are those who seek to lessen it as part of their moral and ethical positions and there are those who seek to widen equality-gaps for their own reasons. This is the tug-of-war which defines much of the human condition. If you subscribe to the ethos of the first group then diminishing ineqality and promoting eqality is noble. If you belong to the second group you see such behaviour as perverse and opposed to the natural order. But all the great achievements of humanity have been against the natural order from lighting the dark with the first intentionally created fire to expoloring the surface of Mars with robotic probes. Humanity and nature are in opposition to each other but as long as one does not destroy the other this antagonism is a healthy dynamic equilibrium.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy · Jul 25, 2017

An informative Ted-talk regarding economic and political equality and how the political systems of some nominally democratic countries are structured to limit equality and promote inequality. Tammany Hall style "Tweedism", control of the political nomination process for elections and unapologetic gerrymandering are the tools of oligarchy which either co-opts or undermines democracy.

Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic - YouTube

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Is the quest for equality noble?

Cephus

Conaeolos

Conaeolos

Conaeolos

Cephus

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.

Conaeolos

Conaeolos

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.