If your still a socialist after 30 you have no head

[AnthArmo]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

[willdw79]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

Just a silly old saying really. Tell them, "sometimes conventional wisdom is not conventional...or wisdom".

Our lives are short, and history is long. Just because something does not happen within 30 years does not mean it couldn't have happened. Furthermore, internal (self) revolutionary struggle is liberating and nearly permanent.

However it is true that some people lose boldness and initiative as they age, but the same thing happens no matter what your politics are.

[IcarusAngel]

You're 17. That should be old enough to figure out that such a saying doesn't make much sense. John Stuart Mill said that while not all conservative people are stupid, most stupid people are conservative. So if you're a conservative thinker is it likely that you're stupid? I'm certainly willing to bet JSM was smarter than whoever wrote that quote you found.

There have been many intelligent socialists. If anything I'd say socialists in general have a high percentage of intellectuals in their ranks than other ideologies: such as Einstein, Russell, Chomsky, etc., but this is because there are so few of them and many people who are intelligent get into socialism. At the same time, there are a lot of famous ignorant right-wingers, especially in America.

In general the web population is young. I post at other forums and there a lot of young people there too. Young people are probably more likely to use the internet to discuss politics than older people, who may prefer house parties or other forms of organization.

[ZeroNowhere]

It obviously shows that cappies secretly wish to behead all socialists.

[OneNamedNameLess]

It obviously shows that cappies secretly wish to behead all socialists.

Win.

Why don't you tell them that if they are believers and followers of Jesus Christ, then their heads must have been stuck up their arse all of their days?

[mykittyhasaboner]

If somebody told me that I'd tell em to fuck off and not waste my time. Your probably more intelligent and politically aware than they are to begin with, hence their need to rely on pitiful claims like that one; you know, rather than debate your views.

[Revy]

Right, because all the old "tea party" wackos are smart. Give me a break....

[Ele'ill]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.


Perhaps its because as you get older you are exposed to more options ideologically and physically. You have more ways to deal with world issues. As a teen you may think revolution is the only way to change things because honestly- as a teen- it would be the only way.


But by the time you're in your mid 30's you are attracted to the idea of radical reform because you are old enough (maybe you have a degree or enough experience in a field of labor) to organize for change.

[NecroCommie]

That is a ridiculous claim based on authority. What they want to say is: "we are older, therefore we know better". Needless to say such a claim is without any basis in real life. Next time they say that you can say that the same goes for capitalism. Capitalism is just an infantile hormone rush in society, out of which that same society grows out of. Personally, I have only radicalized with age. During my worst teenage years I was only slightly leftist because I had no real problems due to my parents taking care of everything. Now that I have to deal with everything myself the society seems a lot less impressive with each passing day.

And I have to agree with Mykittyhasaboner. The fact that they have to resort to authority is an indication that they have ran out of every real argument against your views. Instead of explaining their "superior wisdom" to you, they just say that "we have a superior wisdom". If they say something like: "you will understand", you will have to demand them: "make me understand now, or I will never "grow up""

Besides, I will quarantee that the 17 year old Marx could have out-argued any 30-year old cappie wanker that utters such things.

[Hiero]

People tend to think they understand the "real" world when they get more tied down to a structured life. Such as job, kids, house, bills, payments etc.

However they become more subjective about the "real" world as they become more submerged into a consistant position in society. From this position an alternative becomes "unreal" as the day to day life becomes normalised and naturalised.

The opposite of their claim occurs, they become so submerged into a set program of daily life that they lose focus of they wider "real" world.

[graffic]

Some say it's because as you get older you become more pessimistic and realise all those utopian ideals discussed when you were 19 and high on drugs probably won't happen. You get older and realise that change hasn't happened and won't happen anytime soon so you resign and accept the status quo.

That's a negative scenario though because of course there are lots of old socialists who are an inspiration. I think a revolution is the only way to change things, perhaps violent if needs be, because capitalism isn't going away

[New Tet]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

The impression I get is that the majority of posters here are barely out of their teens, if at all. Not bad for an idea that allegedly passed away with the demise of the USSR!

At 20 I was pinning up a Che poster in my dorm room against the confiscating wishes of my Navy superiors. At 30 I was a card-carrying member of a Marxist organization. At 52 I'm no longer a card-carrying Marxist (through no fault of theirs), but no less a Marxist. In fact, I am more convinced now than ever that socialism is the only way forward out of this godawful mess we call capitalism.

So the answer is "yes", I have lost my head for socialsim.

My advise to you is that before you completely lose your head to socialism, learn as much as you can about it; become as well grounded in it as possible, because once you've given yourself up to the inescapable conclusion that capitalism must go and socialism take its place, you'd better have your head in the right place.

[red cat]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

I personally think that if you are not a socialist before 20 then you might be just ignorant or high on drugs, but if you are still not a socialist even after 20 then you are simply wicked.

:lol:

[JimmyJazz]

I'm pretty sure that saying originates with Winston Churchill (at least that's who've I've seen it most often attributed to).


While [Churchill] was against gassing and tyranny in Europe, he was passionately in favour of it for "uncivilised" human beings whose riches he wanted to seize. In the 1920s, Iraqis rose up against British imperial rule, and Churchill as Colonial Secretary thought of a good solution: gas them. He wrote: "I do not understand this squeamishness... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." It would "spread a lively terror". He was quite clear about why Britain should do this. He explained: "We have engrossed to ourselves an altogether disproportionate share of the wealth and traffic of the world... mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/26/9915

It's not exactly a shock that a man like this gave up any pretenses of being a left-winger as he aged, if indeed he ever pretended to have them.

[danyboy27]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me.

well, there is 2 things that can happen when you grow up:

1. you get more extreme
2. you get more moderate

most of the people get more moderate, that why your parents and most of the old folks are saying thatto you.

there is no good or bad way to take, really, pick what suit you the most.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It seems that, due to the legacy of the 1960s, there is an enduring stereotype in the Western world of radical leftists being angry young people who will grow out of it. First of all, it's just a stupid stereotype. Second, it's completely different in other parts of the world. For example, where I live, the stereotype of socialists is that they are old, not that they are young.

[Lyev]

I'm only 15, I've still got plenty of time to grow out of this radical phase :). Here's the lyrics 'From Red to Blue' by Billy Bragg. I'm fairly sure it's in reference to what you talk about. About how eventually we'll all 'grow out' of our socialist ideals.

Another day dawns grey, its enough to make me spit
But we go on our way, just putting up with it
And when I try to make my feelings known to you
You sound like you have changed from red to blue

You're a father now, you see things in different ways
For every parent will gain perspective on their wilder days
But that alone does not explain the changes I see in you
The way you've drifted off from red to blue

Sometimes I think to myself
Should I vote red for my class or green for our children?
But whatever choice I make
I will not forsake

So you bought it all, the best your money could buy
And I watched you sell your soul for their bright shining lie
Where are the principles of the friend I thought I knew
I guess you let them fade from red to blue

I hate the compromises that life forces us to make
We must all bend a little if we are not to break
But the ideals you've opted out of,
I still hold them to be true
I guess they weren't so firmly held by you

[kharacter]

"A witty saying proves nothing"
- Voltaire

[danyboy27]

i stopped being a radical person beccause to me, the logical step foward would have been blow up stuff.

plus, i war angry all the time.

perhaps it was a reactionary decision to let it go but i dont mind, life is easier now.

anyway man, if you can handle this, go on, i wont blame you for that.

[Durruti's Ghost]

"Oh, I once was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
And I learned all the old union hymns
Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in!
So love me, love me, love me--I'm a liberal."

Phil Ochs

[Havet]

"A witty saying proves nothing"
- Voltaire

this

[Ele'ill]

"A witty saying proves nothing"
- Voltaire

And most often on revleft- neither do colossal pages of text.

[Plagueround]

I'll let you know in 4 years if my head falls off.

[spiltteeth]

I would tell them that 'losing heart' after 30 is a natural consequence of living in a capitalistic society because the forced competition with your fellows kills emotional empathy while increasing selfishness.

[Orange Juche]

Just a silly old saying really. Tell them, "sometimes conventional wisdom is not conventional...or wisdom".

I think you are my new personal hero.

[Orange Juche]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

That statement irritates the hell out of me. Always has.

That sums down to "socialism is emotional and illogical, and only less educated and illogical people believe in it."

Most people who say that couldn't tell you the first thing about socialism anyways. It's quaintly idiotic.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

I would tell them that 'losing heart' after 30 is a natural consequence of living in a capitalistic society because the forced competition with your fellows kills emotional empathy while increasing selfishness.
Many aspects of communism (and especially anarcho-communism) are selfish.

Only true Christian conservatives (such as myself) haven't got an ideology that has aspects of selfishness.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It depends on what you mean by "selfish." The Objectivist definition precludes every human action as "selfish." Leftists typically draw a distinction between self-interest, based in mutual participation, and selfishness. It's rhetorically useless to clump working together and enslaving another person as the same type of self-interest.


Only true Christian conservatives (such as myself) haven't got an ideology that has aspects of selfishness.Christianity indulges in selfishness. Hell, the whole point of Christ's sacrifice rested on the fact humans couldn't be without sin, so claiming your ideology lacks selfishness is contradictory to Christ's message.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

It depends on what you mean by "selfish." The Objectivist definition precludes every human action as "selfish." Leftists typically draw a distinction between self-interest, based in mutual participation, and selfishness. It's rhetorically useless to clump working together and enslaving another person as the same type of self-interest.

True but they are both wrong.

The reason man cooperates and works with each other is because he is made for it and it is in his nature. A society should never be based solely on mutual self-interest.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Christianity indulges in selfishness. Hell, the whole point of Christ's sacrifice rested on the fact humans couldn't be without sin, so claiming your ideology lacks selfishness is contradictory to Christ's message.
Incorrect.

Christ's sacrifice was done so that man could return to God's Kingdom after the fall.

[Havet]

Incorrect.

Christ's sacrifice was done so that man could return to God's Kingdom after the fall.

Lol

Where is this God Kingdom? How do you know it exists?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Lol

Where is this God Kingdom? How do you know it exists?
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

- Luke 17:20-21

[RHIZOMES]

If somebody told me that I'd tell em to fuck off and not waste my time. Your probably more intelligent and politically aware than they are to begin with, hence their need to rely on pitiful claims like that one; you know, rather than debate your views.

