-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
<Rant>: Christians that advertise their Christianity
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
<< Example: "Christian family with dog seeks house rental....." Why do they feel the need to say they're Christian? >>
In the US, the majority of the population is Christian.
They probably have a perception that Christians are morally superior, and would therefore prefer to rent to them.
and yet again, my anti-thread-crapping tendencies "ruin" perfectly good flamebait. Drats 😉
just use smaller words for me.
Sorry, mate. I know I ramble but I really hate going back and editing my thoughts to make them flow or be more comprehensible. What you read is the exact stream of consiousness I had at that point in time. I will clarify what I posted though:
AHHHHHH. I just tried to read linuxboy again, and now I have this searing pain in my head. I just need some terms defined for me. Better yet, can someone translate his entire piont for me? Assume I am twelve years old.
Well when I was your age.... 😉
All I said is that in an ethical system like the one Zenmervolt was talking about, there needs to be a source of the absolute or conformance to a purely inconsequential system (this is where the only consideration is the duty, and not the consequence of the action). Imagine his point. He says that people must act according to reason and indeed have a duty to do so. yet the duty is not absolute, that is it is partly relative. But it is relative only in that it is subjective.
he himself makes this concession:
Given that "undue risk" is so dependant upon the situation, I think it is safe to say that I am incorrect when I claimed to have an absolute.
So then where does that leave him? Does he have no absolutes? I hardly think so considering his admittance to being an objectivist. I don't think he has an answer yet, as I believe he admits here:
This is good though, as now I at least know that I need to re-examine this area.
now where was I... Oh yes to wrap up the explanation of my post. My goal was to point out some holes in the position. I did this by stating that mixed inconsequentialism has both absolutes and relatives but that absolutes most likely stem from somewhere in order to be absolutes.
to take this from a Christian perspective (which I take you are considering your posts in previous times), think about God. God is the absolute reality, both indifferent and impersonal as an absolute and also revealed through the logos, or the Son in Christ, who died for our sins, so we may have eternal life. At least I think this is a typical Christian position ( admittedly, I lack knowledge in formal theology since my main concern at this point if forming a cohesive and life-affirming worldview). To explain this better, let me say that the source of all is God. Since this is true, we can say that this establishes a natural Law. This Law must be followed since doing otherwise would be disobeying God. Yet, what man makes is not necessarily Law but is relative. At the same time, God has endowed man with Sophia, wisdom (considered by some to be a partial deity/personahood/extension of the Godhead, present since the beginning when the world was created). Now man must use the Sophia, reason and logic to decide on a course of action. In Zenmervolt's persepective, there is not enough evidence for a God/gods but reason is still there and through reason, we can find out about the world around us. Now reason compels us to act according to it and this means helping others and "raising them up" as Zenmervolt has stated. Of course he did admit that there were exceptions to this and that the deciding factor was risk. He then tried to combine the idea of risk with the idea of utilitarianism, stating that (Hey, look, now John Mill is along for the ride.) . At this point he ends and goes back to his "drawing board". But let me conclude by stating that all I meant to do was show where some holes exist in this current lines of thought. This is not to say that holes are bad. Ultimately, the trap of epistemic cicrularity dooms us all, but if one can avoid error, one should endeavor to do so.
Does that explain it a bit better? I tried to use succinct sentences but you must realize how hard it is for me to communicate my thoughts.
now let me address your postings and questions, Zen
Linuxboy, your assessment of the idea of "risk" is somewhat different than my own. I was not considering the risk as a result of faulty actions, but rather as an inherent part of any action, with the right action being the one that minimises the risk while maximizing the benefit.
I like this. At the same time I must point out that you have not excluded the possibility of causality. Thus, by a brief reductio ad absurdum, I challenge again your idea of risk, even as a purely subjective matter, not to mention the possibility of risk existing as an absolute (as I defined it, being merely the result of faulty reasoning, if reasoning can indeed ever be perfect/absolute). I did make a bit of a leap there, I admit, but it was a natural corollary to your thought, at least that's how I regraded the matter at the time.
(Hey, look, now John Mill is along for the ride.) Unfortunately, this does not address the main issues of a deontological view, something which I am not alltogether comfortable with myself.
The idea of objectivism would indeed force you to accept an ethical egoism, itself a teleological system. This is a very hard thing to resolve, if it CAN be resolved at all....
There is some part of me that finds a purely consequentialist view to be distateful as well, however, and I cannot come up with a good reason for it.
Dig deeper. And then when you think you have it, you'll realize that it's really just a bunch of nonsense (much like my posts... 😉 )
In any case, I do not think that I am currently capable of responding to your objections in any real sort of way, so I am forced to conclude that I must return to the drawing board, so to speak, and refine my view. Thank you for pointing out another thing that does not work, I am now one step closer to finding a view that does work. I'll close with a question, what is your view on problem of Ethics? I'm genuinely curious to hear your interpretation of the topic.
