Philosophy That Loses Eye Contact Is An Avoidance Technique

[matt_arnold]

I'd like all of you to at least skim this, even if your past experiences with me suggest you aren't going to agree with it. I think on this one, you just might.

This holiday season I heard "don't lose sight" a lot. An interesting phrase. I've been mulling it over for a month. It's common in discussions of values. I think that a lot of talk of "

Comments

[rachelann1977]

Don't lose sight of visible things. So far as I know, there isn't a philosophical "ism" name for that position.

The closest ones I can think of are humanism or pragmatism; do those count?

[matt_arnold]

Probably not. I think that the lack of a label is part of the point. It's kind of a paradox; once you turn it into a philosophical "ism", pretty soon you're probably violating what it's about.

[matt_arnold]

The last time jer_ was over here, we decided to call it "The Church Of Shut Up And Look".

[loop_bell]

But I can almost guarantee that a real Christianist would have a strong male-chauvinistic opinion on the issue [of abortion] that involves either jail or death penalty for the woman, and ironically nothing for the man.

The issue I have is pointing the finger at a larger group and then saying "them." and then pointing at some foul person and saying in effect, "see they're all like foul guy!"

Not to be rude, but to me these two statements seem quite contradictory. How can the "real Christian" be defined by the actions and ideas of those people who are out on the fringe of fanaticism and hold distinctly un-Christian ideas like chauvinism & support for the death penalty?

It's no more true than the idea that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists. Yes, there are people who hold these views and call themselves Muslim. Same as the people calling themselves Christians that you mention. But calling themselves a name, and actually following the teachings of that doctrine are two quite different things.

[matt_arnold]

He did not say "real Christian". He said "real Christianist". This is very different in the same way that "Islamist" is different from "Muslim". The "-ist" words mean that the person believes their faith should be used as governmental law over the land. Essentially, theocracy.

In addition, I really don't agree with you about what your holy book says. I am not willing to concede that you have a better grasp than anybody else does about supposedly "real" Christianity, if there is any such thing. In fact, I think the Bible-believers who raised me are essentially correct in much of their interpretation of scripture. Authentic Christianity follows the plain meaning of the words written by primitives thousands of years ago. What you have is modern Christianity, in which the Bible is twisted to accommodate modern civilized standards with very repugnant source material.

It's like a charming and benevolent balloon animal, made from human intestine.

[loop_bell]

> He did not say "real Christian". He said "real Christianist". This is very different in the same way that "Islamist" is different from "Muslim". The "-ist" words mean that the person believes their faith should be used as governmental law over the land. Essentially, theocracy

[cathyr19355]

Your suggestion about how to handle fanatics is interesting. I'll have to try it sometime. If you try it, please let us all know how well it worked!