OH GOD! That x100000000000. I can not tell you how much I rage at people who keep throwing thought terminating cliches and strawman arguments at me (Works in theory not practice, human nature, etc etc etc) and then think they've won the argument once I begin to see no point in arguing with someone who has no idea what a real debate is.

[danyboy27]

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

- Luke 17:20-21

its all nice, but there is no logic that explain where is it exactly.

[LeninBalls]

' because the kingdom of God is within you."

- Luke 17:20-21

Then how the hell do I get in? :confused:

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

its all nice, but there is no logic that explain where is it exactly.
It isn't a material thing, that's what Jesus was saying in the passage.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Then how the hell do I get in? :confused:
Go get a dictionary and look up "metaphor". ;)

[Plagueround]

Go get a dictionary and look up "metaphor". ;)

Can you help me find the metaphor in this one? It looks like plain old rape and slavery, but perhaps I'm missing something...

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29


This one too. See, it looks like permission to rape prisoners of war, but those tricky metaphors...

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Can you help me find the metaphor in this one? It looks like plain old rape and slavery, but perhaps I'm missing something...

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29


This one too. See, it looks like permission to rape prisoners of war, but those tricky metaphors...

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18
Okay, time and place are important. This was war ridden Palestine not peaceful 21st liberal democratic Europe.

These are clearly not moral laws from the OT and therefore have no revelance to modern life or religion.

The first passage has nothing to do with rape or slavery but clearly with some ritual form of marriage.

The second passage is about war not rape or slavery. The "keeping them alive for yourselfs" has not got anything to do with slavery but with prisoners of war and the common practice of those Hebrew tribes.

[ckaihatsu]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"


I heard this, too, when I was politically active in college -- it came from a propertied liberal, so that basically tells you everything about the phrase....





Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?


I think you have to have a good foundation, or basis of understanding, for your politics, whatever they are, whatever age you may be.

The reason we're on the revolutionary left is because of our internationalist, working-class based worldview. To me this is merely an honest, subjective acceptance of the way the world is structured and what must be done for the benefit of the greatest number of people.

*Other* kinds of politics are less macroscopic, are more constrained by a tighter, more personalized view of the world, are more bound to traditional and long-established cultures of privilege, and -- obviously -- *must*, in all cases, act in the best interests of the private property that is at stake, even if it means being anti-social, anti-truth, and anti-humane.





People tend to think they understand the "real" world when they get more tied down to a structured life. Such as job, kids, house, bills, payments etc.

However they become more subjective about the "real" world as they become more submerged into a consistant position in society. From this position an alternative becomes "unreal" as the day to day life becomes normalised and naturalised.

The opposite of their claim occurs, they become so submerged into a set program of daily life that they lose focus of they wider "real" world.


This is the sad reality of life under capitalism -- *plenty* of middle-aged and older people will admit in a whisper -- as though we are living in a Stalinist police state -- that they *understand* the nature of the system, but then they will note that they have their own family's private interests to look after. And they are right, to a certain extent. See Engels' _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ -- it's an absolutely invaluable read....

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

All of us are involved in a grand trade-off in the realm of politics, which no one escapes -- want to head a family or a mainstream organization and build up some notoriety and clout? Then your energies will be focused more at the local level, in the competitive arena, to make it to the top of the hill -- wider, more diffuse circles of human concern will necessarily be ignored.

Do you value your self-worth as a thinking, creative person? Would you rather deal with people *as people*, valuing their uniqueness and contributions to the grand social experiment that is humanity? If so then you're pretty much no good to property ownership and questionable as a worker-commodity as well...(!)





I would tell them that 'losing heart' after 30 is a natural consequence of living in a capitalistic society because the forced competition with your fellows kills emotional empathy while increasing selfishness.


Yeah, we as Marxists all know that the function of the capitalist is to privatize benefits while socializing costs -- if that's your game then you certainly can't afford to talk about universal benefits for the average person -- that's "weak".

Fortunately I think that the arguments available to us revolutionary leftists are stronger than ever in this age of industrial automation, computerization, and rampant productivity -- certainly there's more to be gained, overall, in the long term, through mass struggle for *collectivized* control and benefits....


Chris




--



--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Intellectually, I'd say there are a lot of arguments in favor of communism. To say someone has no "head" is simply misguided.

I do agree with the quote in some respects. It hints at a common result of age. Pessimism and cynicism. I used to ruthlessly debate anyone who made a ridiculous comment. Only 6 years later, I have lost the energy and passion for doing so, in my situations.

Inevitably with age, you see that the problems in society rather disappear at a satisfactory rate. Even in communism, intellectuals will be burdened with the result of being ahead of their time. They will always be in a state of realizing what is wrong with society ahead of others. They will rarely get their "time" when society meets their demands because it is precisely these members who propose revolutionary ideas for their time periods.

Look at how conservative older individuals tend to be. They keep out of politics, and that is a factor. However, they have also seen tons of well intended idealists accomplish little to know good in their entire lifetimes. There are plenty of rational reasons to be pessimistic.

The problem, as I see it, is we've come to realize pessimism is not rational. It may be necessary to dogmatically deny the pessimistic nature of reality in order to press forward with social progression.

Winston is also off the mark when he thinks the heart and the head are so distinct. In fact, they work in combination. Our heart often motivates the evolution of societies. We demand better, despite the absense of solutions, and create or own ways to alter society.

Anyone who says communism is impossible is, in my view, simply a pessimist. Pessimism is easy because it requires nothing of us, it seems. Unfortunately, it requires a great deal of our heart to be sacrificed in order to lead a less meaningful and materialist existence.

[Luís Henrique]

As someone who has lost his head over twenty years ago, I can assure you that it doesn't hurt. At all.

There are some half-truths and confusions embedded in this sentence. As you grow older, you assume responsibilities - children, jobs, etc. - that may reasonably hinder your activity as a communist activist. That's normal, that's fine, and that has nothing to do with ideology, unless you are so self-condescendent that you cannot reduce your activity without finding some idelogical excuse for it.

Later in life, physical limitations start to limit you even more. You can no longer run as when you were 30, you can no longer stay without food or sleep as before, you can no longer stand under the sun or rain or wind as much as before; you get sick more easily, your body does no longer work the way it used to. That's also normal and fine, and everybody will understand that your physical activity is going to be reduced. Perhaps if the only thing you have ever done as a communist activist was to stand or walk long hours while distributing material or carrying placards, this will make you less of a communist.

Another thing is that you get more experience, more knowledge, and more understanding of what is actually going on. This might make you seem more "moderate", as you will replace wishful thinking with actual analysis - but this is only if you see, like danyboy25, mere physical activism as "radical". You grow more pessimistic, and often more cynical, with age as a result of your enhanced experience. If your youth "communism" was little more than an opportunistic wager that a revolution would happen in your time and you would personally profit of it, then it is likely that you lose your heart and become a disgruntled communist turned conservative (or social-democrat).

Luís Henrique

[danyboy27]

It isn't a material thing, that's what Jesus was saying in the passage.

even if its not material you should be able to demonstrate it.
the wind isnt material but you can feel it, radiation arnt material but you can detect them.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

even if its not material you should be able to demonstrate it.
the wind isnt material but you can feel it, radiation arnt material but you can detect them.
No, those things are material. I can't point to where something immaterial is because an immaterial thing isn't anywhere in the material realm.

[danyboy27]

No, those things are material. I can't point to where something immaterial is because an immaterial thing isn't anywhere in the material realm.

then you claim there is several dimmension then?

if you do, its totally fine, i also believe there might have other dimmensions, but why do you think god live there?

[ckaihatsu]

Another thing is that you get more experience, more knowledge, and more understanding of what is actually going on. This might make you seem more "moderate", as you will replace wishful thinking with actual analysis - but this is only if you see, like danyboy25, mere physical activism as "radical". You grow more pessimistic, and often more cynical, with age as a result of your enhanced experience.


Sorry, Luís Henrique, but with all due respect I'm finding this part, above, to be somewhat problematic. You're being vague, you're over-generalizing, and I think you're also stereotyping a bit.

What, exactly, is "actually going on"? Are that many people who start out in radical / revolutionary politics really that blind to the workings of the capitalist system, throughout so many years?

You seem to be describing a stereotype of adolescent *rebellion* -- including "mere physical activism" -- as substituting for actual political consciousness -- in which case the person was *never* truly politically conscious, much less a radical or a communist.





If your youth "communism" was little more than an opportunistic wager that a revolution would happen in your time and you would personally profit of it, then it is likely that you lose your heart and become a disgruntled communist turned conservative (or social-democrat).


I agree -- *this* part sounds like a politician-in-the-making and as calculating as a financier's balance sheet.


---





even if its not material you should be able to demonstrate it.
the wind isnt material but you can feel it, radiation arnt material but you can detect them.


'Materialism' has two meanings and the meanings are often, understandably confused. People often think of 'materialism' as 'materialistic' -- meaning the quality of affinity towards ownership of an ever-growing collection of material goods.

But 'materialism' in the more technical, scientific sense is *any* investigation into chains of cause and effect that are premised on matter-based factors. Considering that we people are matter-based beings, our expenditure of (conscious or semi-conscious) directed energies and efforts, and communications, can be factored into any materialist-based analysis of a situation.

I call myself a 'structural materialist' to describe the fact that I understand our society's composition as resting on the vast surplus of material production, and its disposal, that has been enabled through social organization and the development of technology-based methods of production. Furthermore we know that production can only go in two distinct ways -- either towards society's infrastructure and/or private accumulations *or* into consumption on pleasure-related activities.

This *structural* understanding of materialism is a powerful tool for examining the interplay of macroscopic to specific factors in the causation of pretty much anything. The only alternative to this approach is an *inferior* one -- idealism -- which posits "natural", *unchanging* qualities in people and eras that, while easier to accept, also leads to more errors when reaching conclusions since it ignores many valid material factors, particularly overarching, long-ranging ones like the class divide.

