Cringe: There is nothing in this world quite so cringe as making aesthetic, political and epistemic choices on the basis of whether or not they’re cringe, and yet this is what the concept of cringe leads us to do.
re: 43, Retributive Punishment, isn't one of the many arguments in favor of retributive punishment that it provides some bit of psychological closure or satisfaction or whatever you want to call it to the victims and victim's family? Of course nothing can fully repair someone for a crime that has been committed against them, but we try. It is fine for someone to forgive those who have wronged him, but we should not ask other people to forgive those who have wronged them.
Your example takes this out of the equation and makes it a totally unreal scenario, so I'm not sure what exactly to do with it. I'm not even sure what "just for the sake of punishment" even means. I can't recall ever seeing someone argue that we need to punish someone simply for the "sake of the punishment" without regard to any other people or contexts or possible future events etc.
what does "religions start out" even mean? Are you not contradicting many of your other points with the ludicrous of assuming religions have a point of time in which they start? Did Abraham start Judaism? Did Gautama start Buddhism? Religions are both reactions to and against existing orders of authority. If there is an authority who started any religion the question is not if it was "left" or liberally interpreting contemporary society but that it was a reaction against something in society. There were several pre-reformation reformers. I would dare say they were conservative in challenging the existing order of the church as itself "too morally (liberally) lax" but the church took the opposite view and saw them as liberal challengers to their rule. Now these are religions starting out. Did Jesus himself start a religion? And if he did what were his positions. Again turning the other cheek may seem "liberal" but how does that coalesce with condemning a fig tree because it simply wasn't bearing fruit out of season. Certainly "God" condemns for offering grains but in the desert free grain miraculously appears every morning.If we are confining "religious beginnings" to founder's ideology because few founders wrote down their ideology and are more than likely a compendium later imposed upon the founders as interpreters interposed their own ideas upon some human that they utilized to say he taught us such-as-such. Religions as such do not have beginnings other than what others try to impose nostalgically upon founders and these later impositions can at times be conservative or liberal and interpreted either way if they are to any extent reformist both by the reformers and those who see the the forms negatively. Ethical and moral interpretations are to conform adherents into a conduct that supports the interpretations of moral and ethical behaviors. The moral and ethical interpretations are always posterior to the types of behaviour those who want to enrich themselves find the best way to enhance the power of their interpretation and the politically persuasion can never be distinguished as politically left or politically right because the point is to grant to some the interpretation of the rules of behavior to impose upon others as a means to power. A great case in point is the early Hindic Vedas and the seeming spiritualism of the Upanishads probably added to the Vedas as a prevention of losing out to the appeal of the perceived values of Buddhism. The religion of the Hindus perceived by the west that we know today is no more about self-meditation than the original Vedas were but became a money game for some to attract unfamiliar westerners who might be attracted to limited meditative elements in the Upanishads that are themselves presented, once again, in some fashion of Buddhic interpretation, none of which represents either Hindic or Buddaic thought that existed prior to the 1960's.
Religion is a power game to support authority, of both the religion itself, and often remains closely allied with, or is at attempt to usurp the state.I am working on a book at the moment on this and hope to be ready to publish by early next month tentatively to be titled, The Unification Factor in Religion & State.
Re. 10: does it bother you any more or less if people say "merely semantics" rather than "merely verbal," or do you see these as equivalent? The first feels a little more specific about the error of conflating a really significant disagreement with a more superficial error of calibrating definitions.
I wonder if part of the reason this deflationary qualification is so popular is that it is itself often a verbal expression of relief that what appears to be a fundamental and problematic disagreement may just be a temporary case of confusion, miscalibration or crossed wires. (Of course, functional differences in language use and categories may still not be a trivial matter and I don't necessarily think this is always easier to address).
On number 25: I would recommend looking into the history of the Latter Day Saints, as the rare example of a unique and successful religion that has emerged in a modern (albeit, early modern) political context. From what I (a non-expert) gather, Joseph Smith didn't have a very developed view of politics, and Brigham Young employed some frontier communitarian structures but also codified racism into the church. Benjamin E. Park id coming out with a big history of the LDS early next year, might be worth a look
Interesting thought in the natural selection and evolution of ideas. What’s also interesting is how beliefs and behaviors can mold over time to remain compatible with shifting biology, as your body “runs down” and becomes less powerful, harder to excite, and more prone to health issues.
re: 43, Retributive Punishment, isn't one of the many arguments in favor of retributive punishment that it provides some bit of psychological closure or satisfaction or whatever you want to call it to the victims and victim's family? Of course nothing can fully repair someone for a crime that has been committed against them, but we try. It is fine for someone to forgive those who have wronged him, but we should not ask other people to forgive those who have wronged them.
