Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Julia Thompson]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:


At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote:

i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has
mellowed and no longer drinks excessively.
  jon




Last time I saw him in person was in 2005.  The
latter condition has indeed made a noticeable
difference since the first time I met him.

(I think that is a simple statement of fact —
which can be verified independently by other witnesses — not "gossip.")


And this seems to be the case in general with people who drink in their 
youth and drink a lot less as they grow older.


Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 06:00 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Charlie Bell wrote:

>On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >
> > I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible
> > about the
> > two.
>
>Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is.
>IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly
>progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two
>would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of
>"non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you
>simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells
>you and how the world appears to actually be, no?
>
> >  My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and
> > engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that
> > their
> > beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't.
>
>Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of
>compartmentalisation?


The usual answer in practice to that question:

If »—› I ‹—« do it, it's because they genuinely don't collide.

If »—› you ‹—« do it, it's because of 
"compartmentalization" (aided perhaps by 
"rationalization" and/or "self-delusion").  ;)


-- Ronn! :)

"People who want to share their religious views 
with you almost never want you to share yours with them."
-- Dave Barry



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote:
>i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has 
>mellowed and no longer drinks excessively.
>   jon



Last time I saw him in person was in 2005.  The 
latter condition has indeed made a noticeable 
difference since the first time I met him.

(I think that is a simple statement of fact — 
which can be verified independently by other witnesses — not "gossip.")


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

dogmatism v. pragmatism

[jon louis mann]

nick,  i remember when i went to my first science fiction convention and i 
realized how diverse fandom was.  i assumed we were all free thinkers and 
learned there were cultists and gays and even christians among us. some of the 
fans didn't even read and were into media and role playing, etc.  what a 
shock!¬)
   
  i should not be surprised that there are CEOs in silicon valley who 
recognizes the need to balance faith, family, and work. the fact that you find 
it challenging to hang on to your faith while witnessing the worst life has to 
offer makes you more human, but i wonder why you feel losing your faith is the 
easy way out?
   
  i am not trying to convert you, but i agree with charlie that is would be 
more courageous to seriously consider the possibility that you have been 
following the wrong path and find meaning without faith.  there is no reason to 
give up your morality and purpose just because you decide not to follow a 
structured set of beliefs.
   
  i was an altar boy, but was never caught up in the dogma.  i couldn't help 
having doubts about what the priests and nuns were teaching me.  it left me 
free to make my own decisions based on all the information available, rather 
than trying to adhere to the out of date catholic indocrination.   
   
  i am actually free of any need to find a way to make any religious beliefs 
conform to scientific theories that would have had me burnt at the stake during 
the inquisation.  that is no longer a danger and we need to get on with 
advancing stem cell research, and other scientific advances that religion is 
attempting to prevent.
  jon
  jon

   
-
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/12/2007, at 11:17 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a
> church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk  
> business,
> urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday  
> -- my
> priority was the church.  Ironically, what I was supposed to be  
> doing was
> practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family,  
> work, etc.

:-)
>
> One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay,  
> even
> encouraged by our CEO.  Others might be less supportive and I'd have  
> to
> decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that  
> as an
> incompatibility.

No, that's not what I meant, of course. But that's an interesting and  
different issue that I think we all have to deal with, and I'm sure  
we'll discuss it again.
>
>
> What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to  
> hang on to
> faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war,  
> suicides,
> trauma of all sorts.  It often seems like it would be much easier to  
> yield
> to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to  
> believe.

Or, indeed, decide as I did that leaving religion and embracing the  
concept that all those things are like they are because it's just how  
it is, and it's actually the brave choice to stand up, say "actually,  
it makes a lot more sense of there isn't a god..." and stop being  
afraid of life and death. That worked for me, and casting away that  
fear and doubt allowed me to start making decisions about my own life  
properly. But I appreciate it neither makes sense to, nor helps, many  
others.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Nick Arnett]

On Dec 5, 2007 4:00 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is.
> IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly
> progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two
> would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of
> "non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you
> simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells
> you and how the world appears to actually be, no?


Not that I can recall.  Certainly not on a regular basis.

There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a
church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk business,
urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday -- my
priority was the church.  Ironically, what I was supposed to be doing was
practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family, work, etc.
One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay, even
encouraged by our CEO.  Others might be less supportive and I'd have to
decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that as an
incompatibility.

What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to hang on to
faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war, suicides,
trauma of all sorts.  It often seems like it would be much easier to yield
to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to believe.

>
> >  My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and
> > engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that
> > their
> > beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't.
>
> Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of
> compartmentalisation?


Depends on the church, I'm sure.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Charlie Bell]

On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible  
> about the
> two.

Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is.  
IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly  
progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two  
would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of  
"non-overlapping magisteria" there are bound to be cases where you  
simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells  
you and how the world appears to actually be, no?

>  My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and
> engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that  
> their
> beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't.

Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of  
compartmentalisation?
>
>
> The real incompatibility is between fear and science.

That's true. So really, it's where religions or ideologies are fear- 
based that they have trouble with dealing with things as they are.  
Well, that explains the Bush Administration...

Charlie.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

dogmatism v. pragmatism

[jon louis mann]

In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-)
Nick

  what is your faith, nick, if you don't mind my asking?  i get that you are a 
christian, but what version?  were you raised in the church, or did you have 
some kind of epiphany?
   
  i personally don't believe one's political bias is determined by whether 
their personal obligations are forced or chosen. perhaps influenced?   i have 
been in both situations and also had a very stern father model. some people 
react against their upbringing and others embrace it, but imho, it is an 
individual choice.  i have two sisters who are republicans, one brother who is 
apolitical and another who is as radically militant as myself.  i hate the 
government in any case, even though i believe government should regulate 
industry and provide social services.
   
  i encountered pournelle for the first time during the reagan years when he 
was involved with sdi.  he would talk about his politics in the mc carthy era 
and was very visible at conventions and the lasfs.  i haven't seen him in years 
but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively.
  jon

   
-
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[PAT MATHEWS]

Lakoff makes more sense if you add the concept of freely chosen obligations 
versus enforced obligations - I forget the precise terminology. The latter 
means that you do what you do because you must - it's your duty as whatever 
your role is. Dharma, in the Hindu usage. The former is, you freely choose 
your obligations and choose to remain faithful to them.

