I want to make it clear why I must break one of my most beloved friends, John Stegeman. Since he's - in all likelihood - the only person reading this, I won't be wasting anyone's time, and he's sure to misinterpret my motives. What I do is not for his own good; I don't believe he will be happier as one of the godless. It's not for the betterment of society, since it will probably not make him a more productive person. And it's certainly not for the cause of Justice or Righteousness or some such thing. It's for the cause of aesthetics. When the light hits my retinas and I see him faithless, things will be a little more orderly and neat. Something that was skewed for so long will have been squared neatly with the rest, and the overall scene will be much more pleasant because of it.
I am a man of reason. I'm not stating that because I'm proud of it. I don't think that reason necessarily makes a person happier, stronger or more proper. It's just a statement of fact. I've tried and failed to have faith. It's not in me to suspend disbelief. For me, I can only have one vehicle for understanding the world, and that's reason. I've stopped resisting this and now embrace it.
My friend Alex is the opposite of myself. To quote Orwell for the second time today, Alex is a Newthinker. If Alex is alone in a room, and he believes that he is floating, then he is floating. If something is required to be true, Alex makes it true through belief. If that same thing is suddenly required to be false, it is instantly false through Alex's belief. If something is required to be both absolutely true and false in the same instant, then it is. Alex has the "true faith" in a way that even the most devoted mystics and holy men could have never imaged, or understood, for that matter. Alex's faith is beautiful because of it's total purity, simplicity and raw will.
So, if I'm an Oldthinker, and Alex is a Newthinker then that makes my friend John the protagonist. Winston Smith, the everyman that most will relate to; that's John. He is a reasonable man with a set of beliefs. He's usually very committed to those beliefs, although it's certainly true that he frequently transgresses. He'll be quick to take the blame for his own flaws and mistakes, though. He would never question the validity or value of his Church and Doctrine. At the same time, he would never give up reason for the sake of belief. You won't see him bombing an abortion clinic or any such thing. He'll continue paying his taxes and going to work.
John has two vehicles for understanding the world. He's got a foot on each vehicle, and as the world proceeds, and each vehicle veers together, then apart (sometimes far apart), John's legs splay, his body contorts, and appendages dislocate. It's quite an effort that he pulls off remarkably well. But it's unfortunately true that someday (maybe decades from now) the world is going to break him. He's going to lose one of the vehicles, and he's going to be left with only reason. How can I be so sure that he won't give up reason for the sake of belief? Because John could never be Alex. He's simply not made of the right stuff (perhaps noone is). He can't have that "true faith", and he's also not the sort to pull the release valve and give in to madness. That leaves him with firmly in the domain of reason, and the faithless.
I will not wait for that to happen. It's an assault on taste to allow this half & half act to continue any longer than it has to. The nauseating mix of dogma and a prioi reason that churns out of his spaghetti factory. Repulsive. In the end, he'll end up with one of us, and I know it has to be me. "Observe this prize person who denies he's for hire!". We all have our limits and our price. In the end, there's a level of pain that will buy him. So, what I do is a kindness, not a cruelty. Why wait until he's a useless old husk? Let's get this over with now. I think I'm going to have to get out of my comfort zone if I'm going to pull this off. I'm game for the challenge, though.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
On Happiness
Simple formula to determine happiness quotient:
Happiness = ((L * M) - (D * M))
where
L = Total number of things a person is looking forward to
D = Total number of things a person is dreading
M = Total order of magnitude of those things
Happiness = ((L * M) - (D * M))
where
L = Total number of things a person is looking forward to
D = Total number of things a person is dreading
M = Total order of magnitude of those things
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
On Moderation
Moderation is for wimps.
According to Aristotle, every virtue is the median between two extremes. For example, courage is the median (or balance) between a state of cowardice (too little) and foolhardiness (too much). I've never been sure if I could buy into that, although I'm not sure if I can adequately explain why.
To use the example of courage again, I feel that courage has no relation whatsoever to either cowardice or foolhardiness, except that the latter two are a complete lack of the former. I feel that courage is similar to the virtue of wisdom (a kind of "applied wisdom"). Someone is courageous when they see what must be done, and do it despite fear, doubt, misunderstanding, whatever. Someone is foolhardy or reckless because they don't adequately understand the situation, the cause/effect and the benefit/risk of the situation, and they put themselves at risk for no good reason. Someone is cowardly because although they see clearly what what is necessary, but lack the will to overcome fear. Cowardice and foolhardiness are both incomplete versions of courage. But that doesn't mean that the cure for cowardice is an extra dose of foolhardiness, or vice versa.
OK, that was "virtue". Now for personal ideology (or "convictions", "principles" or "beliefs"). There are some who say that it's important to moderate (that's the word I'm going to use for the sake of simplicity) your ideology (again, that's the word for simplicity, but fill in with whatever you like). That you shouldn't be too extreme or fundamentalist when it comes to putting your ideology into practice. While I certainly agree that fundamentalists are almost never fun to be around, I disagree with this emphasis on moderation. Ideology and belief systems, just the same as virtue, are centered around an ideal.
Although people in the "real world" may not always live up to that ideal, it should be something that they should be able - with rigorous effort - to put into practice without serious negative repercussions. My problem with Christianity is that with the ideology of most sects, you can't put those ethics and teachings into practice on a large scale without serious problems for both adherents and society as a whole. It's sometimes a completely irrational set of commandments and principles that simply don't work in the real world when taken very seriously. That's strictly a problem with the ideology itself, not the "extremeness" of it's some of it's adherents.