I've made a couple of diagrams that attempt to illustrate some of the dimensions, or regions, that exist within this surplus-oriented, materialist basis of human society:


G.U.T.S.U.C. The Grand Unified Theory of Society Under C_______

http://tinyurl.com/2c252w


History, Macro-Micro -- Precision

http://tinyurl.com/nf8gyr

[RGacky3]

First of all, people generally don't go from believing in socialism to beliving in Capitalism,

Many people (in the western world) go from believing in socialism to getting caught up with daily survival to a point to where systemic change is'nt top priority.

In parts of the world where system change is top priority (conditions are THAT bad), most people go from believing in socialism to being dead, too afraid to say anything, in prison, or again caught up in simple survival.


Many aspects of communism (and especially anarcho-communism) are selfish.

Only true Christian conservatives (such as myself) haven't got an ideology that has aspects of selfishness.

fist of all, keep it in the religion section,

second of all, Christian conservatives (or anything political) is an oxymoron. Christianity is a personal religious choice, not something you impose on people.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

second of all, Christian conservatives (or anything political) is an oxymoron. Christianity is a personal religious choice, not something you impose on people.
For a faithful God-fearing Christian, your faith should be a fundamental part of you.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

- Matthew 28:19-20, (King James Version)

It is clearly not just a "personal" thing.

[RGacky3]

sure, you want to share your faith with others, but that does'nt mean making LAWS forcing your morality on those who do not share your faith.

BTW, keep in mind, during the first and second century the reason christians were killed by the Roman State was for their refusal to take any part in nationalism, join the military, and support the empire (or any other government). A far cry from what christians today do.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Wow, an opportunity for a Christian-to-Christian political debate. We don't get many of those at Revleft. :)


For a faithful God-fearing Christian, your faith should be a fundamental part of you.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

- Matthew 28:19-20, (King James Version)

It is clearly not just a "personal" thing.
I agree entirely. But then, why do you support an economic system which rewards greed, selfishness and pride? Or, to ask a more general question: Assuming that your conservatism includes support for capitalism, how do you reconcile this with the Christian faith?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Wow, an opportunity for a Christian-to-Christian political debate. We don't get many of those at Revleft. :)


I agree entirely. But then, why do you support an economic system which rewards greed, selfishness and pride? Or, to ask a more general question: Assuming that your conservatism includes support for capitalism, how do you reconcile this with the Christian faith?
Because I don't think that there is a better system around. I also don't believe in unregulated capitalism, it needs to be regulated for the common good. I also hold some views similar to distributism.

[Havet]

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

- Luke 17:20-21

How is a book scientific evidence that God exists?

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is right because its god's word? Can you not see the circular logic?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Because I don't think that there is a better system around.
Define "better." What does capitalism do better than its alternatives?

And why shouldn't we try various alternatives that have not yet been tried on a large scale, such as a system of democratic economic planning? (i.e. what we call "socialism" here)

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

How is a book scientific evidence that God exists?

God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is right because its god's word? Can you not see the circular logic?
I didn't use the passage in such a manner, at all.

[Havet]

I didn't use the passage in such a manner, at all.

So?

The initial question was: How do you know a "Godly Kingdom" Exists, and that a God exists at all?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

So?

The initial question was: How do you know a "Godly Kingdom" Exists, and that a God exists at all?
I was only asked about where God's kingdom is and I showed that to be a false question.

There are plenty of reasons for believing in God, it is only rational to do so.

[Havet]

I was only asked about where God's kingdom is and I showed that to be a false question.

There are plenty of reasons for believing in God, it is only rational to do so.

SHow me these reasons there. Show me he exists. How do you KNOW there is a god in the first place?

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

SHow me these reasons there. Show me he exists. How do you KNOW there is a god in the first place?
There are plenty of strong arguments for God: Aquinas' Five Ways, Plantinga's EAAE etc.

[Kronos]

Those guys were idiots man. There is not one ounce of sense in any of the classical cosmological/ontological proofs for 'God'.

The end of 'metaphysics' pertaining to such questions is in Spinoza. The idea of a transcendent creator of the universe is no less ridiculous than the platonic concepts which were stolen by monotheistic theologies in the first place.

If you insist on believing in 'God', Spinoza/Pantheism is the end of that road, son.

[Havet]

There are plenty of strong arguments for God: Aquinas' Five Ways, Plantinga's EAAE etc.

Please, show me actual scientific studies conducted that show God exists.

[Kronos]

First make sure you guys define "God' the same way. There is a whole catalog of different Gods and definitions out there, you know.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

Please, show me actual scientific studies conducted that show God exists.
I just gave you philosophical arguments for God's existance. Look them up if you want.

[NecroCommie]

That's why hayenmill might have wanted to stress the word scientific. Philosophy, regardless it's logic, does not fall under the category of empirical science.

Besides, even if god did exist you would have to prove he is not an asshole for me to actually worship him. Judging from his credentials so far I'd side with Satan if I really had to choose.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anti-NICE, you still have not addressed the question of what you mean by "better" when you say there is no "better" economic system than capitalism.

[danyboy27]

witch burning was a reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Antiquity

dont forget the holy drowning test! if she die drowned, she is not a witch!

[Havet]

I just gave you philosophical arguments for God's existance. Look them up if you want.

No, you gave me a passage of the bible. That's like arguing child books are philosophical arguments for the proof of the existence of the characters.

But I have a philosophical argument for you:

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/9895/godsmallljp4.jpg

[Nwoye]

There are plenty of strong arguments for God: Aquinas' Five Ways, Plantinga's EAAE etc.
Plantinga's argument only addresses the concept of evil (or unfortunate circumstances in general) as it arises from human action, ie genocide or murder or something like that. It doesn't address suffering caused by natural forces beyond human control, ie little kids contracting malaria or people being born with horrible diseases etc etc.

Aquinas' five proofs are rather arcane. 4 and 5 are intellectually bankrupt in that they rest of fundamentally false assumptions, and 3 makes a massive jump in "logic" when it assumes that a period where nothing existed ever... existed. 1 and 2 have both been disproved with advances in the understanding of physics, specifically quantum mechanics.

I'd also like to point out that there is a very huge jump one has to make from proving God's existence (defined in the Deist sense as universal truth and whatnot) to proving the existence of a Christian God (a bearded dude in the sky who impregnated a jewish girl).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, you gave me a passage of the bible. That's like arguing child books are philosophical arguments for the proof of the existence of the characters.

But I have a philosophical argument for you:

I have yet to see a satisfying theist answer to that particular question. Good one.

[PRC-UTE]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

I think it was Churchill who originally said it. Consider the source. Many middle class and bourgeois types go through a socialist phase motivated by moral concerns, then it's 'time to grow up'. In other words, it doesn't really apply to the working class communists I know who are more interested in politics because of their own position in society than for philosophical, lofty reasons.

[spiltteeth]

I have yet to see a satisfying theist answer to that particular question. Good one.

Well, I have yet to see an atheist satisfactorily answer this:
The universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. However, there is no direct observational evidence for this belief.The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. So atheists believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause yet this belief is not based upon observational evidence.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well, I have yet to see an atheist satisfactorily answer this:
The universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. However, there is no direct observational evidence for this belief.The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. So atheists believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause yet this belief is not based upon observational evidence.

One could suppose that the universe has always existed and has gone through an infinite series of "big bangs" and "big crunches", and that we are simply at the latest point in this cycle. It is true that this requires us to "believe" that the universe has always existed just as theists "believe" that God has always existed. However, the atheist belief is superior to the theist belief in one crucial point: the universe is observable, whereas God is not. The atheist only has to suppose that the universe has always existed, since it can be proven (as much as anything can be proven) that the universe currently exists; however, the theist must suppose that God has always existed AND that God currently exists. Thus, the atheist argument is more parsimonious, requiring fewer suppositions, and is therefore more likely to be true.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I have yet to see an atheist satisfactorily answer this:
The universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. However, there is no direct observational evidence for this belief.The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe. So atheists believe that the universe has a naturalistic cause yet this belief is not based upon observational evidence.

Based on that same logic, God had a cause. What caused God?

[spiltteeth]

Based on that same logic, God had a cause. What caused God?

I guess we are both in the same boat.

[spiltteeth]

One could suppose that the universe has always existed and has gone through an infinite series of "big bangs" and "big crunches", and that we are simply at the latest point in this cycle. It is true that this requires us to "believe" that the universe has always existed just as theists "believe" that God has always existed. However, the atheist belief is superior to the theist belief in one crucial point: the universe is observable, whereas God is not. The atheist only has to suppose that the universe has always existed, since it can be proven (as much as anything can be proven) that the universe currently exists; however, the theist must suppose that God has always existed AND that God currently exists. Thus, the atheist argument is more parsimonious, requiring fewer suppositions, and is therefore more likely to be true.

Well you could believe that.

But then you would have to dismiss all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Now I hate to give a science lesson but...The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang. No, the scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning.

The past 20 yrs of scientific evidence contradicts your supposition, but if you just wanna go ahead and blindly belief this, as long as it oppresses no one, then I say fine.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Well you could believe that.

But then you would have to dismiss all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Now I hate to give a science lesson but...The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang. No, the scientific evidence is that the universe had a beginning.

The past 20 yrs of scientific evidence contradicts your supposition, but if you just wanna go ahead and blindly belief this, as long as it oppresses no one, then I say fine.

I never said that this was THE explanation. I just said that it was a possible explanation. Anyway, you're kind of missing the point. Even if the universe does have a definite beginning, theism still assumes two propositions (that God exists and that He created the universe), whereas atheism merely assumes one (that the universe came into existence in some unspecified way).

That said, the oscillating universe theory DOES claim that there will be a "big crunch"...which will be followed by another "big bang", and then another "big crunch", and so on ad infinitum. Why would the lack of matter in the universe make this impossible? :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I guess we are both in the same boat.

Except one; atheism does not include the unnecessary and completely unevidenced term known as "God".

But even if some kind of intelligence is needed to kick-start the universe (and I emphasis that there is absolutely no evidence for such a thing!), it is the dizzying height of sheer arrogance to presume that such a being is remotely like anything dreamt up by human prophets or theologians. That is a completely unwarranted anthropomorphisation of the entire damn universe.

A brief familiarisation with history, archaeology, paleontology, geology, astronomy and cosmology will reveal that the universe is pitilessly indifferent to its inhabitants, human or otherwise. If there is a supreme being, it doesn't give a rancid shit about us.