Ah, ethics is one interesting problem to solve. As a mystic, having experienced what some would call "God-intoxication", and being in a constant state of what could be referred as beatitudo, I posit the existence of a Supreme Good, an Absolute, God, if you will. Now my experiences don't exactly anthropomorphize my understanding of my reality into any personal deity, yet it could be interpreted in tha way. I guess I believe in an Ultimate which existence is proven to me on a purely subjective level. yet this Ultimate is not subjective but an Absolute, being itself neither absolute nor subjective while being both absoluteness itself and the Ultimate Subjectivity (you can take a break after that one, I didn't understand it either for a very long time until I would say it was revealed to me by what could be called a Christian idea of grace). Now then, with a source of absolutes, one must have a way of explaining absoluteness. The closest idea I have encountered is the human idea of love. At the core of all this is "a sea of love in which I am a drop". This constant, subjective experience of an absolute means my ego is extinguished, and subsequently transformed so that normal rules don't exactly apply in the same sense they do now. By rules I mean restrictions and logical proofs. I wrote quite a few books in my earlier days, all of which I have since destroyed since they are rubbish, meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless.
Where am I going with this.... Oh yes, let's wrap up. I suppose you could claim that this a mixed inconsequentialism. It is certainly not pure relativism or pure consequentialism but the idea of acting accoding to duty, regulated by love, and an absolute, and to some extent the cultural and social situation is the "grab bag" from which I formulate my system of action. Remember these are only symbolic words used in a particular manner to explain the ineffable. I could pain or write poetry and it would still not allow a full vision but rather short glimpses.
Yeah, I have no real solution; at least not a nice and tidy package you can formulate and sell for $2.99/pound at the market.
LOL. Linuxboy's solution to life. 20 % off 😀. Yes, I'll like 2 pounds of linuxboy's metaphysical answers please.
I think I will get some rest now...
Cheers ! 🙂
just use smaller words for me.
Sorry, mate. I know I ramble but I really hate going back and editing my thoughts to make them flow or be more comprehensible. What you read is the exact stream of consiousness I had at that point in time. I will clarify what I posted though:
AHHHHHH. I just tried to read linuxboy again, and now I have this searing pain in my head. I just need some terms defined for me. Better yet, can someone translate his entire piont for me? Assume I am twelve years old.
Well when I was your age.... 😉
All I said is that in an ethical system like the one Zenmervolt was talking about, there needs to be a source of the absolute or conformance to a purely inconsequential system (this is where the only consideration is the duty, and not the consequence of the action). Imagine his point. He says that people must act according to reason and indeed have a duty to do so. yet the duty is not absolute, that is it is partly relative. But it is relative only in that it is subjective.
he himself makes this concession:
Given that "undue risk" is so dependant upon the situation, I think it is safe to say that I am incorrect when I claimed to have an absolute.
So then where does that leave him? Does he have no absolutes? I hardly think so considering his admittance to being an objectivist. I don't think he has an answer yet, as I believe he admits here:
This is good though, as now I at least know that I need to re-examine this area.
now where was I... Oh yes to wrap up the explanation of my post. My goal was to point out some holes in the position. I did this by stating that mixed inconsequentialism has both absolutes and relatives but that absolutes most likely stem from somewhere in order to be absolutes.
to take this from a Christian perspective (which I take you are considering your posts in previous times), think about God. God is the absolute reality, both indifferent and impersonal as an absolute and also revealed through the logos, or the Son in Christ, who died for our sins, so we may have eternal life. At least I think this is a typical Christian position ( admittedly, I lack knowledge in formal theology since my main concern at this point if forming a cohesive and life-affirming worldview). To explain this better, let me say that the source of all is God. Since this is true, we can say that this establishes a natural Law. This Law must be followed since doing otherwise would be disobeying God. Yet, what man makes is not necessarily Law but is relative. At the same time, God has endowed man with Sophia, wisdom (considered by some to be a partial deity/personahood/extension of the Godhead, present since the beginning when the world was created). Now man must use the Sophia, reason and logic to decide on a course of action. In Zenmervolt's persepective, there is not enough evidence for a God/gods but reason is still there and through reason, we can find out about the world around us. Now reason compels us to act according to it and this means helping others and "raising them up" as Zenmervolt has stated. Of course he did admit that there were exceptions to this and that the deciding factor was risk. He then tried to combine the idea of risk with the idea of utilitarianism, stating that (Hey, look, now John Mill is along for the ride.) . At this point he ends and goes back to his "drawing board". But let me conclude by stating that all I meant to do was show where some holes exist in this current lines of thought. This is not to say that holes are bad. Ultimately, the trap of epistemic cicrularity dooms us all, but if one can avoid error, one should endeavor to do so.
Does that explain it a bit better? I tried to use succinct sentences but you must realize how hard it is for me to communicate my thoughts.
now let me address your postings and questions, Zen
Linuxboy, your assessment of the idea of "risk" is somewhat different than my own. I was not considering the risk as a result of faulty actions, but rather as an inherent part of any action, with the right action being the one that minimises the risk while maximizing the benefit.