People who believe in the chosen obligations ask "How can you ever trust 
someone forced into staying with you/taking care of Mom/whatever? Being 
enslaved, won't the resent it and do as little as possible or get petty 
revenge?"

People who believe in forced obligations can't imagine being able to ever 
trust any of the chosen-obligation people. After all, didn't they get into 
their marriage, role, or whatever, on a *whim*? And won't they walk out of 
it just as freely?

The mapping onto Lakoff is fairly obvious. And let me add that the 
forced-obligation people tend to be hard-right and the chosen-obligation 
people to be moderate-to-hard left. The reason is that if the government 
takes over the obligations, doesn't that get people off the hook and allow 
them to skip out on doing their bounden duty?

There was a long discussion of this on Ozarque's Journal (lj) some time ago.

http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/

"Now is the winter of our discontent"





>From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
>To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
>Subject: Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
>Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:55:40 -0800
>
>On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >   jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more
> > progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political
> > spectrum.
> >
>
>I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he
>was ever progressive.  The more times I ran into him, the less I could 
>stand
>reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior
>(don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin
>anything.
>
> >
> >  i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the 
>religious
> > right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians 
>support
> > bush when they are victims of his economic policies...
>
>
>George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is 
>politically
>useful, it makes a lot of sense to me.  "Moral Politics" is his book that
>explains it in depth.  The short version is that the right, especially the
>fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a "stern father" concept that all 
>of
>us have and use to one extent or another.  The alternative is to invoke our
>concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues.  But it's sort of like Freud;
>the model works but doesn't seem to be practical.
>
> >
> >  i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox.  that 
>i
> > don't understand, but we are still friends.  if you are raised in a 
>faith,
> > you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to 
>rationalize
> > your faith...  perhaps there is a middle ground?
> >
>
>In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-)
>
>Nick
>
>--
>Nick Arnett
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Messages: 408-904-7198
>___
>http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Nick Arnett]

On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more
> progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political
> spectrum.
>

I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he
was ever progressive.  The more times I ran into him, the less I could stand
reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior
(don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin
anything.

>
>  i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious
> right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support
> bush when they are victims of his economic policies...


George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is politically
useful, it makes a lot of sense to me.  "Moral Politics" is his book that
explains it in depth.  The short version is that the right, especially the
fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a "stern father" concept that all of
us have and use to one extent or another.  The alternative is to invoke our
concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues.  But it's sort of like Freud;
the model works but doesn't seem to be practical.

>
>  i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox.  that i
> don't understand, but we are still friends.  if you are raised in a faith,
> you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize
> your faith...  perhaps there is a middle ground?
>

In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-)

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

dogmatism v. pragmatism

[jon louis mann]

religion and science are incompatible, *for the most part*...
  jon

May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney.

I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of 
community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics that 
might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way to use 
it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis.

I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two.  
My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers 
-- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and 
their science collide, but I assure you that most don't.
The real incompatibility is between fear and science.
Nick

   
  i agree with you about fear and science, nick.  
   
  perhaps i should clarify that i was referring to evangelical fundamentalist 
religious zealots who preach hellfire and damnation, deny evolution and 
translate the christian bible literally.  
   
  that IS incompatible with science, and to put it unkindly, that sort of 
dogmatic religion is baloney, salami, sausage and other meat byproducts from 
intestinal organs.
   
  now, having said that, i do respect those christians who practice the 
teachings of christ, but i draw the line at elevating a mortal to diety status. 
 he was a man, like you and i, just with a highly developed sense of morality, 
in the context of his times.  he was a rebel, and i believe, a commie.  i have 
no problem with his sermon on the mount, or the beatitudes, either.  i admire 
the story of him as a youngster throwing the money changers out of the temple.  
   
  it is institutional religion i abhor.  i generally tolerate 
congregationalists over, say southern baptist schisms, although i marched with 
mlk for civil rights and those kind of political stands i approve.
   
  there are fundamental differences in how  different religions believe 
humanity and the world interact.  religion and politics are an extremely 
volatile mix.  both approach the most profound questions of existence from 
different perspectives and with different agendas.  unfortunately, because of 
the religious right, politics has mutated into a material and spiritual debate 
over issues such as aborttion, capital punishment, education, torture, justice, 
race, eguality, health care, immigration, gender, sexual idenity and much, much 
more.  religion and state are supposed to be separate, at least in america.
   
  i once had this discussion with r.a. lafferty and he got up and walked away. 
he was devoutly catholic and i was mystified how someone so intelligent and 
literate could believe in doctines like papal infalliblibility.  jerry 
pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more progressive, but now is 
way over to the opposite end of the political spectrum.  
   
  i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious 
right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support bush 
when they are victims of his economic policies...
   
  i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox.  that i 
don't understand, but we are still friends.  if you are raised in a faith, you 
either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize your 
faith...  perhaps there is a middle ground?
  jon

   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism

[Nick Arnett]

On Dec 4, 2007 3:11 PM, jon louis mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>  religion and science are incompatible, for the most part


May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney.

I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of
community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics
that might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way
to use it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis.

I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the
two.  My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and
engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their
beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't.

The real incompatibility is between fear and science.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

dogmatism v. pragmatism

[jon louis mann]

  snippits...
   
  Religions are belief systems...
  
If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to 
that faith...
   
  Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like 
religions...

There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their 
aspects...

It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that 
by no means extends to scientific pursuits...
  
there are anti-science forces at work in some religions, no human institution 
is exempt from such corruption...
   
  
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/golden.compass.religion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
   
  the battles between fantasy and religion would be hilarious if the pious 
theophiles were not deadly serious.
   
  religion and science are incompatible, for the most part, but we do need more 
ethics in science and more rationalism in religion.

  the continuing debate over evolution, especially in the 21st century, is 
ludricous, as is the suggestion that evolution is part of 'god's plan... 
   
  the debate about global warming is also ludricrous.  it doesn't matter if 
climate change occurs in cycles, it is still a fact that it is accelerated by 
human impact on the enviornment and is a threat to our civilization. 