[Kronos]

If there is a supreme being, it doesn't give a rancid shit about us. Unless the universe was designed so that the soul was forced to struggle against an imperfect material reality. Without this struggle, there could be no evolution of the spirit, no motivating force behind anything. Perhaps what causes us to reject this notion is that people suffer in different degrees....and therefore we cannot think of such a game being 'fair'. But what if each individual is undergoing their own unique process of spiritual 'gradation'....some people being older spirits, some younger, all of which have migrated here to complete this stage? We can't think of 'struggle' as being homogeneous, but contingent to a specific persons 'requirement' to pass into the next stage.

Maybe seemingly arbitrary horrors....like say....a baby being smashed to bits in a car accident, is just a part of the stage....part of the overall scheme to remind us of the imperfect material reality we are in.

I don't believe any of this, but it would be far out, dudes.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Unless the universe was designed so that the soul was forced to struggle against an imperfect material reality. Without this struggle, there could be no evolution of the spirit, no motivating force behind anything. Perhaps what causes us to reject this notion is that people suffer in different degrees....and therefore we cannot think of such a game being 'fair'. But what if each individual is undergoing their own unique process of spiritual 'gradation'....some people being older spirits, some younger, all of which have migrated here to complete this stage? We can't think of 'struggle' as being homogeneous, but contingent to a specific persons 'requirement' to pass into the next stage.

Maybe seemingly arbitrary horrors....like say....a baby being smashed to bits in a car accident, is just a part of the stage....part of the overall scheme to remind us of the imperfect material reality we are in.

I don't believe any of this, but it would be far out, dudes.

I'm an atheist, but I have to say, I really dig this "God is evil" hypothesis. It reminds me of something Bakunin said: "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him." :lol:

[Kronos]

I contemplate theological metaphysics for sport and off the record. I reckon that if there is some truth to this stuff, I'll figure it out. But you must know that this is only speculation reserved for recreational interests.

Now check this out. God is a schizophrenic. He is mad, more or less. He is not some transcendent creator external to reality, but the immanent manifestation of reality...in a pantheist sense. The universe is a 'dialog' between the two fundamental characteristics of this mad God...the 'personalities', if you will. Eternal creation and destruction. These 'forces' are balanced by laws, and because of this, there will always be the eternal repetition of the universe- it cannot ever 'begin' or 'end', but change, only not fundamentally. To fundamentally change the universe would have to not be subject to the laws. This is impossible, because causality is necessary.

'Good' and 'evil' do not exist, but only adequate and inadequate powers of 'assembly of bodies' (I lifted this from Spinoza). An 'evil' thing, which we might call 'destructive', is a process of 'disincorporation' between an idea and a body. Again to speak with Spinoza, 'inactive' (which is destructive and passive) and 'active' power is determined by understanding, and therefore increasing the degree of freewill, the causes for any given effect. Our power increases in proportion to the adequate knowledge of causes.

But freewill does not mean 'acting voluntarily without prior cause'. It can only mean increasing understanding of the causes which affect out 'appetites' and 'desires'. The more we understand why we are emotional, the more control we have over such emotion. The 'mind' becomes its own cause in understanding, by resisting reaction to such emotion. An example might be- I feel angry. I understand the causes of this anger and therefore cease to be angry- my power, my freewill, is exercised in acknowledging the absolute necessity of the event which caused me to be angry. To express this idea in the form of a paradox- I increase my degree of freewill the more I understand that nothing is free.

The material universe does not 'evolve' in the sense that it is becoming increasingly 'better', but only the 'mind', through this 'conatus' (probably where Nietzsche got his idea of the WTP). Power, then, is the only thing that increases in quality, and it does so through the intellect. In relation to the body, the capacity to be affected and be the cause of more bodies increases the degree of the capacity to understand, and therefore the conatus of the intellect, the 'mind'. We literally become more 'active' the more we understand. The less we 'know', the more passive we are, and therefore subject to increasing 'disincorporation'. We are 'out of assembly' of bodies, in a sense. We have less power in proportion to our lack of capacity to be the cause of something. And to know is to become a causal force.

These ideas (excepting the schizophrenic God bit) are really quite complicated and expounded in Spinoza's Ethics. But I thought I would quickly hop, skip and jump across some basic stuff hoping to stimulate some discussion. I have been spellbound by Spinoza for almost three years now. I'm generally quite resistant to 'metaphysics', but Spinoza presents a strange kind of 'immanent, rational materialism' which I haven't yet been able to get away from. I am fascinated by it.

[Kronos]

I've got it!


The Spinozistic conception of a conatus was a historical precursor to modern theories of autopoiesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis) in biological systems.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#cite_note-ziemke6-70) In systems theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory) and the sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sciences) in general, the concept of a conatus may be related to the phenomenon of emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence), whereby complex systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems) may spontaneously form from multiple simpler structures. The self-regulating and self-maintaining properties of biological and even social systems may thus be considered modern versions of Spinoza's conatus principle;[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#cite_note-sandy144145-71) however, the scope of the idea is definitely narrower today without the religious implications of the earlier variety.[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#cite_note-matthews110-72)

Socialism is the greatest expression of economic autopoiesis, which, pertaining to the modes and relations of production, incorporates a complete system wherein no individual conatus is in conflict with another. By preventing this the preservation and advancement of the whole system is attained- we assemble a greater organism by eliminating opposing classes active in this economic process, which, if continue, eventually lead to the dissimulation of the whole conatus of the greater, autopoietic organism.

A greater, complex system cannot emerge from a capitalist economy because it contains conflicting elements which prevent equilibrium. It will forever approach greater states of entropy.

And what is to blame for this 'passive', inadequate manifestation of autopoietic potential? Language. Meaningless language which no longer represents what is real. Logocentrism took a wrong turn thousands of years ago (see Lichtenstein, Wittgenstein and Marx) and because of that, we have stalled the incorporation of greater autopoietic systems.

My god. This is it. I've found it.

I've got work to do, comrades.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe any of this, but it would be far out, dudes.

I've heard that sort of reasoning before. That would make the creator the sickest fucking piece of shit in all of existence, a torturer of cosmological scale without equal, as opposed to just not giving a fuck.

The most bile-inducing aspect of that idea is not that such a god might exist, but that some people (usually Christians in my experience) actually accept it with no qualms whatsoever.

What the fucking fuck? And they still worship such a being? Stockholm syndrome taken to a revolting new level.

[ckaihatsu]

I contemplate theological metaphysics for sport and off the record. I reckon that if there is some truth to this stuff, I'll figure it out. But you must know that this is only speculation reserved for recreational interests.


While I'm not, nor have ever been religious, I think it can be *very* easy to stereotype and dismiss *all* religious people as being ritual-addicted non-scientific superstitious types. Certainly *many* *are* ritual-addicted non-scientific superstitious types, but that doesn't mean that *everyone* who is religious is *anti-science*. I was watching a Terry Jones (Monty Python) series on medieval life that noted the (Christian) religious fetish with perfectionism, which, applied to investigative endeavors, actually made some headway for that time.

The thing that *I* find valuable about some investigations into the big-picture stuff is that they *might* inadvertently uncover some truths through the process of reasoning alone -- this is because, once you strip out the deity part you're left with a trajectory of thought that's aimed toward the most *macro*, or all-encompassing, dynamics -- of nature, and of society.





Our power increases in proportion to the adequate knowledge of causes.


In other words, if you're *correct* about the workings of nature and society then you'll be *more able* to function and operate within those contexts, according to your own self-chosen inclinations (free will). Being *incorrect* means more belly-flops.





The material universe does not 'evolve' in the sense that it is becoming increasingly 'better', but only the 'mind', through this 'conatus' (probably where Nietzsche got his idea of the WTP). Power, then, is the only thing that increases in quality, and it does so through the intellect. In relation to the body, the capacity to be affected and be the cause of more bodies increases the degree of the capacity to understand, and therefore the conatus of the intellect, the 'mind'.


In societal terms you're describing the enlargement of bureaucracies....





We literally become more 'active' the more we understand. The less we 'know', the more passive we are, and therefore subject to increasing 'disincorporation'. We are 'out of assembly' of bodies, in a sense. We have less power in proportion to our lack of capacity to be the cause of something. And to know is to become a causal force.


'Knowing' is still relatively passive, on the societal scale -- you would also have to be *organized* along some lines of agreement, in work, business, or politics.

[spiltteeth]

I contemplate theological metaphysics for sport and off the record. I reckon that if there is some truth to this stuff, I'll figure it out. But you must know that this is only speculation reserved for recreational interests.

Now check this out. God is a schizophrenic. He is mad, more or less. He is not some transcendent creator external to reality, but the immanent manifestation of reality...in a pantheist sense. The universe is a 'dialog' between the two fundamental characteristics of this mad God...the 'personalities', if you will. Eternal creation and destruction. These 'forces' are balanced by laws, and because of this, there will always be the eternal repetition of the universe- it cannot ever 'begin' or 'end', but change, only not fundamentally. To fundamentally change the universe would have to not be subject to the laws. This is impossible, because causality is necessary.

'Good' and 'evil' do not exist, but only adequate and inadequate powers of 'assembly of bodies' (I lifted this from Spinoza). An 'evil' thing, which we might call 'destructive', is a process of 'disincorporation' between an idea and a body. Again to speak with Spinoza, 'inactive' (which is destructive and passive) and 'active' power is determined by understanding, and therefore increasing the degree of freewill, the causes for any given effect. Our power increases in proportion to the adequate knowledge of causes.

But freewill does not mean 'acting voluntarily without prior cause'. It can only mean increasing understanding of the causes which affect out 'appetites' and 'desires'. The more we understand why we are emotional, the more control we have over such emotion. The 'mind' becomes its own cause in understanding, by resisting reaction to such emotion. An example might be- I feel angry. I understand the causes of this anger and therefore cease to be angry- my power, my freewill, is exercised in acknowledging the absolute necessity of the event which caused me to be angry. To express this idea in the form of a paradox- I increase my degree of freewill the more I understand that nothing is free.

