Kinda Sorta Theological/Philosophical Conundrum

[keenir]

i'm more talking about how inherently big a deal a claim is. if I say "i'll sell you nice lemonade, come here", it's different from "i'll save you from the omnipocalypse in which your soul will be captured by the demon and consumed, digested for a billion trillion years before he destroys and then reforms you only to consume you again, but not without before making you watch for a thousand lifetimes of the universe as everyone you care about is horribly tortured forever, come here"

I'm sure you could make the purchase of lemonade equally verbose and horrific to contemplate.

more seriously, then shouldn't you be comparing things that are equally inherently big deals in your view?

though you may be overestimating how big a deal things are. if one believes in reincarnation or heaven, then going to do those, are normal and not big deals to believers. being horrified at being reincarnated is like being horrified that your body is subject to gravity.

[Torco]

The idea isn't that the real world isn't real... the usual Christian idea, in fact, is that God will do some reforms, but in this world... that's why the idea is that Christ comes back, rather than that we go to a "more real world" where he is. The idea is not to attain the same sort of hyperreality as God.

I think that's what you find in the bible, but in religiosity (i.e. the kinds of things religious people say and do to us and to each other, as opposed to what theologians say is official doctrine) it seems to me that "good people go to heaven" and "after you die you go to heaven" are, at least, also common. There's actually quite a bit of varieties to choose from as to the question of what happens after death within abrahamic traditions, from purgatory to 'the dead remain dead until resurrection' to just being a shade to reincarnation in some forms of judaism (yes really, i didn't know either)

though you may be overestimating how big a deal things are. if one believes in reincarnation or heaven, then going to do those, are normal and not big deals to believers. being horrified at being reincarnated is like being horrified that your body is subject to gravity.

salient doesn't entail relevant: big deal here means, to be more formal, how totalizing a narrative is regarding one's life. if death is not actually real, and you can go to a good afterlife and a bad afterlife, then it's rational to dedicate a great amount of one's life to the attaining of the good afterlife (no matter how much better your life would be if you didn't try as hard, it's not going to be AN ETERNITY OF INFINITE BLISS better). by contrast, if capitalism is basically a pyramid scheme, or a system of control, then you may dedicate singificant effort to its destruction as a matter of principle, but it doesn't make sense to die for that, since you're not going to go to communist heaven or anything. at the other extreme, if broccoli is a gift from the god Bamak, the that fact demands almost nothing from you even if you believe it: maybe you'll thank Bamak next time you eat a bit, maybe you'll even make it a point to always grow some broccoli in your garden. It's basically a matter of how much it works with Pascal's wager, I suppose.

[keenir]

though you may be overestimating how big a deal things are. if one believes in reincarnation or heaven, then going to do those, are normal and not big deals to believers. being horrified at being reincarnated is like being horrified that your body is subject to gravity.

salient doesn't entail relevant:

?

big deal here means, to be more formal, how totalizing a narrative is regarding one's life. if death is not actually real, and you can go to a good afterlife and a bad afterlife, then it's rational to dedicate a great amount of one's life to the attaining of the good afterlife (no matter how much better your life would be if you didn't try as hard, it's not going to be AN ETERNITY OF INFINITE BLISS better).

Except it will be that much better...because Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Christianity state that you get the better outcome if you at least try doing good during your life. (as opposed to what Scrooge did in that Dickens story)

by contrast, if capitalism is basically a pyramid scheme, or a system of control, then you may dedicate singificant effort to its destruction as a matter of principle, but it doesn't make sense to die for that,

except people do, i'm pretty sure. not sure theres anything people have refused to die for.

[zompist]

big deal here means, to be more formal, how totalizing a narrative is regarding one's life. if death is not actually real, and you can go to a good afterlife and a bad afterlife, then it's rational to dedicate a great amount of one's life to the attaining of the good afterlife (no matter how much better your life would be if you didn't try as hard, it's not going to be AN ETERNITY OF INFINITE BLISS better). [...] It's basically a matter of how much it works with Pascal's wager, I suppose.

I think you're seriously mistaking what motivates believers. Do you really think most people just don't care about this world, or that they make calculations based on the infinite good that supposedly awaits them elsewhere?

As a case in point, my dad-- not a very orthodox believer-- found it comforting to think that my mother, after she died, was present somehow and observing him. That's not hard to understand, or some terrible religious delusion, is it? That's about the level of belief in "heaven" that, I'd submit, most people are interested in.