   
-
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jon Gabriel]

From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dogmatism
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:11:38 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism
>
> On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnically?
> >
> > His family converted.  It's certainly possible to be a
> > self-hating Jew.
>
> But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself.
That can really be a very complex phenomenon. Gang members seem very full
of themselves, but are often plagued with self doubt and self hate at the
core. As I mentioned in my thread about my Zambian daughter, racist ideas
and stereotypes about blacks seem to have been accepted as true by a number
of blacks.
> >>
> >> Were his statements about the Jewish religion and not
> >> the Jewish people?
> >
> > One of the things that makes Judaism special is that
> > you can't really distinguish the two.
>
> Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking.
Right, just like Maxwell muddled things beyond all hope when he combined
the separate ideas of electricity and magnetism. :-)
The reality is and has been that Jewish identity is complex. (As an aside,
I really don't see that utility of pristine theories that do not take the
messy realities into account).
As far as I see, Jewishness is three fold:

Its inherited, if your parents are Jewish you are Jewish.  (In particular,
if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.)
Its cultural.  One can accept or reject one's Jewish identity.  Rejection
has typically involved turning one's back on extended family and on one's
ancestors.
Interfaith marriage has complicated things even further.

Its a religion. One accepts the Torah as uniquely revealed scripture and
follows the God of Abraham.
As far as the first question is concerned, there had been times when  Jews
were offered the opportunity to become full members of European society by
renouncing their heritage and becoming Christian.  I know that Teri's
father's family opted to become Christians in the 19th century.
And this was historically almost always posed not as a 'choice', but an 
_ultimatum_: convert or die.  The Inquisition is but one example.

Cultural Jews are very common today.  Many Jews are atheists but still
Jews.  They accept their identity, but don't believe in God.  Unlike Teri's
family, the still consider themselves Jewish.
We've discussed this onlist before.  I have doubts that 'Cultural Jews' 
currently outnumber religious Jews.  In general, Jewish organizations and 
temples have been increasing their numbers quite steadily over the last 
decade.

Religious Jews believe in God and actively practice their faith.  Joe
Liberman would be a good example of this type of Jew.
You may consider this nitpicking, but for accuracy's sake I think it's best 
to break this down into specifics.  Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew.  He 
belongs to the smallest, most traditional Jewish sect.  His example would be 
considered extreme by the vast majority of Reform and Conservative religious 
Jews in this country. Observant, religious Jews who practice their faith are 
not necessarily Orthodox.

There are three main sects (commonly referred to as movements) of Jewish 
faith:

Orthodox
Conservative
Reform
Orthodox is considered a "traditional" movement and Reform is a "liberal" 
movement.  Conservative is midway between the two.  The sects follow 
different laws and guidelines and individual levels of religious observance 
vary greatly within each.  For example, there are Conservative Jews who 
observe kosher laws and those who don't.  There are also sects within the 
sects: for instance, there are Traditional Orthodox, Modern Orthodox and 
Reconstructionist Reform Jews.  Try
http://www.nottm.edu.org.uk/ks3/jewfaq/movement.htm for more information.

Jon
GSV Brin-L Encyclopedia
Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com

_
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead?  Your old favorites are always 
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism


>
> On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnically?
> >
> > His family converted.  It's certainly possible to be a
> > self-hating Jew.
>
> But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself.

That can really be a very complex phenomenon. Gang members seem very full
of themselves, but are often plagued with self doubt and self hate at the
core. As I mentioned in my thread about my Zambian daughter, racist ideas
and stereotypes about blacks seem to have been accepted as true by a number
of blacks.


> >>
> >> Were his statements about the Jewish religion and not
> >> the Jewish people?
> >
> > One of the things that makes Judaism special is that
> > you can't really distinguish the two.
>
> Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking.

Right, just like Maxwell muddled things beyond all hope when he combined
the separate ideas of electricity and magnetism. :-)

The reality is and has been that Jewish identity is complex. (As an aside,
I really don't see that utility of pristine theories that do not take the
messy realities into account).

As far as I see, Jewishness is three fold:

Its inherited, if your parents are Jewish you are Jewish.  (In particular,
if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.)

Its cultural.  One can accept or reject one's Jewish identity.  Rejection
has typically involved turning one's back on extended family and on one's
ancestors.

Its a religion. One accepts the Torah as uniquely revealed scripture and
follows the God of Abraham.
As far as the first question is concerned, there had been times when  Jews
were offered the opportunity to become full members of European society by
renouncing their heritage and becoming Christian.  I know that Teri's
father's family opted to become Christians in the 19th century.

Cultural Jews are very common today.  Many Jews are atheists but still
Jews.  They accept their identity, but don't believe in God.  Unlike Teri's
family, the still consider themselves Jewish.

Religious Jews believe in God and actively practice their faith.  Joe
Liberman would be a good example of this type of Jew.

Its hard to fathom "On the Jewish Question" as a discussion of a
theological problem.  Rather, Marx seems to accept as fact that the
inherent problem in Europe is Jewish in character.  I'd argue that his
point is that rejecting this Jewishness in order to accept Christianity, as
his father did, is not enough.  Christianity is too Jewish, one must reject
both Judaism and Christianity.

In doing so, Marx states a multitude of ethnic slurs as facts.  The fact
that he is biologically descended from Jew doesn't undo this.  I think it
is fair to say that he wasn't arguing that its a matter of biology, and
that a Jew who renounced his inherently evil heritage could be a perfectly
good Communist.  However, one cannot deny that the acceptance of
anti-Semitic stereotypes as fact is pervasive in the work.

The best explanation that I can give of 19th century European anti-Semitism
is that it was so pervasive, that it was accepted as fact even by those who
purport to differ with it.  So, it is hard to argue that the anti-Semitism
of Stalin and Lenin was an unnatural addition to Marxism, because it was
accepted in the earliest writings that underlie Marxism.  Rather, one could
argue that anti-Semitism so permeated Europe, that it was even accepted as
fact by people who's ancestors were Jewish.

Dan M.


> > When he talks
> > about the Jewish God being money he was trafficking in
> > the vilest of anti-Semitic stereotypes.
>
> He was a Jew attacking the role of Jews in a Christian society wherein
> money-lending was still regarded as a sin and Jews were tolerated as
> they could perform the valuable service of giving loans with interest.
> The stereotypes he used were the ones of the society he lived in - and
> he was criticizing them.