The material universe does not 'evolve' in the sense that it is becoming increasingly 'better', but only the 'mind', through this 'conatus' (probably where Nietzsche got his idea of the WTP). Power, then, is the only thing that increases in quality, and it does so through the intellect. In relation to the body, the capacity to be affected and be the cause of more bodies increases the degree of the capacity to understand, and therefore the conatus of the intellect, the 'mind'. We literally become more 'active' the more we understand. The less we 'know', the more passive we are, and therefore subject to increasing 'disincorporation'. We are 'out of assembly' of bodies, in a sense. We have less power in proportion to our lack of capacity to be the cause of something. And to know is to become a causal force.

These ideas (excepting the schizophrenic God bit) are really quite complicated and expounded in Spinoza's Ethics. But I thought I would quickly hop, skip and jump across some basic stuff hoping to stimulate some discussion. I have been spellbound by Spinoza for almost three years now. I'm generally quite resistant to 'metaphysics', but Spinoza presents a strange kind of 'immanent, rational materialism' which I haven't yet been able to get away from. I am fascinated by it.

Much of this is held by the Gnostics, in a way. They actually still have churches today. Basically the believe the 'real' God is totally transcendent but a part of Him broke off and fell - this is the God of the bible, who is utterly psychotic and delusional, believing itself to be the real god, and who created this terribly flawed material universe. Basically material and matter are 'evil' and the real god sent down satan/the snake to give us knowledge (gnosis) so we'd know what's what. Anything that will help dissipate or destroy matter so the universe can go back into being whole and spiritual is good.

[spiltteeth]

I never said that this was THE explanation. I just said that it was a possible explanation. Anyway, you're kind of missing the point. Even if the universe does have a definite beginning, theism still assumes two propositions (that God exists and that He created the universe), whereas atheism merely assumes one (that the universe came into existence in some unspecified way).

That said, the oscillating universe theory DOES claim that there will be a "big crunch"...which will be followed by another "big bang", and then another "big crunch", and so on ad infinitum. Why would the lack of matter in the universe make this impossible? :confused:

Well, the ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, and it is not, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity.

But, even if there were enough mass in the universe to slow its expansion to a halt and than pull it into a contraction to a 'big crunch', the reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (the universe is entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang. Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

[spiltteeth]

Except one; atheism does not include the unnecessary and completely unevidenced term known as "God".

But even if some kind of intelligence is needed to kick-start the universe (and I emphasis that there is absolutely no evidence for such a thing!), it is the dizzying height of sheer arrogance to presume that such a being is remotely like anything dreamt up by human prophets or theologians. That is a completely unwarranted anthropomorphisation of the entire damn universe.

A brief familiarisation with history, archaeology, paleontology, geology, astronomy and cosmology will reveal that the universe is pitilessly indifferent to its inhabitants, human or otherwise. If there is a supreme being, it doesn't give a rancid shit about us.

Actually, your position is a lot more illogical, you believe there was some natural cause to kick-start the big bang, yet before the big bang there was no time or matter, neither was there casualty.

The Christian belief is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

[ckaihatsu]

Socialism is the greatest expression of economic autopoiesis, which, pertaining to the modes and relations of production, incorporates a complete system wherein no individual conatus is in conflict with another. By preventing this the preservation and advancement of the whole system is attained- we assemble a greater organism by eliminating opposing classes active in this economic process, which, if continue, eventually lead to the dissimulation of the whole conatus of the greater, autopoietic organism.


Right -- I agree with this analogy to systems (including organic-life systems) theory. If a society contains internal contradictions then there is a lack of whole-world integration, with the resultant friction and eventual conflict (among nation-states, into world wars). The *full collectivization* of the (workers') administration over society's machinery means the full elimination of all internal contradictions.

On the flipside, one's *own* internalizing of the contradictions in the outside world -- through fealty to nation-state or corporation or whatever -- means internalizing the *friction* that goes with that territory -- a perpetual state of warfare against other national interests or corporate rivals....





A greater, complex system cannot emerge from a capitalist economy because it contains conflicting elements which prevent equilibrium. It will forever approach greater states of entropy.


Or, just as bad, it will forever *cycle* through more-global phases of economic integration -- as we're currently seeing -- and then back down to balkanization and imperialistic conflicts, and then back up again, and back down again, *forever*, if the working class doesn't do away with all of this crap once and for all....





And what is to blame for this 'passive', inadequate manifestation of autopoietic potential? Language. Meaningless language which no longer represents what is real. Logocentrism took a wrong turn thousands of years ago (see Lichtenstein, Wittgenstein and Marx) and because of that, we have stalled the incorporation of greater autopoietic systems.

My god. This is it. I've found it.

I've got work to do, comrades.


Whooooaaaaaaa -- whoooooaaaaaaa, dude.... I've seen this happen before -- take some niacin or something to get yourself off of this trip -- that's *all* it is....

Go get your head off the net and out of the books and get some sunshine or something -- you *should* know better than this -- it's *not* * language * that's the determining factor -- it's * class *, as in competing *material* interests between those who do work versus those who exploit work.... C'mon, now...!

[spiltteeth]

I've got it!



Socialism is the greatest expression of economic autopoiesis, which, pertaining to the modes and relations of production, incorporates a complete system wherein no individual conatus is in conflict with another. By preventing this the preservation and advancement of the whole system is attained- we assemble a greater organism by eliminating opposing classes active in this economic process, which, if continue, eventually lead to the dissimulation of the whole conatus of the greater, autopoietic organism.

A greater, complex system cannot emerge from a capitalist economy because it contains conflicting elements which prevent equilibrium. It will forever approach greater states of entropy.

And what is to blame for this 'passive', inadequate manifestation of autopoietic potential? Language. Meaningless language which no longer represents what is real. Logocentrism took a wrong turn thousands of years ago (see Lichtenstein, Wittgenstein and Marx) and because of that, we have stalled the incorporation of greater autopoietic systems.

My god. This is it. I've found it.

I've got work to do, comrades.

Some of this has been hinted at before, especially


Meaningless language which no longer represents what is real. Logocentrism took a wrong turn thousands of years ago (see Lichtenstein, Wittgenstein and Marx) and because of that, we have stalled the incorporation of greater autopoietic systems.

Alfred Korzybski wrote about it in 'Either/or', I mentioned it to Rosa but she said she will NEVER read it (I think because all her 'work' is old hat to his)
Korzybski wrote another book called "Science and Sanity - an introduction to non-aristotelean systems and general semantics.

In he he provides a way out of the ''passive', inadequate manifestation of autopoietic potential' that you describe.
In fact, there is an entire institute devoted to doing just that :The Institute of General Semantics
http://time-binding.org/

His work was influential on William S Burroughs and some counter-cultural movements that sought a way out of language - whole books have been written without the word "I" "is" and other mistaken notions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, your position is a lot more illogical, you believe there was some natural cause to kick-start the big bang, yet before the big bang there was no time or matter, neither was there casualty.

Oh dear. I don't know what caused the Big Bang, or even if there was a "cause" as we define the term. I was using colourful language, as I tend to do when speaking of fictional things like gods, and this somehow, in your mind, extends to established scientific concepts?


The Christian belief is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

There is no reason to believe anything exists "outside of time" - what does that even mean anyway? It makes just as much sense as saying that something is "outside of space".

[spiltteeth]

Oh dear. I don't know what caused the Big Bang, or even if there was a "cause" as we define the term. I was using colourful language, as I tend to do when speaking of fictional things like gods, and this somehow, in your mind, extends to established scientific concepts?



There is no reason to believe anything exists "outside of time" - what does that even mean anyway? It makes just as much sense as saying that something is "outside of space".

Then how could there be a naturalistic cause for the big bang?
This is the entire point of my 1st post.

[spiltteeth]

I'll make it even clearer - since the universe had a beginning, something had to start it, that something would necessarily have to exist outside time and space since time and space came into being with the big bang.

This is simple logic. Unless now you also have abandoned casualty?

[Kronos]

While I'm not, nor have ever been religious, I think it can be *very* easy to stereotype and dismiss *all* religious people as being ritual-addicted non-scientific superstitious types. Certainly *many* *are* ritual-addicted non-scientific superstitious types, but that doesn't mean that *everyone* who is religious is *anti-science*. I was watching a Terry Jones (Monty Python) series on medieval life that noted the (Christian) religious fetish with perfectionism, which, applied to investigative endeavors, actually made some headway for that time.I consider some history of 'superstition', while not supported by science, to be only arbitrary and superfluous rather than incorrect to the point of being dangerous. In other words, there can be religious beliefs that are merely irrelevant, and there can be religious beliefs that directly compromise social relations.

Superstition such as fetishism (objects believed to have magical properties) and animism (the belief that animals and humans shared spiritual dispositions) is relatively harmless. But polytheistic and monotheistic religions present a peculiar danger- they express and 'model' a hierarchy of anthropomorphic 'values' which humans translate into, and identify as, various symbols of degrees of human integrity, dignity, ....social worth in general.

For example, in greek culture some people, a hero for instance, might be said to be 'favored' by a specific god. This granted him a special social 'rank', so to speak. Likewise, many of the interpretations in the Christian monotheistic model present the same kind of divisions between the various degrees of 'nobility' of certain people. We see this exemplified clearly in Calvinism- the doctrine of predestination- perfectly suited for ruling class use as a device for indoctrination (though this conspiracy is another matter).

In any case, the fundamental danger in these anthropomorphic religions is that they have an inevitable, alienating affect on people involved in social relations. Such belief systems set up a kind of paranoid pathology in human beings- this contention is well expressed by Feuerbach and Freud- we project human nature onto an imaginary, personable, intelligent force...thereby estranging ourselves....and then succumb the a kind of 'infantile helplessness' in the presence of this imaginary 'father figure'.

While it might be argued that there are progressive principles in Christianity (insert any of the altruistic mores), I say that these principles, if indeed they do exist, exist prior and beyond the Christian adaptation of said principles. Meaning, we can arrive at the same moral speculation without the the questionable content of complete Christian system of beliefs.

If we keep the whole package....we get the adverse affects of these pathological dangers, not to mention the many ridiculous, historical and metaphysical claims, as well, which contributes to the overall disintegration of the social sphere.

It comes down to this: the moment you have a belief system based on an anthropocentric view of the universe, and the moment you have a society of individuals, you will have a discourse between people full of conflicting personal interests. Each individual's relationship to his 'personal' God necessarily excludes the equal importance of the others (since they have their own personal relationship to God), and secondarily, presents a view of a world where seductive, evil forces are at work. The combination of the two factors creates very awkward relations between people.