Depictions of heaven are usually quite shallow. About all that anyone can come up with is images of companionship, relaxation, and maybe some contemplation of the deity. Look at Dante's Divine Comedy: the most interesting part, and probably the only part most people read, is the Inferno. People can get some comfort out of the idea of heaven; it's hard to believe that it's an obsession for anyone. There's barely anything to think about in the doctrine.

[hwhatting]

Today's SMBC is relevant to the discussion.
On the whole, I don't really have a dog in this fight - I don't believe in god and so I don't have to tie myself into knots in order to explain god's behaviour.

[Ares Land]

I think the least honest kind of preacher -- you know, the fire-and-brimstone kind -- does use some arguments similar to the one Torco describes. I'm using 'preacher' here, but you'll these types for any religion.
It's not unlike Jack Chich tracts, for instance.

I don't think even these preachers take it seriously. It's a pretty shallow reason to believe.

Also, what the hell (pun intended) was wrong with Jack Chick?

[Raphael]

Also, what the hell (pun intended) was wrong with Jack Chick?

I might have gotten this wrong, but I kind of got the impression that he came from a background, tradition, and environment where the kind of ideas he spread were seen as perfectly normal and mainstream. But people who know more about the various religious subcultures in the US should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[zompist]

I think the least honest kind of preacher -- you know, the fire-and-brimstone kind -- does use some arguments similar to the one Torco describes. I'm using 'preacher' here, but you'll these types for any religion.
It's not unlike Jack Chick tracts, for instance.

Well, the preachers certainly think that sort of talk is motivating. But let's look at the possibilities:

Preacher believes in hell, audience doesn't: they just laugh, it's not motivating.
Preacher believes in hell, audience also does:
...if they believe they're OK: they don't think they're going to hell, so it's not motivating, though it may produce schadenfreude
...if they think they're sinners: maybe it motivates conversion, but maybe it just reinforces existing self-hatred

Also, what the hell (pun intended) was wrong with Jack Chick?

He's pretty typical of fundamentalists. I guess the key to understanding them is that they're... not very socialized? Often they live in a bubble, never seeing the people they hate, and slow to update their bogeymen. (E.g. C.S. Lewis talks about witches and notes that most people don't believe they exist. So they become figures of fantasy and not really scary. Chick just keeps on as if they were really in touch with occult powers.)

(Or did. He died a few years ago.)

[rotting bones]

I'm more and more inclined to think that whatever good or bad happens to you is at best incidental to happiness anyway.
It's the old Stoic saw that unhappiness is a product of our opinions, and the gap between our opinions and reality.

A lot of people have horribly miserable lives even though, they are, by any objective standard, leisured, wealthy and comfortable. See most of recent mainstream literature for examples!

My problem with Stoicism is that I want justice, not happiness.

1. Even if I did want to be happy, I would try to want something else because I think wanting to be happy makes you unhappy like nothing else.

2. The Stoic position is that even a slave can be happy. My objection is that the happiness of slaves is part of what enables the condition of slavery to exist. Slaves should be unhappy and revolt against their condition.

3. I think the only genuine happiness is the misery that comes from striving after freedom for everyone. This is not incompatible with traditional schools of thought considering it's the misery and the triumph of Christ on the Cross. (And the worst and most superficial kind of "happiness" is the kind that comes from creating unnecessary suffering to try and feel the triumph of Christ on the Cross.)

[keenir]

I'm more and more inclined to think that whatever good or bad happens to you is at best incidental to happiness anyway.
It's the old Stoic saw that unhappiness is a product of our opinions, and the gap between our opinions and reality.

A lot of people have horribly miserable lives even though, they are, by any objective standard, leisured, wealthy and comfortable. See most of recent mainstream literature for examples!

My problem with Stoicism is that I want justice, not happiness.

1. Even if I did want to be happy, I would try to want something else because I think wanting to be happy makes you unhappy like nothing else.

Yes and no. If the happiness is derived from having material things (even friends), then its always possible to want more, and part of oneself will hold ourself back from being happy, on the (")logic(") of if i feel like this now, wouldn't i feel more happy if i had more? Then wanting to be happy makes us unhappy.

But if we accept what we have, then we can have happiness without sinking into unhappiness.

2. The Stoic position is that even a slave can be happy. My objection is that the happiness of slaves is part of what enables the condition of slavery to exist.

Mostly its not caring if the slaves are happy or not, but that helps too.

Slaves should be unhappy and revolt against their condition.

That usually happens. The problem is that its like being in pain or startled: over enough time, decades or more, pain and fear - and even startlement and alertness - become dulled and part of the background...we can bring them to the surface by focusing on them from time to time, whereupon they are sharper and feel like they did when they were when we were most fearful ( or alert, etc), but its difficult to maintain that.