Could you please show me where in the text that he said those stereotypes
were wrong?  The plain sense of the text is that he was accepting them as
valid.  Nowhere did he say that they were erroneous stereotypes.  Rather,
he stated the stereotypes as one would state facts.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[The Fool]

> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 
> I just typed marx jewish question and got
> 
> http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/
> 
> let me quote from it.
> 
> 
> Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
> exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into
> commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all
things.
> It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and
> nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of
man's
> work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he
> worships it.
> 
> The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of
the
> world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only
an
> illusory bill of exchange.
> 
> The view of nature attained under the domination of private property
and
> money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in
the
> Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in
> imagination.
> 
> It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares
it
> intolerable
> 
> 
> "that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the
> water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures,
too,
> must become free."
> 
> Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself,
which
> is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real,
> conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The
species-relation
> itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of
> trade! The woman is bought and sold.
> The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the
> merchant, of the man of money in general.
> 
> 

Replace the word jew with corporation, and he might eveb make sense:

> Money is the jealous god of Corporatism, in face of which no other god
may
> exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into
> commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all
things.
> It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and
> nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of
man's
> work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he
> worships it.
> 
> The god of the corporations has become secularized and has become the
god of the
> world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the corporation. His god
is only an
> illusory bill of exchange.
> 
> The view of nature attained under the domination of private property
and
> money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in
the
> corporate religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in
> imagination.
> 
> It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares
it
> intolerable
> 
> 
> "that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the
> water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures,
too,
> must become free."
> 
> Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself,
which
> is contained in an abstract form in the corporate religion, is the
real,
> conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The
species-relation
> itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of
> trade! The woman is bought and sold.
> The chimerical nationality of the corporation is the nationality of of
the
> merchant, of the man of money in general.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jan Coffey]

--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly?
> 
> His family converted.  It's certainly possible to be a
> self-hating Jew.

Oh come on! That's a stretch and you know it. I think you will agree that it
is more likely that he made the distinction you do not.

> > Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not
> > the Jewish people?
> 
> One of the things that makes Judaism special is that
> you can't really distinguish the two.  

I knwo a lot of friends who are very proud to be jewish, but are athiests, so
exactly how many such individuals do we need to document before it falsafise
your assertian that there is not a destinction?

> When he talks
> about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in
> the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes.

I personaly do not believe that stereotype, even when discussing religion.
However, he is specificaly discussing religion and therefore ideas not
ethnicity. Is it vile to have differing views from another's ideas? We may
agree that Communism is a bad idea and that the way that communist act in the
world is not benificial to a greater society, but that doesn't mean that we
think that any Rusians are bad people. There is a distinction.


> > Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all
> > religions?
> 
> He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_.

That is a good point, but he did write plenty that clearly showed his views
about christianity as well. It also wouldn't have been politicaly feasable
for him to have written that document at that time. 

Once again, I am not agreeing with his viewpoint, and I am not "taking up for
him" in the slightest. I disagree with nearly everything he had to say. I
don't personaly like religion of any sort for me personaly, but I that
doesn't mean that I agree with his assesmnet of the Jewish faith. Please do
keep this in mind. There is a distinction even here.

> > Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion
> > to be a racesist? Are
> > the two not distict and seperate?
> 
> They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not
> to be.  

I disagree. The most outspoken critics of the Jewish faith are generaly Jews.
(At least in my circles). I will say that the idea that anyone who is anti
Judaism is anti jew, is a dangerous consept. There is no group which should
be beyond critisim. No matter what has happened in the past.

> Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion -
> pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank.

Yes I agree. So when one speaks today about the two one must be very specific
about which one they are refering to. I am not so sure that at that time, one
_who himself was ~ethnicaly~ jewish_ would have bothered making the
distinction. It is clear in such a case that he would have been refering to
the religion. 

Sophistry is such an issue here in both directions, claiming that someone who
disaproves of a religion is a raceist is just as bad. 

> 
> > I must read the whole thing, but from what I can
> > tell, it seems that you are
> > mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with
> > all religions, he does
> > not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and
> > therefore classifying him
> > as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of
> > the converstation we were
> > having.
> 
> Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_. 
> If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific
> animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find
> similar statements against other religions in his work
> _of the same intensity and focus_.  And you can't,
> because they don't exist.

That is not what I learned in school. And I think that is what everyone
learned as well. Since you are the scolar, why don't you enlighten us as to
why this well known fact is not the case. To be quite honest, I don't have
the time, or the pacience, to study the writings of someone so infuriating. I
don't know why I would have learned that Marx was an athiest if he wasn't.
Quite frankly I do not care.

But anyway you have stated enough here to make my point that people do not
make distinctions about information, they come to the expression with
pre-concieved notions about what sets of consepts automaticaly belong with
what other sets of consepts. Quite simply Dogmatism: a viewpoint or system of
ideas based on insufficiently examined premises.


> > Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas,
> > but hate for any particular
> > racial group doesn't seem to be one of them.
> > 
> > Since you are so versed in the document, why don't
> > you point out where he
> > specifies anything to the

Re: Dogmatism

[Reggie Bautista]

William T. Goodall wrote:
Discrimination based on one's intelligence, athleticism or beauty...
... is just shallow?  :-)

Or did you mean discrimination based on definition 2 below?

Dictionary.com defines discrimination as:

1)  The act of discriminating.
2)  The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3)  Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than
individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; 
discrimination
against foreigners.

If you hire someone because they are smart, and you need someone smart
in the position you are hiring for, is it discrimination?  By definition 2, 
maybe.
By definition 3, I would argue it is not.  You are simply hiring someone 
based
on their individual merit and how well they would fit the job.  That would 
not
be definition 3 discrimination.  The same would hold for hiring someone
beautiful to be a model or hiring someone athletic to play for your sports 
team.

Reggie Bautista

_
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead?  Your old favorites are always 
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! 
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[William T Goodall]

On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly?
His family converted.  It's certainly possible to be a
self-hating Jew.
But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself.

Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not
the Jewish people?
One of the things that makes Judaism special is that
you can't really distinguish the two.
Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking.