I like this. At the same time I must point out that you have not excluded the possibility of causality. Thus, by a brief reductio ad absurdum, I challenge again your idea of risk, even as a purely subjective matter, not to mention the possibility of risk existing as an absolute (as I defined it, being merely the result of faulty reasoning, if reasoning can indeed ever be perfect/absolute). I did make a bit of a leap there, I admit, but it was a natural corollary to your thought, at least that's how I regraded the matter at the time.
(Hey, look, now John Mill is along for the ride.) Unfortunately, this does not address the main issues of a deontological view, something which I am not alltogether comfortable with myself.
The idea of objectivism would indeed force you to accept an ethical egoism, itself a teleological system. This is a very hard thing to resolve, if it CAN be resolved at all....
There is some part of me that finds a purely consequentialist view to be distateful as well, however, and I cannot come up with a good reason for it.
Dig deeper. And then when you think you have it, you'll realize that it's really just a bunch of nonsense (much like my posts... 😉 )
In any case, I do not think that I am currently capable of responding to your objections in any real sort of way, so I am forced to conclude that I must return to the drawing board, so to speak, and refine my view. Thank you for pointing out another thing that does not work, I am now one step closer to finding a view that does work. I'll close with a question, what is your view on problem of Ethics? I'm genuinely curious to hear your interpretation of the topic.
Ah, ethics is one interesting problem to solve. As a mystic, having experienced what some would call "God-intoxication", and being in a constant state of what could be referred as beatitudo, I posit the existence of a Supreme Good, an Absolute, God, if you will. Now my experiences don't exactly anthropomorphize my understanding of my reality into any personal deity, yet it could be interpreted in tha way. I guess I believe in an Ultimate which existence is proven to me on a purely subjective level. yet this Ultimate is not subjective but an Absolute, being itself neither absolute nor subjective while being both absoluteness itself and the Ultimate Subjectivity (you can take a break after that one, I didn't understand it either for a very long time until I would say it was revealed to me by what could be called a Christian idea of grace). Now then, with a source of absolutes, one must have a way of explaining absoluteness. The closest idea I have encountered is the human idea of love. At the core of all this is "a sea of love in which I am a drop". This constant, subjective experience of an absolute means my ego is extinguished, and subsequently transformed so that normal rules don't exactly apply in the same sense they do now. By rules I mean restrictions and logical proofs. I wrote quite a few books in my earlier days, all of which I have since destroyed since they are rubbish, meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless.
Where am I going with this.... Oh yes, let's wrap up. I suppose you could claim that this a mixed inconsequentialism. It is certainly not pure relativism or pure consequentialism but the idea of acting accoding to duty, regulated by love, and an absolute, and to some extent the cultural and social situation is the "grab bag" from which I formulate my system of action. Remember these are only symbolic words used in a particular manner to explain the ineffable. I could pain or write poetry and it would still not allow a full vision but rather short glimpses.
Yeah, I have no real solution; at least not a nice and tidy package you can formulate and sell for $2.99/pound at the market.
LOL. Linuxboy's solution to life. 20 % off 😀. Yes, I'll like 2 pounds of linuxboy's metaphysical answers please.
I think I will get some rest now...
Cheers ! 🙂
Zenmervolt
Elite member
<< Zenmervolt, you display model humility. ... Although, I dont know if you value humility. <-not meant as a cut. >>
Understood, and no offense taken. I will not claim to always maintain this humility, and I certainly cannot claim to have had it since birth, but as I have matured (and as I am still maturing) I have come to value humility for several reasons. The most important reason to me is that humility facilitates learning to a great degree. One cannot learn unless one is willing to admit when he does not know the answers. If I were to never admit my faults, I would never correct them. I also value humility because it allows me to interact better with other people. I have found that if I admit it when I am wrong, then others around me are more encouraged to do the same, and this allows reason to lead more effectively. I do not mean to say that I give way to anyone who comes along with a different view, but I try not to be averse to changing or reformulating my ideas when a well thought out and rational reason is given for me to do so. Those are the two main reasons that I value humility. I am certain that I can come up with other, tertiary reasons for valuing humility given more time spent thinking on the issue, but the "big two" reasons are more than enough to encourage humility in my mind.
ZV
Red Dawn
Elite Member
<< Red, if you were in public with me for 15 minutes, all doubt would go away. As Freud once said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." >>
You know if the gal was to say something to me about her being morally superior then I would put her in her place but normally I would just write her off as some bimbo who either got what she had from giving good head or being a succesful Real Estate agent.. which is kind of the same thing .
The two most honest individuals I know are Christians (my son and a friends Father who is a Minister) Neither however would say that because they are Christian they are morally superior and I doubt either would post an add proclaiming their faith when looking for a house to rent. In fact I rented a house from my Friends Father and I'm definately not a Christian (I think my paganistic Sexual Rituals with Naked Witches and my penchant for drinking the blood of Virgins would rule me out as a Christian) He just insisted that I don't get any stains on the rug🙂
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