Go ahead, go get startled. Now you're alert -- how long can you stay that way? (stay either startled or alert)

(heck, this works with bugbites too - they sting more when we poke at them and focus our attention on them...but if we do other things, they become a background irritant)

[Ares Land]

I'm more and more inclined to think that whatever good or bad happens to you is at best incidental to happiness anyway.
It's the old Stoic saw that unhappiness is a product of our opinions, and the gap between our opinions and reality.

A lot of people have horribly miserable lives even though, they are, by any objective standard, leisured, wealthy and comfortable. See most of recent mainstream literature for examples!

My problem with Stoicism is that I want justice, not happiness.

1. Even if I did want to be happy, I would try to want something else because I think wanting to be happy makes you unhappy like nothing else.

2. The Stoic position is that even a slave can be happy. My objection is that the happiness of slaves is part of what enables the condition of slavery to exist. Slaves should be unhappy and revolt against their condition.

3. I think the only genuine happiness is the misery that comes from striving after freedom for everyone. This is not incompatible with traditional schools of thought considering it's the misery and the triumph of Christ on the Cross. (And the worst and most superficial kind of "happiness" is the kind that comes from creating unnecessary suffering to try and feel the triumph of Christ on the Cross.)

Stoicism is the product of a culture that was in several ways quite alien and quite disturbing. I think it does require adaptation to our value.
The Stoics had odd and disturbing views of slavery, because, well, odd and disturbing views on slavery were commonplace (and wouldn't be challenged for century.)

For more modern examples: I certainly met people who were extremely unhappy about growing old or about their mortality; total equanimity is certainly too difficult for most of us -- but you'll agree that making yourself miserable over a fact that can't be changed no matter what you do is, at best, futile.
For something less dramatic, Marcus Aurelius advised staying untroubled when confronting 'ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness (...)'. Again, getting angry or sad because you meet assholes is a recipe for eternal unhappiness, because you will meet assholes -- there's nothing you can do about that.
(But, of course, if you have any means to make the asshole stop being an asshole, of course you should do that.)

[Raphael]

For more modern examples: I certainly met people who were extremely unhappy about growing old or about their mortality;

Oh, I used to be like that - thankfully, I'm probably more accepting in that regard by now.

[rotting bones]

Yes and no. If the happiness is derived from having material things (even friends), then its always possible to want more, and part of oneself will hold ourself back from being happy, on the (")logic(") of if i feel like this now, wouldn't i feel more happy if i had more? Then wanting to be happy makes us unhappy.

But if we accept what we have, then we can have happiness without sinking into unhappiness.

Google something along these lines: wanting to be happy makes you unhappy

Mostly its not caring if the slaves are happy or not, but that helps too.

I think you have several common misconceptions regarding what Stoicism was about: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

I also disagree that not caring whether someone is unhappy is a positive help. It's just a sedative.

That usually happens. The problem is that its like being in pain or startled: over enough time, decades or more, pain and fear - and even startlement and alertness - become dulled and part of the background...we can bring them to the surface by focusing on them from time to time, whereupon they are sharper and feel like they did when they were when we were most fearful ( or alert, etc), but its difficult to maintain that.

Go ahead, go get startled. Now you're alert -- how long can you stay that way? (stay either startled or alert)

(heck, this works with bugbites too - they sting more when we poke at them and focus our attention on them...but if we do other things, they become a background irritant)

Stoicism explicitly advocated accepting whatever station in life you find yourself in.

[rotting bones]

For more modern examples: I certainly met people who were extremely unhappy about growing old or about their mortality; total equanimity is certainly too difficult for most of us -- but you'll agree that making yourself miserable over a fact that can't be changed no matter what you do is, at best, futile.

I support research to artificially extend youth and longevity. I would support reducing agitation about this if it's so extreme that it's hampering this research and/or your other goals.

For something less dramatic, Marcus Aurelius advised staying untroubled when confronting 'ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness (...)'. Again, getting angry or sad because you meet assholes is a recipe for eternal unhappiness, because you will meet assholes -- there's nothing you can do about that.
(But, of course, if you have any means to make the asshole stop being an asshole, of course you should do that.)

That makes sense. As long as you're aware that the original Stoics needed a sophisticated school of philosophy because they held many beliefs that defied common sense. For example, either one feels no suffering ever, under any circumstances, or is drowning incessantly.

[keenir]

Yes and no. If the happiness is derived from having material things (even friends), then its always possible to want more, and part of oneself will hold ourself back from being happy, on the (")logic(") of if i feel like this now, wouldn't i feel more happy if i had more? Then wanting to be happy makes us unhappy.