Regarding the origins of Christianity (which should be granted special consideration when dealing with poly/mono- theism), I subscribe to Nietzsche's work. There is a critical difference between the nature of the God that Christianity portrays and the nature of the god/gods the classical, greek mythology portrays. Nietzsche called the Christian god "god the spider" and 'the god of the weak". A wrathful, vengeful God which humiliates man through his notion of 'sin', 'guilt', 'shame' and so forth. These 'vices' only internalize man's true nature (which is to dominate) and in doing so, make him sick. It is the perfect 'anti-life' religion, condemning all virtue which prior to itself, was life-affirming, 'natural', resilient, daring, that spark in man which affirmed even the most tragic. What he called the dionysian joy and the love of fate (amor fati). Now, man shrunk before himself and before this 'horrible' world, and he was promised another world which would redeem this one.

Essentially, in Christianity, we have the basis of a movement in ressentiment (not to be confused with 'resentment'). We have a system of beliefs conscripted and endorsed as a means to both tolerate and redeem a world which, at the time of its inception, was experienced as terrible, harsh, brutish, ...a world of incessant struggle and conflict.

Through the incorporation of various platonic concepts, Christianity was developed....the invention of a system which explained the world as being necessarily terrible, but capable of being redeemed through a salvation. For the weak, Christianity was a fail-safe theological system which made the struggle in life meaningful and purposeful. For the strong, the ruling classes, Christianity simultaneously provided a scheme with which to justify 'special' social ranks and privileges in society- the 'mystics' were the mediators between the legislators (monarchies) and the working classes (plebs, serfs).

Nietzsche describes the utilitarian value, the practical use, of this system for two opposing castes in society. Formerly, before organized roman paganism, and before agrarian culture designed around crude forms of industry, a dichotomy of classes was simple- masters, those who took power forcefully, and slaves, those who reacted to the force of the masters. (Do not think of these categories in an economic sense, but a psychological sense) Christianity did not yet exist, so was not incorporated by either caste pragmatically....that is, Christianity was not used as a political tool.

After the advancement of primitive industrial society, Christianity played two roles in society- subterfuge for the new masters (ruling class), and resolution for the inferior class (the ignoble).

What is interesting is the twofold history of this religion. It worked as both a tool for gaining power, and a tool for helping and assisting the lower classes in enduring the tyranny of rule.

Enough about that for now.

You mention a good point about Christian's insistence that there is 'perfection'. A badly misplaced adjective, really, describing nature or God (which are synonymous for Spinoza) only insofar as nature operates with complete necessity. We may say that nature is perfect because it is pure positivity, pure power-to-act, without any possibility of 'nothingness' (negation does not exist in nature).

To use this adjective is to commit a 'pathetic fallacy', since 'perfection'....as far as it concerns a level or degree at which no further progress can be made.....does not pertain to nature, as nature is non-teleological. There is no 'end' in nature, therefore there is no 'progress'.

If you have any questions do ask and I'll explain these ideas in greater detail.

[spiltteeth]

I

In any case, the fundamental danger in these anthropomorphic religions is that they have an inevitable, alienating affect on people involved in social relations. Such belief systems set up a kind of paranoid pathology in human beings- this contention is well expressed by Feuerbach and Freud- we project human nature onto an imaginary, personable, intelligent force...thereby estranging ourselves....and then succumb the a kind of 'infantile helplessness' in the presence of this imaginary 'father figure'.

While it might be argued that there are progressive principles in Christianity (insert any of the altruistic mores), I say that these principles, if indeed they do exist, exist prior and beyond the Christian adaptation of said principles. Meaning, we can arrive at the same moral speculation without the the questionable content of complete Christian system of beliefs.

If we keep the whole package....we get the adverse affects of these pathological dangers, not to mention the many ridiculous, historical and metaphysical claims, as well, which contributes to the overall disintegration of the social sphere.

It comes down to this: the moment you have a belief system based on an anthropocentric view of the universe, and the moment you have a society of individuals, you will have a discourse between people full of conflicting personal interests. Each individual's relationship to his 'personal' God necessarily excludes the equal importance of the others (since they have their own personal relationship to God), and secondarily, presents a view of a world where seductive, evil forces are at work. The combination of the two factors creates very awkward relations between people.

Regarding the origins of Christianity (which should be granted special consideration when dealing with poly/mono- theism), I subscribe to Nietzsche's work. There is a critical difference between the nature of the God that Christianity portrays and the nature of the god/gods the classical, greek mythology portrays. Nietzsche called the Christian god "god the spider" and 'the god of the weak". A wrathful, vengeful God which humiliates man through his notion of 'sin', 'guilt', 'shame' and so forth. These 'vices' only internalize man's true nature (which is to dominate) and in doing so, make him sick. It is the perfect 'anti-life' religion, condemning all virtue which prior to itself, was life-affirming, 'natural', resilient, daring, that spark in man which affirmed even the most tragic. What he called the dionysian joy and the love of fate (amor fati). Now, man shrunk before himself and before this 'horrible' world, and he was promised another world which would redeem this one.

Essentially, in Christianity, we have the basis of a movement in ressentiment (not to be confused with 'resentment'). We have a system of beliefs conscripted and endorsed as a means to both tolerate and redeem a world which, at the time of its inception, was experienced as terrible, harsh, brutish, ...a world of incessant struggle and conflict.

Through the incorporation of various platonic concepts, Christianity was developed....the invention of a system which explained the world as being necessarily terrible, but capable of being redeemed through a salvation. For the weak, Christianity was a fail-safe theological system which made the struggle in life meaningful and purposeful. For the strong, the ruling classes, Christianity simultaneously provided a scheme with which to justify 'special' social ranks and privileges in society- the 'mystics' were the mediators between the legislators (monarchies) and the working classes (plebs, serfs).

Nietzsche describes the utilitarian value, the practical use, of this system for two opposing castes in society. Formerly, before organized roman paganism, and before agrarian culture designed around crude forms of industry, a dichotomy of classes was simple- masters, those who took power forcefully, and slaves, those who reacted to the force of the masters. (Do not think of these categories in an economic sense, but a psychological sense) Christianity did not yet exist, so was not incorporated by either caste pragmatically....that is, Christianity was not used as a political tool.

After the advancement of primitive industrial society, Christianity played two roles in society- subterfuge for the new masters (ruling class), and resolution for the inferior class (the ignoble).

What is interesting is the twofold history of this religion. It worked as both a tool for gaining power, and a tool for helping and assisting the lower classes in enduring the tyranny of rule.


Actually a lot of Nietzsche's analysis of christianity was, necessarily, quite simplistic. So much more do we now know about culture, psychology, and social analysis. As a marxist, I am usually interested how particular social and historical circumstances impact the consciousness of a people, indeed, Nietzsche's entire analysis rests on a static, mistaken notion of Self. Although what you say about about 'projecting human nature onto an imaginary, personable, intelligent force etc' is true (and with the end of religion it would not disappear, we must always forge a dialogue with our unconscious contents, if not we simply displace these things onto a person or people, usually with horrible consequences such as Naziism) this is not historically, or even today in many cases, how people related to God. Indeed, instead of the self deciding to believe in God, or not, early Christians (and their Jewish forbearers and I believe my Orthodox Church retains a bit of this) understood that their persons, their selves, were not defined via interiority, but by relationally; through their relationality with God, with neighbor, and with their environment. There was no existent self independent of these relationships. And, pre-modernity, they understood that “God is not bound by any external rational truths” Thus, ethically, the only thing that constituted Reality was how one behaved relationally.
Nowadays Christianity, under modernity, allows a personal God that can be moulded exactly as each self desires, hence you get a VERY ugly hateful god under Pat Robinson.
In modern times, reality is apprehended primarily in terms of a humanocentric rationality that reveals the “real workings” of the universe bringing salvation through the ingenuity of humankindʼs technical achievements. This progress through human rationality is the telos of history. This ʻmodernʼ description of reality collapsed as a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Holocaust, the development and use of the atom bomb and subsequent nuclear arms race, and the environmental crisis which destroyed forever the concept of linear technical progress (“things are getting better and better every day”) fueled by human ʻrationalityʼ (e.g. under what form of rationality was the Holocaust ʻconstructedʼ and 125 million humans murdered in the wars of the 20th century?).
Today, the self exists as an autonomous, self-directed being, entirely constituted through the interiority of the person.
In pre-modernity, the self is only constituted through an interior relationality with God. The person does not really exist outside this relationship. (Likewise, pre-modern reality was believed to be an advancement on the Biblical where Reality is described in terms of a historical telos leading toward salvation revealed to a chosen people, Israel, by their god, YHWH. Persons still do not have a ʻself.ʼ ʻPersonhoodʼ is constituted entirely through oneʼs relationship with their family
and tribe.)
Atheists have suggested just this way, using this primitive/orthodox ideological construct - a type of Christian atheism, as opposed to Spinoza's 'jewish atheism'- in order to escape the 'logic (rationalism) of capitalism.
Radical Orthodox Christians on the left agree, only they obviously maintain an actual type of non-anthropomorphic relationship with God.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'll make it even clearer - since the universe had a beginning, something had to start it,

Really? Why? I really don't think we know enough to say one way or the other.


that something would necessarily have to exist outside time and space since time and space came into being with the big bang.

But since having a position in space and time is a function of existence, anything "outside" of those must therefore not exist. Whoops.


This is simple logic. Unless now you also have abandoned casualty?

But causality is a function of time.

[Havet]

jesus what long ass posts

Anyway, where's the response to my image?

[Kronos]

Actually a lot of Nietzsche's analysis of christianity was, necessarily, quite simplistic. So much more do we now know about culture, psychology, and social analysis. As a marxist, I am usually interested how particular social and historical circumstances impact the consciousness of a people, indeed, Nietzsche's entire analysis rests on a static, mistaken notion of Self.