When he talks
about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in
the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes.
He was a Jew attacking the role of Jews in a Christian society wherein 
money-lending was still regarded as a sin and Jews were tolerated as 
they could perform the valuable service of giving loans with interest. 
The stereotypes he used were the ones of the society he lived in - and 
he was criticizing them.

Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all
religions?
He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_.
"On the Jewish Problem" pretty even-handedly dishes out to Christianity 
too :)

Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion
to be a racesist? Are
the two not distict and seperate?
They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not
to be.  Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion -
pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank.
Pretending that short-circuits debate is sophistry, to be frank :)


I must read the whole thing, but from what I can
tell, it seems that you are
mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with
all religions, he does
not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and
therefore classifying him
as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of
the converstation we were
having.
Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_.
If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific
animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find
similar statements against other religions in his work
_of the same intensity and focus_.  And you can't,
because they don't exist.
That would be the "this footnote doesn't have a footnote" argument :)

Luckily for me, Dan M. did that for me.

Look, Jan, you don't have to believe Marx was an
anti-semite if you don't want to.  You can argue with
the textual evidence all you want.  I think you might
want to be a little more restrained in suggesting that
someone doesn't know anything about a subject, though.
 I didn't call you on it - I was pretty confident that
everyone on the list knows that I know my way around
political philosophy without me waving my resume
around.  But it didn't exactly strengthen your
argument here.
So that would be the appeal to the resume argument then?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly?

His family converted.  It's certainly possible to be a
self-hating Jew.
> 
> Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not
> the Jewish people?

One of the things that makes Judaism special is that
you can't really distinguish the two.  When he talks
about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in
the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes.
> 
> Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all
> religions?

He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_.

> Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion
> to be a racesist? Are
> the two not distict and seperate?

They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not
to be.  Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion -
pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank.

> I must read the whole thing, but from what I can
> tell, it seems that you are
> mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with
> all religions, he does
> not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and
> therefore classifying him
> as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of
> the converstation we were
> having.

Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_. 
If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific
animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find
similar statements against other religions in his work
_of the same intensity and focus_.  And you can't,
because they don't exist.
> 
> Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas,
> but hate for any particular
> racial group doesn't seem to be one of them.
> 
> Since you are so versed in the document, why don't
> you point out where he
> specifies anything to the contrary.
> _
>Jan William Coffey

Luckily for me, Dan M. did that for me.

Look, Jan, you don't have to believe Marx was an
anti-semite if you don't want to.  You can argue with
the textual evidence all you want.  I think you might
want to be a little more restrained in suggesting that
someone doesn't know anything about a subject, though.
 I didn't call you on it - I was pretty confident that
everyone on the list knows that I know my way around
political philosophy without me waving my resume
around.  But it didn't exactly strengthen your
argument here.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[William T Goodall]

On 4 Nov 2003, at 1:23 am, Jan Coffey wrote:

--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Spock would say when confronted in such a way,
...Indeed.
He did, however, sound to me like one of many
"Everyone who isn't a staunch
conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of
thinker. If he can come off that
way to someone such as myself then he definitely
needs to back up his claims
that Marx was an anti-Semite.
Have you _read_ "On the Jewish Question?"  William and
I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it
considerably more with someone else on the list.
William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer.
 As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the
book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did
not go far enough_.
Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly?

Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people?

Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions?

I admit I have not read all of "On the Jewish Question" but from 
skimming it
and reading the first bit it does not seem to speak of Jews as an 
ethnic
group but as a religious group. It does not seem to suggest any 
opression of
that religious group. Granted I have not read all of it.

Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? 
Are
the two not distict and seperate?

Can one not for instance disaprove of Islam while at the same time have
nothing at all against arabs? Or disaprove of Christianity while not 
having a
promlem with Aglos, or Disaprove of Budhism while having nothing at all
against Asians?

Does any Jew hate East Indians becouse of the apparent idol worship in
Hinduism?
Would a Protistant in Northern Iserland hate me simply becouse my last 
name
is Coffey?

I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that 
you are
mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he 
does
not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore 
classifying him
as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation 
we were
having.

Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any 
particular
racial group doesn't seem to be one of them.

Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where 
he
specifies anything to the contrary.

Discrimination based on one's parentage (race), sex, sexual orientation 
and  age are all obviously unfair because one doesn't get to choose 
those.

Discrimination based on one's political, religious and other 
affiliations is arguably reasonable if those affiliations are directly 
related to the situation - a vegetarian group might not want to hire a 
venison-eating hunter as PR person.

Discrimination based on one's intelligence, athleticism or beauty... 
well  :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs.  -- Robert Firth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jan Coffey]

--- Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As Spock would say when confronted in such a way,
> > ...Indeed.
> > 
> > He did, however, sound to me like one of many
> > "Everyone who isn't a staunch
> > conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of
> > thinker. If he can come off that
> > way to someone such as myself then he definitely
> > needs to back up his claims
> > that Marx was an anti-Semite. 
> 
> Have you _read_ "On the Jewish Question?"  William and
> I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it
> considerably more with someone else on the list. 
> William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer.
>  As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the
> book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did
> not go far enough_.  

Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly?

Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people?

Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions?

I admit I have not read all of "On the Jewish Question" but from skimming it
and reading the first bit it does not seem to speak of Jews as an ethnic
group but as a religious group. It does not seem to suggest any opression of
that religious group. Granted I have not read all of it.

Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are
the two not distict and seperate?

Can one not for instance disaprove of Islam while at the same time have
nothing at all against arabs? Or disaprove of Christianity while not having a
promlem with Aglos, or Disaprove of Budhism while having nothing at all
against Asians?

Does any Jew hate East Indians becouse of the apparent idol worship in
Hinduism? 

Would a Protistant in Northern Iserland hate me simply becouse my last name
is Coffey? 

I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are
mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does
not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him
as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were
having.

Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any particular
racial group doesn't seem to be one of them.

Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where he
specifies anything to the contrary.



=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[William T Goodall]

On 3 Nov 2003, at 7:59 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Spock would say when confronted in such a way,
...Indeed.
He did, however, sound to me like one of many
"Everyone who isn't a staunch
conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of
thinker. If he can come off that
way to someone such as myself then he definitely
needs to back up his claims
that Marx was an anti-Semite.
Have you _read_ "On the Jewish Question?"  William and
I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it
considerably more with someone else on the list.
Marx was the atheist son of Jews who converted to Christianity to get 
ahead in society. He was anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity. The most 
intelligible reading of "On the Jewish Question" is that by Jew he 
means someone following the Jewish religion rather than someone of 
Jewish descent. Anti-Semitism normally means both. Unless you think his 
tirade was directed against himself.