But if we accept what we have, then we can have happiness without sinking into unhappiness.

Google something along these lines: wanting to be happy makes you unhappy

oh i'm familiar with the sentiment and the phrase - I just don't consider it an absolute...more of one of those phrases that needs a "because..." after it.

Mostly its not caring if the slaves are happy or not, but that helps too.

I think you have several common misconceptions regarding what Stoicism was about: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

sorry, i wasn't replying to the Stoicism part.

I also disagree that not caring whether someone is unhappy is a positive help. It's just a sedative.

I was unclear there - the "not caring" was another part of what helps slavery start and stick around.

That usually happens. The problem is that its like being in pain or startled: over enough time, decades or more, pain and fear - and even startlement and alertness - become dulled and part of the background...we can bring them to the surface by focusing on them from time to time, whereupon they are sharper and feel like they did when they were when we were most fearful ( or alert, etc), but its difficult to maintain that.

Go ahead, go get startled. Now you're alert -- how long can you stay that way? (stay either startled or alert)

(heck, this works with bugbites too - they sting more when we poke at them and focus our attention on them...but if we do other things, they become a background irritant)

Stoicism explicitly advocated accepting whatever station in life you find yourself in.

most faiths do; Stoicism isn't an outlier in holding that position.

[keenir]

For something less dramatic, Marcus Aurelius advised staying untroubled when confronting 'ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness (...)'. Again, getting angry or sad because you meet assholes is a recipe for eternal unhappiness, because you will meet assholes -- there's nothing you can do about that.
(But, of course, if you have any means to make the asshole stop being an asshole, of course you should do that.)

That makes sense. As long as you're aware that the original Stoics needed a sophisticated school of philosophy because they held many beliefs that defied common sense. For example, either one feels no suffering ever, under any circumstances, or is drowning incessantly.

that sounds like its more of two extremes of the Stoic faith-philosophy, and the views of the moderates didn't get written (or got written but didn't survive to now)

[Ares Land]

I support research to artificially extend youth and longevity. I would support reducing agitation about this if it's so extreme that it's hampering this research and/or your other goals.

I have no objections to living longer, of course! But in any case, you're still going to age and die at some point -- you'll have to make your peace with that, one way or another.

That makes sense. As long as you're aware that the original Stoics needed a sophisticated school of philosophy because they held many beliefs that defied common sense.

Oh, it's not that sophisticated (the tenets can be explained in about a paragraph) or terribly different from what contemporaries thought was common sense.

For example, either one feels no suffering ever, under any circumstances, or is drowning incessantly.

YMMW but I always thought that sort of thing was just rhetorical (I don't really think Epictetus really possessed that sort of inhuman self-control). Marcus Aurelius is IMO more relatable; he seems to be struggling like a regular human being.

All that being said, I think you'd enjoy Nietzsche's objections to Stoicism -- and I do think Nietzsche had a point there!

[rotting bones]

oh i'm familiar with the sentiment and the phrase - I just don't consider it an absolute...more of one of those phrases that needs a "because..." after it.

In that case, I disagree that acceptance is a resting state. As far as I'm concerned, the resting state is rebellion, which has to be violently suppressed to produce a state of acceptance. This suppression is so violent that not only is the rebellion suppressed, but the memory of the violence is itself suppressed.

most faiths do; Stoicism isn't an outlier in holding that position.

Faiths I've opposed here previously: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

that sounds like its more of two extremes of the Stoic faith-philosophy, and the views of the moderates didn't get written (or got written but didn't survive to now)

It doesn't sound like you've read the link I sent.

[rotting bones]

Oh, it's not that sophisticated (the tenets can be explained in about a paragraph) or terribly different from what contemporaries thought was common sense.

They had an original ontology, an original physics, an original logic, ... Not that this is a bad thing. IIRC Stoics were responsible for originating propositional logic. The Peripatetics followed Aristotle's predicate logic. In Antiquity, these logics were thought to be mutually antagonistic.

[keenir]

oh i'm familiar with the sentiment and the phrase - I just don't consider it an absolute...more of one of those phrases that needs a "because..." after it.

In that case, I disagree that acceptance is a resting state. As far as I'm concerned, the resting state is rebellion,

hm. does this apply only to slavery? (if no, what else does that resting state apply to? if yes, does it only apply to Confederate-style slavery?)

I mean, I can't think of any violent uprisings in plantation-era Hawaii, for example.

most faiths do; Stoicism isn't an outlier in holding that position.

Faiths I've opposed here previously: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

Maybe it would be easier if you told us what faiths you don't oppose, so we can start from that point.
(though it seems you only oppose monotheism)