Well I'd have to disagree. Nietzsche provides the most dynamic analysis of the historical and psychological conditions out of which Christianity arose, I have ever seen. And the last thing Nietzsche would consider the 'self' to be is 'static'. Nietzsche's ideas concerning this are closely related to Heraclitus and Hume- a more post-structural, non-essentialist account of the notion of 'self', .....a 'social-constructivism' if anything....perhaps more similar to your own ideas than you would like to believe. But, I would prefer to be very careful when philosophizing about this 'self'. Philosophers like to talk about this subject in rather obscure ways.....referring to what is really a 'point with no dimension', as Wittgenstein called it. Let's avoid the Cartesian metaphors before we get ahead of ourselves.


Although what you say about about 'projecting human nature onto an imaginary, personable, intelligent force etc' is true (and with the end of religion it would not disappear, we must always forge a dialogue with our unconscious contents

What are 'unconscious contents'? If such things are unconscious....how do you know of the contents?

Have a look at Sartre's Search for a Method if you get a chance. You might find it interesting to know that the classical Freudian 'psychic apparatus' is really a load of nonsense. Terms like 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' are generally meaningless. Meaning and signification is only possible through intentionality, so references to some 'hidden' point of consciousness as the source for compulsory behavior is like shooting in the dark.

To the rest of your post I don't disagree that religious belief may be entertained by people as they relate socially....only I disagree that those beliefs are justifiable. You might call such belief 'useful fiction', so to speak.

But yes, there is a major difference in the kinds of social reality we experience and those realities of the past. I would say that it wasn't a proper religious understanding that prevented social discord in those days...but simply an impossibility of there being any great degree of discord. Because the social circumstances were simpler, the problems were simpler. Religious nonsense increases its affective power to confuse and complicate in proportion to the increase in the social/industrial complexities.

[Kronos]

I couldn't find the text I mentioned when suggesting Sartre, but I did find a summary of the idea in his stanford encyclopedia page:


Similarly, our emotions are not "inner states" but are ways of relating to the world.; they too are "intentional." In this case, emotive behavior involves physical changes and what he calls a quasi "magical" attempt to transform the world by changing ourselves. The person who gets "worked up" when failing to hit the golf ball or to open the jar lid, is, on Sartre's reading, "intending" a world where physiological changes "conjure up" solutions in the problematic world. The person who literally "jumps for joy," to cite another of his examples, is trying by a kind of incantation to possess a good "all at once" that can be realized only across a temporal spread. If emotion is a joke, he warns, it is a joke we believe in. These are all spontaneous, preflective relations. They are not the products of reflective decision. Yet insofar as they are even prereflectively conscious, we are responsible for them. And this raises the question of freedom, a necessary condition for ascribing responsibility and the heart of his philosophy.

Formerly, contemporary psychology was working under the impression that the 'self' was a kind of pyramid of parts- that resultant behavior was influenced by internal agency (ego, id, subconsciousness, etc.). Sartre brilliantly argues that our emotions are spontaneously chosen intentionally rather than being the imposing effects of some subterranean 'self'. This idea compliments behaviorism quite well, which is the only field of psychology that remains committed to true, empirical science.

Ignore the implication of 'freewill' made there. Although he demolished the Freudian psychic apparatus, 'freewill' is certainly not a consequence of that demolition. Sartre's ontology is fatally flawed in ways which prevent his 'freewill' argument.

[Kronos]

Go get your head off the net and out of the books and get some sunshine or something -- you *should* know better than this -- it's *not* * language * that's the determining factor -- it's * class *, as in competing *material* interests between those who do work versus those who exploit work.... C'mon, now...!

No, you 'c'mon now'. Language has everything to do with class divisions. What do you think caused the belief that society had to be structured by classes, if not particular concepts? And aren't concepts bound by language?

It was specialized 'philosophical' vernacular that threw a wrench in the clockwork.

What stopped the plebs from attacking the king, you ask? Why, it was the guy with the robe on standing beside the king who said "this is a symbol of the god granted sovereignty of the state, elected for divinity by God himself, nosis-mosis-osteoporosis, my child! [ few hand gestures ] Go now, and humble thyself with a honest days work!"

[Kronos]

I'll make it even clearer - since the universe had a beginning, something had to start it, that something would necessarily have to exist outside time and space since time and space came into being with the big bang.

This is simple logic. Unless now you also have abandoned casualty?

Then how could there be a naturalistic cause for the big bang?
This is the entire point of my 1st post. I prefer to imagine that the 'universe' is a certain series of modifications attributed to a one, infinite 'Substance'....or 'God'...if you insist.

While the 'universe' might of had a beginning, Substance cannot have begun, since something cannot come from nothing.

In the case that (granting the benefit of the doubt) there was once nothing, there would necessarily have to follow a tripartite causal relationship between three entities- 'nothing', 'God', and 'something', since nothing can be the cause of a something which comes out of it, and a something which comes out of a nothing must be caused to do so, but cannot be caused by the nothing from which it came, nor by itself, a third cause is required- God. But then we must assume that this God does not have the attributes of that which he created, since he is not causally related to it (as you say 'outside time and space').

But this is an unnecessary obfuscation of what is far simpler. That there is only one, eternal Substance, self-caused. Try this:


As to the third, namely, that one substance cannot produce another: should any one again maintain the opposite, we ask whether the cause, which is supposed to produce this substance, has or has not the same attributes as the produced [substance]. The latter is impossible, because something cannot come from nothing; therefore the former. And then we ask whether in the attribute which is presumed to be the cause of this produced [substance], there is just as much perfection as in the produced substance, or less, or more. Less, we say, there cannot be, for the reasons *given* above. More, also not, we say, because in that case this second one would be finite, which is opposed to what has already been proved by us. Just as much, then; they are therefore alike, and [N1] are two like substances, which clearly conflicts with our previous demonstration. Further, that which is created is by no means produced from Nothing, but must necessarily have been produced from something existing. But that something should have come forth from this, and that it should none the less have this something even after it has issued from it, that we cannot grasp with our understanding. Lastly, if we would seek the cause of the substance which is the origin of the things which issue from its attribute, then it behoves us to seek also the cause of that cause, and then again the cause of that cause, et sic in infinitum; so that if we must necessarily stop and halt somewhere, as indeed we must, it is necessary to stop at this only substance. http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/build3.htm?/~tneff/short.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/build3.htm?/%7Etneff/short.htm)

[spiltteeth]

Really? Why? I really don't think we know enough to say one way or the other.

Again, this is only if you believe in causality, a pretty basic tenant of science. Since, so far, many many things have been proven to be subject to causality, I think its safe to say we know how things 'start' usually it involves force...
Also, I already explained that it is likely we will NEVER be able to know,for the reasons I've given.
I sense you do not read my posts.

But since having a position in space and time is a function of existence, anything "outside" of those must therefore not exist. Whoops.

I already responded to this, guess I'll repeat, Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

But causality is a function of time.

That is my point. Yes. So how could something be started, like say...the big bang.

[spiltteeth]

I prefer to imagine that the 'universe' is a certain series of modifications attributed to a one, infinite 'Substance'....or 'God'...if you insist.

Imagine? I actually am a bit unclear here. What is this substance? Is it material? ect


While the 'universe' might of had a beginning, Substance cannot have begun, since something cannot come from nothing.

While its true within the bounds of time something cannot come from nothing as we begin to look at smaller and smaller units of time certain 'loop holes' occur. For example, matter is constantly popping into existence of the void, what happens is a particle comes into existence by virtue of borrowing energy from it's future self when it dissipates and energy is released. It does this very quickly, in less then a millionth of a second.

But again, I don't know what you mean by substance, is there any way to validate such a claim? Or are you saying neither of our claims can be validated, but yours is 'less false'?


In the case that (granting the benefit of the doubt) there was once nothing, there would necessarily have to follow a tripartite causal relationship between three entities- 'nothing', 'God', and 'something', since nothing can be the cause of a something which comes out of it, and a something which comes out of a nothing must be caused to do so, but cannot be caused by the nothing from which it came, nor by itself, a third cause is required- God. But then we must assume that this God does not have the attributes of that which he created, since he is not causally related to it (as you say 'outside time and space').


But this is an unnecessary obfuscation of what is far simpler. That there is only one, eternal Substance, self-caused. Try this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/build3.htm?/~tneff/short.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/build3.htm?/%7Etneff/short.htm)[/QUOTE]

[spiltteeth]

Well I'd have to disagree. Nietzsche provides the most dynamic analysis of the historical and psychological conditions out of which Christianity arose, I have ever seen. And the last thing Nietzsche would consider the 'self' to be is 'static'. Nietzsche's ideas concerning this are closely related to Heraclitus and Hume- a more post-structural, non-essentialist account of the notion of 'self', .....a 'social-constructivism' if anything....perhaps more similar to your own ideas than you would like to believe. But, I would prefer to be very careful when philosophizing about this 'self'. Philosophers like to talk about this subject in rather obscure ways.....referring to what is really a 'point with no dimension', as Wittgenstein called it. Let's avoid the Cartesian metaphors before we get ahead of ourselves.



What are 'unconscious contents'? If such things are unconscious....how do you know of the contents?

Have a look at Sartre's Search for a Method if you get a chance. You might find it interesting to know that the classical Freudian 'psychic apparatus' is really a load of nonsense. Terms like 'subconscious' and 'unconscious' are generally meaningless. Meaning and signification is only possible through intentionality, so references to some 'hidden' point of consciousness as the source for compulsory behavior is like shooting in the dark.

To the rest of your post I don't disagree that religious belief may be entertained by people as they relate socially....only I disagree that those beliefs are justifiable. You might call such belief 'useful fiction', so to speak.

But yes, there is a major difference in the kinds of social reality we experience and those realities of the past. I would say that it wasn't a proper religious understanding that prevented social discord in those days...but simply an impossibility of there being any great degree of discord. Because the social circumstances were simpler, the problems were simpler. Religious nonsense increases its affective power to confuse and complicate in proportion to the increase in the social/industrial complexities.

Well, I meant he, and Sartre always viewed the self non-relationally, always noting the interiority of a person, their perspective was static.

For the rest, my background is in psychoanalysis, Lacanian, so I believe the Self, 'ego' is an illusion, and the unconscious a function of language. The way meaning is generated, in my view, has more to do with the symbolic nature of how a society's culture 'speaks' through a subject, then what a subject's (mis) understands as there 'intention.'
But obviously, I have a radically different framework for understanding what a person is, which is always bound relationally to a culture, society, etc

[spiltteeth]

jesus what long ass posts

Anyway, where's the response to my image?