"Tie it Together" analogy
Earlier I said that foolhardiness was basically courage without the wisdom understand what's best. Christianity is like foolhardiness being called "courage". Someone might say that "courage is an excellent guide, but shouldn't be practiced in extremes". That's good advice, but it misses the point entirely. There's a serious problem with that definition of courage and it needs to be adjusted. Likewise, there are some serious problems with the tenets of Christianity that need to be rectified (or perhaps thrown out altogether and start over). Watering it down, or taking the middle path when putting them into practice is merely treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.
According to Aristotle, every virtue is the median between two extremes. For example, courage is the median (or balance) between a state of cowardice (too little) and foolhardiness (too much). I've never been sure if I could buy into that, although I'm not sure if I can adequately explain why.
To use the example of courage again, I feel that courage has no relation whatsoever to either cowardice or foolhardiness, except that the latter two are a complete lack of the former. I feel that courage is similar to the virtue of wisdom (a kind of "applied wisdom"). Someone is courageous when they see what must be done, and do it despite fear, doubt, misunderstanding, whatever. Someone is foolhardy or reckless because they don't adequately understand the situation, the cause/effect and the benefit/risk of the situation, and they put themselves at risk for no good reason. Someone is cowardly because although they see clearly what what is necessary, but lack the will to overcome fear. Cowardice and foolhardiness are both incomplete versions of courage. But that doesn't mean that the cure for cowardice is an extra dose of foolhardiness, or vice versa.
OK, that was "virtue". Now for personal ideology (or "convictions", "principles" or "beliefs"). There are some who say that it's important to moderate (that's the word I'm going to use for the sake of simplicity) your ideology (again, that's the word for simplicity, but fill in with whatever you like). That you shouldn't be too extreme or fundamentalist when it comes to putting your ideology into practice. While I certainly agree that fundamentalists are almost never fun to be around, I disagree with this emphasis on moderation. Ideology and belief systems, just the same as virtue, are centered around an ideal.
Although people in the "real world" may not always live up to that ideal, it should be something that they should be able - with rigorous effort - to put into practice without serious negative repercussions. My problem with Christianity is that with the ideology of most sects, you can't put those ethics and teachings into practice on a large scale without serious problems for both adherents and society as a whole. It's sometimes a completely irrational set of commandments and principles that simply don't work in the real world when taken very seriously. That's strictly a problem with the ideology itself, not the "extremeness" of it's some of it's adherents.
"Tie it Together" analogy
Earlier I said that foolhardiness was basically courage without the wisdom understand what's best. Christianity is like foolhardiness being called "courage". Someone might say that "courage is an excellent guide, but shouldn't be practiced in extremes". That's good advice, but it misses the point entirely. There's a serious problem with that definition of courage and it needs to be adjusted. Likewise, there are some serious problems with the tenets of Christianity that need to be rectified (or perhaps thrown out altogether and start over). Watering it down, or taking the middle path when putting them into practice is merely treating the symptoms, not the disease itself.
Friday, January 21, 2011
On Evangelism
My good friend John Stegeman posted a blog about facebook evangelists that I want to elaborate on.
John is against the bible-beating, churchy evangelists since they usually don't succeed in converting people, and they end up alienating people in general. His point is that it's better to maintain friendships by using a light touch, and offering conversion only when your friend initiates the conversation.
My point was that, if you have a duty to convert, then shouldn't you go absolutely balls out on it? Isn't anything less a copout, since your putting a secular relationship before your duty to God? And doesn't that say something about Christianity in general, and how it's adherents are able to strike a happy balance while living in a less than totally Christian environment?
I want to elaborate on that last point a little more. In my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are quite reasonable and well integrated individuals, who really have no interest in getting "all up in my business". However, I think the reason why they're well rounded and balanced about spiritual and personal matters is because they're choosy about which doctrines they want to put into practice, and rigidly they do so.
But isn't that a serious theological problem? If you can't obey Christ's teachings literally, wholely and without reservation in every aspect of your life without ending up as a nutty evangelical, doesn't that indicate a flaw in the whole doctrine/ethos/what-have-you?
Kookie analogy
It's like having a recipe for cake, with some instructions that are clearly wrong (perhaps some elements of cookie-making have made their way into the recipe). If you follow them word for word, you'll end up with a horrible culinary chimera, a mix of cake and cookie that's in no way satisfying. But if you are using your own best judgment (say 1 egg instead of 3) to fix the recipe, how do you know what the end product is supposed to look like? Can it even properly be called a recipe?
John is against the bible-beating, churchy evangelists since they usually don't succeed in converting people, and they end up alienating people in general. His point is that it's better to maintain friendships by using a light touch, and offering conversion only when your friend initiates the conversation.
My point was that, if you have a duty to convert, then shouldn't you go absolutely balls out on it? Isn't anything less a copout, since your putting a secular relationship before your duty to God? And doesn't that say something about Christianity in general, and how it's adherents are able to strike a happy balance while living in a less than totally Christian environment?
I want to elaborate on that last point a little more. In my opinion, the vast majority of Christians are quite reasonable and well integrated individuals, who really have no interest in getting "all up in my business". However, I think the reason why they're well rounded and balanced about spiritual and personal matters is because they're choosy about which doctrines they want to put into practice, and rigidly they do so.
But isn't that a serious theological problem? If you can't obey Christ's teachings literally, wholely and without reservation in every aspect of your life without ending up as a nutty evangelical, doesn't that indicate a flaw in the whole doctrine/ethos/what-have-you?
Kookie analogy
It's like having a recipe for cake, with some instructions that are clearly wrong (perhaps some elements of cookie-making have made their way into the recipe). If you follow them word for word, you'll end up with a horrible culinary chimera, a mix of cake and cookie that's in no way satisfying. But if you are using your own best judgment (say 1 egg instead of 3) to fix the recipe, how do you know what the end product is supposed to look like? Can it even properly be called a recipe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)