How Did You Say?

[ink_ling]

Recently reading sunsmogseahorse's entries on religion -- as well as reading clarkelane's entries about the importance of artists' engaging with critical discourse -- have lead me to think a lot about the roles of religion/spirituality, science, art, and politics/ethics. More than that, they've reminded me to search a seam that unites these discourse/disciplines

Comments

[bix02138]

interesting. your quote reminds me of my fumbling in my discussion with showmeonthedoll recently. maybe i'm not as unoriginal a thinker as i'd feared.

[ink_ling]

Curious: What was the discussion about and what was your "position"?

[bix02138]

i hate to do this to you, but your best bet is to see my various comments in context. his initial rant is here.

i have comments scattered throughout.

as with my response to one of your posts (which i made into a post of my own), the comments are somewhat raw and unprettified.

[ink_ling]

Sorry: That took me a bit. There was a lot to read through and, honestly, I just didn't want to jump back into the logic-abandoned building going on there immediately.

I have to assume that you're being a bit self-effacing when you say, maybe i'm not as unoriginal a thinker as i'd feared. Your comments all seemed cogent, sensitive, and logical. Maybe it's just the loud passing traffic of conflated definitions, mis-used terms, logically broken statements, conveniently mixed modes of discourse, dogmatic self-righteousness and -importance, useless repetition, invective, and "masculine" fetishization of rant that made you feel for a second that you were in a train wreck.

Someone should piece together a college comp primer.

OK: I'm putting this to rest. As usual, too much attention is being paid the antagonist and too little the keepers of sense.

[shawnsyms]

I appreciate your musings about this. Hearing thoughtfulness minus antagonism on this topic is refreshing right now.

[sunsmogseahorse]

But I get up a half hour early every morning just to have more time to antagonize. No one appreciates my efforts. WAAAH!

[faghatesgods]

This is all very cute. As most philosophy is. But what is your point? Nothing here relates to sunsmogseahors's comment. Nothing here justifies religion. Although I get the impression you think it somehow does

[faghatesgods]

Oh and if that sounds angry or bitter, I didn;t intend for it.

I just have no idea what point you are trying to make in regards to the discussion at hand.

Outside of the "Religion vs Science" thing. I do think this kind of phiosophy has value. It's stimulating and forces one to think about their own opinions. The mistake people make with phisophy is that they tend to think it provides answers. It doesn't. It provides questions.

Here, in this discourse, it is very misplaced.

[satarnion]

I struggle with this stuff constantly. Although I like the "line of common thought" you present here, I'm not fully convinced of it. Yes, it's perhaps a more "honest" way of approach reality, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will benefit us and our language, conscience, and community in a good way. A rational and secular world may seek amazing cooperation, but the individual is always presented with opportunities to defect and "free-ride" that, rationally, should be taken. It seems to me that faith must somehow enter the picture to smooth out the infinite number of rough surfaces between each and every individual on the planet.

Still, I am right there with you; all this religion and worship and stuff seems to cause so many problems.

[ink_ling]

I am not fully sure what you mean about the necessity of faith, why it is necessary. Well, I may allow for a "faith" that it's possible society can become more safe, enriching, and just, but I'd prefer that faith to be in our human efforts rather than an external being.

Right now, I am interested in the anatomy of hope and community. It seems that religious folks can build and sustain this where secular "liberals" really can't. Why? And is it impossible?

[mehetabel]

Re: goldangit I do love me some Dick Rorty!

[ink_ling]

I can see that argument, but it's not really mine. I think the only thing that would really suffer would be that, if the general populace bought into science with much more skepticism, there'd be fewer of certain sorts of scientific/technological products sold.

What I tend to shrink back from is how judging something as "work"able doesn't engage similar kinds of appeals to micro-"truths". There seems to be a kind of mysticism behind the movement of history where what works just miraculously rises to the top. That makes my spine rigor a little.