Thats one badass photo. Is it you? Hot.

[Ecnelis_Doogod]

I don't believe in god because I choose not to, partly because he makes no sense to me. Im to pissed to think right now, I'm just so angry at our government, sometimes I dream of watching our corrupt politicians swaying in the gallows for lifetimes of thievery, I could scream right now, just thinking about Obama, sometime I think I'd rather be in a land in anarchy than watch my taxes pay for these douches, back to god, I just don't believe in him, in my heart I know I'm a good person, and I don't need any religion to make myself feel that.

[Kronos]

"I would warn you, Sir Ecnelis_Doogod, that I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-ordered or confused. And I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

I have enclosed a copy of one of my letters to Blyenbergh, for your interest, as you have issue with an inadequate understanding of the nature of God."- Benedict Spinoza


I would have you observe, that, while we speak philosophically (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#philosophy), we ought not to employ theological (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#theology) phrases. For, since theology (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#theology) frequently, and not unwisely, represents God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/ethidx2.htm#god) as a perfect man, it is often expedient in theology (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#theology) to say, that God desires a given thing, that He is angry at the actions of the wicked, and delights in those of the good. But in philosophy (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#philosophy), when we clearly perceive that the attributes which make men perfect can as ill be ascribed and assigned to God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/ethidx2.htm#god), as the attributes which go to make perfect the elephant and the ass can be ascribed to man; here I say these and similar phrases have no place, nor can we employ them without causing extreme confusion in our conceptions. Hence, in the language of philosophy (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/tptidx.htm#philosophy), it cannot be said that God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Etneff/ethidx2.htm#god) desires anything of any man, or that anything is displeasing or pleasing to Him: all these are human qualities and have no place in God.

[Havet]

Thats one badass photo. Is it you? Hot.

The Epicurus picture I posted was the one I was seeking a reply to. Obviously I wasn't born in 33 A.D

[Poppytry]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?


My politics teacher also told me this quote although his one went along the lines of.. "if your not a socialist by 18 you have no heart, if your still a socialist by 25 you have no head"

I initially suspected this site being full of young "hormonal teenagers" as you put it. I therefore made a poll to get a rough idea.. check my threads started if you want to see it. The results were that it was mostly people 18 - 24 ( i think that was the category) which at first i thought was bad as i didnt want to be debating or reading stuff posted by teen hot heads who at times turned in to keyboard warriors. But now i think its a good thing because we are the future :rolleyes:

[spiltteeth]

The Epicurus picture I posted was the one I was seeking a reply to. Obviously I wasn't born in 33 A.D

That's the photo I was referring too. Epicurus is one sexy Mofo.

[Havet]

That's the photo I was referring too. Epicurus is one sexy Mofo.

lol

Are you going to actually address the text in the picture?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originaly, that phrase was from François Guizot, the guy Marx was talking about at the beginingof the Manifesto (A specter is haunting Europe...). Of course, the original phrase was: "not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof for want of head." He was talking about republican liberalism. He was'nt that great of a guy. Don't worry to much about people who say stuff like that.

"To be a reactionary at any age is for want of buckshot implanted in your corpus collosum."

[trivas7]

I'll make it even clearer - since the universe had a beginning, something had to start it, that something would necessarily have to exist outside time and space since time and space came into being with the big bang.

This is simple logic. Unless now you also have abandoned casualty?
This is the usual Christian line. The universe is predicated on a cause outside of itself. IMO, its a bad argument; Western thought is imbued by such logical fallacies, causality remains its bete noire.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm 17.

Anywho, I got a good quote for em. From me.

If you're a capitalist at all, you're an evil son *****.

[spiltteeth]

lol

Are you going to actually address the text in the picture?

Oh there was text? I didn't notice. I was lost in Epicurus's deep soulful eyes...and those soft, yearning lips...

But I'll read it and get back to you.

[spiltteeth]

This is the usual Christian line. The universe is predicated on a cause outside of itself. IMO, its a bad argument; Western thought is imbued by such logical fallacies, causality remains its bete noire.

I was referring to his way of thinking, and how it is not logical.

[spiltteeth]

lol

Are you going to actually address the text in the picture?

Well, since you asked me. I actually didn't want to because usually stuff like this proves fruitless and I really don't have any answers. But, although I'm no theologian, I would say that God is in fact perfectly able to remove evil from the world. If he did however, he would remove our ability to comprehend good, and to appreciate its value. It wouldn't make any difference to God, but to us a world without evil would inescapably also be a world without good. Allowing us to experience good even at the cost of knowing evil, and happiness alongside sadness does not make God malevolent. We are meant to know both.
And also, evil does a lot of good too!

[Dean]

"If your not a Socialist before 30 you have no heart, if your still a Socialist after 30 you have no head"

This is a quote I get constantly from Parents, Teachers and older people in general. Admittedly, I'm very very young, and I'm completely aware that I still have much to learn. Regardless, this quote scares me. Are my current political views of Revolutionary Socialism nothing more than a hormonal "teenage" rush that I'll just grow out of?

I've noticed that a good Plurality of the posters here are above the age of 30, I'm curious if this quote has any truth to it, and if you ever got told this when you were younger.

I'm 23 and I have been a socialist for nearly 10 years. My ideas have changed constantly, but I've never lost my basic attitude toward fairness and justice.

In my opinion, you're a compromising piece of shit if you "have a head" to give up socialism, or you were never a socialist in the first place.

It seems to me like your seniors fell for that hippie bullshit and figured that was 'socialism' and 'having a heart.'

[Havet]

Well, since you asked me. I actually didn't want to because usually stuff like this proves fruitless and I really don't have any answers. But, although I'm no theologian, I would say that God is in fact perfectly able to remove evil from the world. If he did however, he would remove our ability to comprehend good, and to appreciate its value. It wouldn't make any difference to God, but to us a world without evil would inescapably also be a world without good. Allowing us to experience good even at the cost of knowing evil, and happiness alongside sadness does not make God malevolent. We are meant to know both.
And also, evil does a lot of good too!

So he IS malevolent. He directly makes us suffer in order to make us "appreciate" the good things.

At least Satan is more direct and honest.

[Il Medico]

Okay, time and place are important. This was war ridden Palestine not peaceful 21st liberal democratic Europe.

These are clearly not moral laws from the OT and therefore have no revelance to modern life or religion.

Well people like yourself are usually quite supportive of such things as this:
One of the laws handed down by your all loving God:
Leviticus 20:13 (http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-13.htm) If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

And a lovely message from the New Testament:
Romans 1:27 (http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm) and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

(due penalty is according to Hebrew law, aka stone them to death.)

So, if these passages about Homosexuality still shape modern Christian Conservative views on homosexuality, then why should you treat the rape and slavery stuff any different?

[spiltteeth]

So he IS malevolent. He directly makes us suffer in order to make us "appreciate" the good things.

At least Satan is more direct and honest.

No. God doesn't make us suffer. And there would be no "good things" without evil. Are you saying God would be less malevolent if he made us without joy, love happiness, which necessitates the existence of evil, and made us simply numb, inhuman? Yes, this means horrific suffering, but it also preserves true, meaningful freedom.

Perhaps Augustine, said it best: "God judged it better to bring good out of evil, than to suffer no evil to exist."Jesus

However, as a Christian I believe God did solve the problem of suffering. He came. He suffered with us. He wept. And in becoming man he transformed the meaning of our suffering: it is now part of his work of redemption. Our death pangs become birth pangs for heaven, not only for ourselves but also for those we love. God's answer is Jesus. Jesus is not God off the hook but God on the hook. That's why the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is crucial: If that is not God there on the cross but only a good man, then God is not on the hook, on the cross, in our suffering. And if God is not on the hook, then God is not off the hook. How could he sit there in heaven and ignore our tears?

But really, I have little respect for the Christian who say, 'oh well, suffering is a mystery, lets not think about it' or the rationalist who uses a similar justification. It's something as mature adults we must struggle with, even without hope of finding an answer, and in the struggling a fire is sometimes born.

And again,There are many positive aspects to suffering.
As you may well know the saying 'Pain is necessary, suffering is optional.' Suffering is caused when one tries to get away from the pain. Now I've been knifed before, but that wasn't nearly as painful as the terrible depression I've gone through. In the Orthodox Church, healing of the soul ranks higher than the healing of the body.

I'll quote father Bentley Hardt:
"The Christian understanding of evil has always been more radical and fantastic than that of any theodicist; for it denies from the outset that suffering, death and evil have any ultimate meaning at all. Perhaps no doctrine is more insufferably fabulous to non-Christians than the claim that we exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world, that cosmic time is the shadow of true time, and that the universe languishes in bondage to "powers" and "principalities"--spiritual and terrestrial--alien to God. In the Gospel of John, especially, the incarnate God enters a world at once his own and yet hostile to him--"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not"--and his appearance within "this cosmos" is both an act of judgment and a rescue of the beauties of creation from the torments of fallen nature.
God allows our suffering, but He never imposes it. Human suffering is not punishment for sin, except (as a former seminary professor of mine once put it) to the extent that God "allows us to stew in our own juice." "Who sinned," the disciples ask Jesus, "that this man was born blind?" And the answer: "Neither he nor his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him" (John 9:3).

In the best of times, suffering can educate and fortify us. It can purify our heart, curb our ambitions and lead us to focus on "the one thing needful" (Luke 10:42). At other times, suffering can overwhelm us, leading us to the brink of despair. This occurs especially when it remains a "mystery" in the usual sense: a crushing, perplexing, unexplainable and apparently unjust weight of anguish, loss and pain.

What is it that transforms such suffering into a genuine mystery, an experience permeated by sacramental grace? One thing–one gesture only: that is to surrender our suffering–whatever its cause, whatever its form–into the loving hands of the Crucified One. It is to offer our suffering–through gritted teeth, if necessary–to the One who is "in agony until the end of the world.

By this simple sacramental gesture, accomplished through prayer, we can offer every shred of pain, anguish and despair to Him who is the source of all genuine peace, healing and joy. In this way–but only in this way–we can "rejoice in our sufferings," as the apostle declares, knowing that through it all God ceaselessly pours into our hearts His inexhaustible love (Rom 5:3-5)."

Anyway, this is the Orthodox Christian understanding of things, hope it helps!