William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer.
 As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the
book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did
not go far enough_.
Not far enough in the sense that Marx thought that rather than Jews 
adopting Christianity, both Jews and Christians should give up 
religion...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs.  -- Robert Firth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 11/2/2003 1:30:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and
> Stalin's anti-semitism.  "On the Jewish Question" is
> so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity
> of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always
> confused the hell out of me.

Well, one can like a philosophy without liking the philosopher or at least all of his 
views. Of course Marx was the grandson of one the important Rabbi's in his section of 
Germany. His father rejected his religion like many other jews of that period.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Deborah Harrell]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> ...He gave the work of Marx that he based his
> opinion on.  Its easy
> to find and read on the web; its quite short.
> I just typed marx jewish question and got
> 
> http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/
> 
> let me quote from it.
 

Part II _was_ short (and besides being anti-Jewish
seems anti-Christian as well, just somewhat less so);
Part I was _not_ short, and I'm very glad you didn't
say 'light reading' either as it was heavy slogging
(OK, not as bad as some other philosophical texts I've
read)... ;) ). 

Good thing I'm wearing knee-high boots, though.  Both
of these treatises were full of unjustified
assumptions, grand generalizations, and what I can
only call 'statements of rabid fervor.'  When you make
up your own definitions of words and phrases, I guess
it's easy to come to 'logical conclusions.'  :P
In my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

>From Part I:
"...Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in
himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual
human being has become a species-being in his everyday
life, in his particular work, and in his particular
situation, only when man has recognized and organized
his "own powers" as -social powers, and, consequently,
no longer separates social power from himself in the
shape of political power, only then will human
emancipation have been accomplished."

An individual is never an abstract being, and while we
reduce populations to predictable statistics, the
individual is not solely constrained within them. 
>From this paper, I'd put Marx in the "I love Mankind,
but find people despicable" category of elitism. 
(Admittedly not having read any more of his work than
this and the little I remember from a couple of
college courses.)

Debbi
Four Feet Good, Two Feet Better Maru

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

I'll bite Re: Dogmatism

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Dan Minette wrote:

> Lots of things that are true should be but are not common knowledge.  
> The reasons for this could be the subject of a long thread. :-)

I would be interested in reading such a thread.  Care to begin it?  :)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism


> As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed.
>
> He did, however, sound to me like one of many "Everyone who isn't a
staunch
> conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of thinker.

Well, he certainly wasn't foolish enough to call Tom anti-Semetic. :-)

>If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely
needs to back up his claims
> that Marx was an anti-Semite.

He did.  He gave the work of Marx that he based his opinion on.  Its easy
to find and read on the web; its quite short.

I just typed marx jewish question and got

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/

let me quote from it.


Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into
commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things.
It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and
nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's
work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he
worships it.

The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the
world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an
illusory bill of exchange.

The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and
money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the
Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in
imagination.

It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares it
intolerable


"that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the
water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too,
must become free."

Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which
is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real,
conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation
itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of
trade! The woman is bought and sold.
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the
merchant, of the man of money in general.






>
> You would think that if Marx was an anti-Semite, we would have learned
that
> in my survey course. We did after all learn that many Germans of the time
> were.


> Dan, you have many times requested references, and in this case I think
that
> some reference is warranted. We are talking about what someone said after
> all. What Gautam has said is to me akin to being told that Hitler was a
> Communist, or that Stalin was a Christian.

He gave the reference.



Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and
Stalin's anti-semitism.  "On the Jewish Question" is
so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity
of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always
confused the hell out of me.
 

> You can't just blurt stuff like that out with out some proof. You would
think
> that if it were the case, then it would be just as common knowledge as
that
> Stalin was an Atheist and Hitler hated Communism.

I certainly knew it for a long time. I guess that simply reflects the
differences in the schools we went to.  I studied origional works of
philosophy from my freshman year on.  I tend to have a bias towards that
tyoe of study.

Lots of things that are true should be but are not common knowledge.  The
reasons for this could be the subject of a long thread. :-)

> Besides, if you are going to say something so incredible, and
provocative,
> and you have the credentials to be believed, then you have the
responsibility
> to at least list said credentials.

But, it wasn't incredible and provocative.  How could any serious student
of Marxism not think of "On the Jewish Question" when trying to understand
Marx's philosophy with regards to the Jews?

>Otherwise it's just another form of
> trolling. Intellectual trolling, is no better than the idiotic variety.
If
> you have such a position then you gain a lot of responsibility, wouldn't
you
> say? Responsibility like that of a black belt not to get into a fight,
since
> such a fight might be lethal for the opponent.


You didn't know Gautam went to Harvard?  I guess those of us who are old
timers just took it for granted. This exact subject has been debated at
length here too, probably before you were on list.

The thing that I objected to was assuming you knew more than you did about
Gautam. I really don't understand why you didn't ask for a quote from "On
the Jewish Question"

I significantly differ with the idea th

Re: Dogmatism

[Deborah Harrell]

--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> So the Scopes trial was a case of throwing out the
> baby with the bath 
> water? I can see that people objecting to the
> nonsense of Social 
> Darwinism could get it conflated with biological
> Darwinism, but I 
> didn't know it actually happened. I thought Scopes
> was purely about the teaching of evolution in
school.

Weeel, there mighta been a teensy bit o' good ole
Southern grandstandin', don't ya know...  ;)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/e_drugstore.html
"It began over cokes and phosphates in a drugstore in
Dayton, Tennessee. A little scheme to boost the local
economy exploded into the trial of the century. The
defendant wasn't even guilty -- but nobody cared.
After all, two of America's greatest orators were
coming to town. And the whole world was watching.

"The story of how the Scopes trial began -- as a
publicity stunt in a small town drugstore -- has
fascinated people for over 75 years...It was at
Robinson's drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee where, in
1925, a group of town boosters hatched one of the most
famous schemes in history, taking up an ACLU challenge
to try Tennessee's anti-evolution law. The group
believed a big trial would put their town on the map,
and they conceived their plan sitting around one of
Robinson's tables. According to historian Edward
Larson, "Those were the days of Prohibition so the
strongest thing they could drink was Coca-Cola!"...