Your example takes this out of the equation and makes it a totally unreal scenario, so I'm not sure what exactly to do with it. I'm not even sure what "just for the sake of punishment" even means. I can't recall ever seeing someone argue that we need to punish someone simply for the "sake of the punishment" without regard to any other people or contexts or possible future events etc.
Point 25:
what does "religions start out" even mean? Are you not contradicting many of your other points with the ludicrous of assuming religions have a point of time in which they start? Did Abraham start Judaism? Did Gautama start Buddhism? Religions are both reactions to and against existing orders of authority. If there is an authority who started any religion the question is not if it was "left" or liberally interpreting contemporary society but that it was a reaction against something in society. There were several pre-reformation reformers. I would dare say they were conservative in challenging the existing order of the church as itself "too morally (liberally) lax" but the church took the opposite view and saw them as liberal challengers to their rule. Now these are religions starting out. Did Jesus himself start a religion? And if he did what were his positions. Again turning the other cheek may seem "liberal" but how does that coalesce with condemning a fig tree because it simply wasn't bearing fruit out of season. Certainly "God" condemns for offering grains but in the desert free grain miraculously appears every morning.If we are confining "religious beginnings" to founder's ideology because few founders wrote down their ideology and are more than likely a compendium later imposed upon the founders as interpreters interposed their own ideas upon some human that they utilized to say he taught us such-as-such. Religions as such do not have beginnings other than what others try to impose nostalgically upon founders and these later impositions can at times be conservative or liberal and interpreted either way if they are to any extent reformist both by the reformers and those who see the the forms negatively. Ethical and moral interpretations are to conform adherents into a conduct that supports the interpretations of moral and ethical behaviors. The moral and ethical interpretations are always posterior to the types of behaviour those who want to enrich themselves find the best way to enhance the power of their interpretation and the politically persuasion can never be distinguished as politically left or politically right because the point is to grant to some the interpretation of the rules of behavior to impose upon others as a means to power. A great case in point is the early Hindic Vedas and the seeming spiritualism of the Upanishads probably added to the Vedas as a prevention of losing out to the appeal of the perceived values of Buddhism. The religion of the Hindus perceived by the west that we know today is no more about self-meditation than the original Vedas were but became a money game for some to attract unfamiliar westerners who might be attracted to limited meditative elements in the Upanishads that are themselves presented, once again, in some fashion of Buddhic interpretation, none of which represents either Hindic or Buddaic thought that existed prior to the 1960's.
Religion is a power game to support authority, of both the religion itself, and often remains closely allied with, or is at attempt to usurp the state.I am working on a book at the moment on this and hope to be ready to publish by early next month tentatively to be titled, The Unification Factor in Religion & State.
This is excellent stuff, bravo. Lesser bears would have strung this out into a year of blog posts.
Re. 10: does it bother you any more or less if people say "merely semantics" rather than "merely verbal," or do you see these as equivalent? The first feels a little more specific about the error of conflating a really significant disagreement with a more superficial error of calibrating definitions.
I wonder if part of the reason this deflationary qualification is so popular is that it is itself often a verbal expression of relief that what appears to be a fundamental and problematic disagreement may just be a temporary case of confusion, miscalibration or crossed wires. (Of course, functional differences in language use and categories may still not be a trivial matter and I don't necessarily think this is always easier to address).
On number 25: I would recommend looking into the history of the Latter Day Saints, as the rare example of a unique and successful religion that has emerged in a modern (albeit, early modern) political context. From what I (a non-expert) gather, Joseph Smith didn't have a very developed view of politics, and Brigham Young employed some frontier communitarian structures but also codified racism into the church. Benjamin E. Park id coming out with a big history of the LDS early next year, might be worth a look
Interesting thought in the natural selection and evolution of ideas. What’s also interesting is how beliefs and behaviors can mold over time to remain compatible with shifting biology, as your body “runs down” and becomes less powerful, harder to excite, and more prone to health issues.