"...Reporter H. L. Mencken had his own inimitable
opinion of the town and its famous drugstore. "It
would be hard to imagine a more moral town than
Dayton. ...There is no gambling. There is no place to
dance. The relatively wicked, when they would indulge
themselves, go to Robinson's drug store and debate
theology..."

Talk About Yer Snowballin' Maru   :)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Spock would say when confronted in such a way,
> ...Indeed.
> 
> He did, however, sound to me like one of many
> "Everyone who isn't a staunch
> conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of
> thinker. If he can come off that
> way to someone such as myself then he definitely
> needs to back up his claims
> that Marx was an anti-Semite. 

Have you _read_ "On the Jewish Question?"  William and
I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it
considerably more with someone else on the list. 
William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer.
 As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the
book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did
not go far enough_.  

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jan Coffey]

As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed.

He did, however, sound to me like one of many "Everyone who isn't a staunch
conservative is out to get the Jews" kind of thinker. If he can come off that
way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims
that Marx was an anti-Semite. 

Hay, I'm a conservative myself, I favor Capitalism and Democracy, and I am
definitely not an anti-Semite. 

There was a time before I could drive that I considered the benefits of a
more highly structured system such as Marxism. I read just about everything I
could find on the subject. I decided that the benefits were unattainable. But
I do not recall at any time reading anything about Marx as an anti-Semite, or
anything that would have suggested such from his writings. 

You would think that if Marx was an anti-Semite, we would have learned that
in my survey course. We did after all learn that many Germans of the time
were.

Dan, you have many times requested references, and in this case I think that
some reference is warranted. We are talking about what someone said after
all. What Gautam has said is to me akin to being told that Hitler was a
Communist, or that Stalin was a Christian. 

You can't just blurt stuff like that out with out some proof. You would think
that if it were the case, then it would be just as common knowledge as that
Stalin was an Atheist and Hitler hated Communism.

Besides, if you are going to say something so incredible, and provocative,
and you have the credentials to be believed, then you have the responsibility
to at least list said credentials. Otherwise it's just another form of
trolling. Intellectual trolling, is no better than the idiotic variety. If
you have such a position then you gain a lot of responsibility, wouldn't you
say? Responsibility like that of a black belt not to get into a fight, since
such a fight might be lethal for the opponent.


 

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Dogmatism
> 
> 
> >
> > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Dogmatism
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has
> not
> > > > studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic
> > > group.
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan?
> >
> > I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political
> > systems. We spent 3 weeks on Marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other
> 10 on
> > other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy.
> >
> > Why do you ask?
> 
> Because, as far as I can tell, you took a swipe at Gautam's education in
> the field.   He received a degree in government from Harvard, with a
> specialization in international affairs. His thesis advisor was Stanley
> Hoffman, who is one of the two or three most accomplished liberal thinkers
> in international relations. He Marxism professor was Harvey Mansfield, who
> is considered the foremost conservative political philosopher.
> 
> Gautam also worked at the John F. Kennedy school of government at Harvard,
> specializing in Russian affairs.
> 
> I know that Dr. Hoffman thought very well of Gautam's work, even though
> he's liberal and Gautam's conservative.  Its hard to fathom anyone having
> such a favorable impression of someone who is ignorant and dogmatic in
> opposition to one's own beliefs.  Gaining such a favorable review from one
> of the most respected writers who disagrees with you typically indicates
> real talent.
> 
> Given that, I was very curious to see what gave you the bases for
> dismissing very well respected Harvard professors out of hand.  With all
> due respect, I do not believe that having taken a survey course from
> someone who's name you cannot remember is sufficient basis for such
> dismissal.**
> 
> That doesn't mean that you need to lie down and play dead if Gautam writes
> something you disagree with.  I don't have a Harvard education in political
> science, and I'm more than willing to take him on, as the archives of
> brin-l over the last 5+ years should show.  However, in our di

Re: Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism


>
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: Dogmatism
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has
not
> > > studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic
> > group.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan?
>
> I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political
> systems. We spent 3 weeks on Marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other
10 on
> other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy.
>
> Why do you ask?

Because, as far as I can tell, you took a swipe at Gautam's education in
the field.   He received a degree in government from Harvard, with a
specialization in international affairs. His thesis advisor was Stanley
Hoffman, who is one of the two or three most accomplished liberal thinkers
in international relations. He Marxism professor was Harvey Mansfield, who
is considered the foremost conservative political philosopher.

Gautam also worked at the John F. Kennedy school of government at Harvard,
specializing in Russian affairs.

I know that Dr. Hoffman thought very well of Gautam's work, even though
he's liberal and Gautam's conservative.  Its hard to fathom anyone having
such a favorable impression of someone who is ignorant and dogmatic in
opposition to one's own beliefs.  Gaining such a favorable review from one
of the most respected writers who disagrees with you typically indicates
real talent.

Given that, I was very curious to see what gave you the bases for
dismissing very well respected Harvard professors out of hand.  With all
due respect, I do not believe that having taken a survey course from
someone who's name you cannot remember is sufficient basis for such
dismissal.**

That doesn't mean that you need to lie down and play dead if Gautam writes
something you disagree with.  I don't have a Harvard education in political
science, and I'm more than willing to take him on, as the archives of
brin-l over the last 5+ years should show.  However, in our disagreements,
I know that Gautam is a very reasonable person who just happens to be wrong
on a particular issue. :-)

As an aside, what I'd really like to see is Gautam and Ritu go at it over
international affairs.  Both are very articulate debaters who tend to
appreciate the subtleties of a problem. They have fascinating
similarities/differences in background as an Indian and as a second
generation American of Indian decent.  Further, neither tends to devolve
into a polemic arguments when debating ideas.

Dan M.

** If it wasn't Gautam you were dissing, I've misunderstood your post.
But, I looked at who replied to Tom before you did and his post was the
only one I saw.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jan Coffey]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Dogmatism
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not
> > studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic
> group.
> 
> Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan?

I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political
systems. We spent 3 weeks on marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other 10 on
other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy. 

Why do you ask?



=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism


> > And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call
> > Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the
> > former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say!
> >
>
> Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian
> Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to
come
> first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia,

The teacher that taught my Marxism course made some mention of writings of
Marx just before he died that seemed to indicate that he was at least
looking at the possibility that steps could be skipped.

But, what is really crucial in Marxism is the total lack of the importance
of the individual.  Its all historical forces; akin to the forces of
nature.  Individuals exist only as part of a class; the class conflict is
inevitable.

Marx wrote late enough to be aware of democratic/republican government,
which was grounded in the Enlightenment. One of the faults of Marxism is
that it fails to take into account how flexible and durable such a
government can be.  I would argue that Marx should have known better, after
the US government survived its extreem test in the early 1860s.

Dan M.


and he would
> have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every
other
> possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors
did in
> the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

Everything, including collectivism, the proletariat seizing the assets of
the bourgeois?

Look at one of the Marxism pages, such as

 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html

It is clear that the proletariat rules by force.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was actually written as a defense of the Jews
> against Bruno Bauer's 
> argument that Jews should not be granted full civic
> rights unless they 
> converted to Christianity.

That's not my interpretation at all, I'm afraid.  It
was written as a _response_ to Bruno Bauer's argument,
but I don't quite see how you can call it a defense. 
It's fundamental thrust was that the problem with the
Jews was that they were too Jewish, after all, and
that Jews were essence of everything bad about
capitalist society.  

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Dogmatism



>
> And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not
> studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic
group.

Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Jan Coffey]

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend
> of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip.  He pointed out
> that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start
> until the 20s.  At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head;
> and folks took notice.  The real fight was between fundamentalists and
> folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather
> general at the time) scientific theory.

.

Tom Beck wrot:
>> And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call
>> Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the
>> former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say!
>> 

>Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian 
>Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to
>come 
>first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia, and he
>would 
>have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every
>other 
>possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors did
>in 
>the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not
studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group.



This happens all the time. While in a conversation about the movie Starship
Troopers, an associate stated that it was unfortunate that the uniforms
looked so much like Nazi uniforms. I then stated that it wasn't unfortunate
at all, that Nazi's definatly had good tailors and fashion designers, and
that their uniforms looked really cool. 

I spent what must have been 3 weeks trying to get the group to see the
difference between that statment and believing that the Nazis were the good
guys. I still think they think I am a fasciest.

It remids me of getting excpelled in high school for choosing Edelwiss as my
chior solo. A group of jewish parents couldn't sperate the idea of a great
song from a greate movie with some political meaning. 

People make generalizations, they make associations and combinations, and
then they assume that this combination and association is allways true. 

People need to wake up from this, not doing so is allowing your mind to be
controled by someone with some agenda.

=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[William T Goodall]

On 2 Nov 2003, at 6:30 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and
Stalin's anti-semitism.  "On the Jewish Question" is
so viciously anti-semitic
It was actually written as a defense of the Jews against Bruno Bauer's 
argument that Jews should not be granted full civic rights unless they 
converted to Christianity.

that the historical affinity
of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always
confused the hell out of me.
Marx was a Jewish intellectual :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're 
on.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34
> years before the Russian 
> Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have
> approved) Communism to come 
> first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country
> like Russia, and he would 
> have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted,
> shocked and in every other 
> possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin
> and their successors did in 
> the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.
> 
> Tom Beck

I doubt it. Although Marx certainly wouldn't have
wanted communism to come to Russia first, everything
that _happened_ in Russia is a logical outgrowth of
his beliefs.  Marx certainly would have had great
sympathy for the methods Lenin and Stalin used - they
follow from his philosophy fairly clearly.  The
dictatorship part of "dictatorship of the proletariat"
was not a misnomer.

Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and
Stalin's anti-semitism.  "On the Jewish Question" is
so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity
of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always
confused the hell out of me.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[TomFODW]

> And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call
> Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the
> former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say!
> 

Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian 
Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to come 
first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia, and he would 
have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every other 
possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors did in 
the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.



Tom Beck

www.prydonians.org
www.mercerjewishsingles.org

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the 
last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Dogmatism

[William T Goodall]

On 2 Nov 2003, at 4:00 am, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: religious/political question



Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition
'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because
it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the
figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are 
not
religion at all in a normal sense.
And, IIRC, you jumped all over me when I was making that argument.  You
even alleged that my momma sewed socks that smell. :-)
I wouldn't call you any more or less religious than a Marxist.
And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call 
Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the 
former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say!

 People with
theist, non-theist, and atheistic viewpoints can be dogmatic about 
their
metaphysical beliefs.  One of the manifestations of dogmatism that I 
have
noticed over the years is the attitude that "error has no rights."  
Another
is the denial of data that contradicts a priori belief.  A third is the
metaphorical extrapolation that is then taken as literal truth.
Like metaphysics ? :)

Religions can be quite undogmatic when needs must. The LDS positions on 
polygamy and the cut of the sacred undergarments for example...

An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist 
friend
of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip.  He pointed 
out
that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really 
start
until the 20s.  At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly 
head;
and folks took notice.  The real fight was between fundamentalists and
folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit 
rather
general at the time) scientific theory.
So the Scopes trial was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath 
water? I can see that people objecting to the nonsense of Social 
Darwinism could get it conflated with biological Darwinism, but I 
didn't know it actually happened. I thought Scopes was purely about the 
teaching of evolution in school.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs.  -- Robert Firth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Dogmatism

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: religious/political question




> Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition
> 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because
> it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the
> figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not
> religion at all in a normal sense.

And, IIRC, you jumped all over me when I was making that argument.  You
even alleged that my momma sewed socks that smell. :-)

I wouldn't call you any more or less religious than a Marxist.  People with
theist, non-theist, and atheistic viewpoints can be dogmatic about their
metaphysical beliefs.  One of the manifestations of dogmatism that I have
noticed over the years is the attitude that "error has no rights."  Another
is the denial of data that contradicts a priori belief.  A third is the
metaphorical extrapolation that is then taken as literal truth.

An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend
of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip.  He pointed out
that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start
until the 20s.  At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head;
and folks took notice.  The real fight was between fundamentalists and
folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather
general at the time) scientific theory.

Dan M.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l