Burning the Koran

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

Come on, are you serious? This begins with a pretty obvious ideological postulate; the mind can be best understand as a mechanical and chemical organ. That's materialist ideology right there. What is really happening is the alternatives to biomedical views of the brain, such as theology or psychoanalysis, are being subsumed into the materialist world-view without any perspective on the purpose of the alternative or what it means for a general understanding of humanity.

That in itself is a fairly presumptuous statement, and one that you make with some frequency. At what point do we concede that one has failed to correctly understand "alternatives" instead of legitimately rejecting them? I expect that you will likely disagree with this, but one of the reasons for the rapid expansion of the "modern world" has not so much to do with some preconceived materialistic agenda, and much more to do with the functionality of scientific and rational thinking. Quite simply, it is embraced because it works.

I don't wish to deny that our world is riddled with problems, but neither do I find it helpful to vilify the post-Enlightenment worldview through an excessively romanticized notion of the past. There were problems then as there are now: different sorts of problems; different challenges.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Check out Youtube. There's several videos of Korans being burned, some uploaded years ago.

[jar_e]

It has been canceled....according to cnn.com

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by jar_e

It has been canceled....according to cnn.com

That's what I figured would happen.

[SeeBass]

Yeah but he has been rewarded with a visit to NY with the Imam

[peter12]

That in itself is a fairly presumptuous statement, and one that you make with some frequency. At what point do we concede that one has failed to correctly understand "alternatives" instead of legitimately rejecting them? I expect that you will likely disagree with this, but one of the reasons for the rapid expansion of the "modern world" has not so much to do with some preconceived materialistic agenda, and much more to do with the functionality of scientific and rational thinking. Quite simply, it is embraced because it works.

We are primarily concerned with effect, although we don't do a very good job of measuring it or qualifying it.

The temptation, in regards to mental illness, is to judge a successful treatment by the pacification of the subject. But what if the torment, battle of the will, and relentless self-judgement was an essential part of the treatment experience. This is where theological and psychoanalytic views of the mind differ from the biomedical model. Can you ever reject this?

I was hesitant to use the term "alternative" because it's so easy for opponents to label it as pseudoscientific. What if the experience of human growth was as Nietzsche said "spontaneous moments of becoming?"

This isn't functional, which as you pointed out is one of the primary ideological justifications of The Enlightenment. I tend to view it is as far more dysfunctional and artificial. How can anyone come through with such a blind faith in Enlightenment progress after this past century which was the absolute outcome of such thinking? How can anyone put such faith in Enlightenment Man when we are as Nietzsche showed us, to be Last Men?

I don't wish to deny that our world is riddled with problems, but neither do I find it helpful to vilify the post-Enlightenment worldview through an excessively romanticized notion of the past. There were problems then as there are now: different sorts of problems; different challenges.

Agreed. So let's move past the essentialism of the Enlightenment and look at global culture a little bit more holistically. One of the most striking arguments against modern progress (to me) is the existence of Plato's Symposium; a stunning discussion between close friends over the Eternal concept of love.

Two things blew me away on first reading:

1) The refutation of procreation being the ultimate purpose of human relationships. A preemptive discussion of the "Selfish Gene," if you will.

2) This close philosophical discussion took place during the Peloponnesian War which was the darkest time in Athenian history. Truly a sign of the universality of humanity in any context.

[GirlySports]

On first reading I still think it says Burn the Korean.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not feudal times or necessarily any times. I just don't believe in the absolute progress of humanity. So certainly people "back then" weren't as miserable as moderns would like to believe. We're pretty miserable now by any standards anyway, rates of anxiety and depression are soaring.

Also, you consider the degree to which autocratic bureaucracies and governors interfere in our daily lives. We are not at all autonomous, much less so than say a Greek citizen living in Athens 2300 years ago.

Okay, using "Soaring rates of anxiety and depression" to illustrate that people in the middle ages were better off is just silly. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of stats to back up that anxiety and depression weren't an issure 500 years ago, but I'm willing to bet living hand to mouth at the whim of your local lord probalby wasn't good for general morale.

As for your assertation that we aren't as autonomus as a Greek citizen living 2300 years ago, well it's that "Citizen" word that totally ruins your argument. Sure I suppose it's debatable that they had more autonomy than we do now, but what you're not mentioning is that that group of citizens made up a small minority of the general population. For everone else, including most women, personal freedoms were clearly nowhere near what they are now, and that's to say nothing of the rather large population of slaves.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Yeah but he has been rewarded with a visit to NY with the Imam

And likely several fatwas from other Imams overseas.

Those don't expire over time. It doesn't matter if he went through with it or not.

He can hang out with Salman Rushdie and Molly Norris now.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, using "Soaring rates of anxiety and depression" to illustrate that people in the middle ages were better off is just silly. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of stats to back up that anxiety and depression weren't an issure 500 years ago, but I'm willing to bet living hand to mouth at the whim of your local lord probalby wasn't good for general morale.

As for your assertation that we aren't as autonomus as a Greek citizen living 2300 years ago, well it's that "Citizen" word that totally ruins your argument. Sure I suppose it's debatable that they had more autonomy than we do now, but what you're not mentioning is that that group of citizens made up a small minority of the general population. For everone else, including all women, personal freedoms were clearly nowhere near what they are now, and that's to say nothing of the rather large population of slaves.

That last part is rather debatable. I'll raise two points. One is that non-citizens were generally not as bad off as we think they were and two is that what makes this any different than the massive increasing global inequality between rich and poor now.

Don't forget that our modern way of life is basically built on the backs of third world slavery.

[SeeBass]

Looks like Trump is willing to offer 25% above market value for the "centre" to the prime investor.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...This is the arrogance of the modern position, that there is no way but back. That somehow inevitably we have moved on and that the wisdom and perspective of the past cannot be applied to our own times.

In my own field, I see this accusation frequently from biblical inerrentists, who insist that modern biblical scholars and historians are prejudiced by an intellectual hubris: that we are superior to our ancient counterparts by virtue of the fact that we "know more". I agree that it is shortsighted to discount the wisdom of the past, but such wisdom must always be evaluated in relative terms, and in line with how the world which produced such ancient wisdom functioned.

Originally Posted by peter12

...I think it's a crutch of the critic, to be honest, that struggles to gain a universalist perspective which doesn't really exist and fails to grasp the empirical kinship that we can feel when we read literature, poetry and philosophy from the past. Do you disregard nature or reason? I don't think so. Clearly, we have similar experiences according to all humanity to a certain extent. That's why we still enjoy and understand "old books."

Perhaps it is a crutch! I am not so certain about the "similarity" of human experience. I am 37-years-old, and I have a very limited understanding of patriotism. I've never seen a war, and have no first-hand knowledge of any sort of ideological armed conflict. I don't believe that I would be prepared to die for my country in large part because of this. My experience of life on this particular level is considerably different than that of my grandfather's, who believed this to be a FUNDAMENTAL responsibility. This is a change that has occurred inside of less than a century, and within my own culture: how much change affects our experiences spread across hundreds and thousands of years, and tens of thousands of kilometres?

[burn_this_city]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/flo...pt=T1&iref=BN1

The wackjob called off the book bonfire.

[peter12]

In my own field, I see this accusation frequently from biblical inerrentists, who insist that modern biblical scholars and historians are prejudiced by an intellectual hubris: that we are superior to our ancient counterparts by virtue of the fact that we "know more". I agree that it is shortsighted to discount the wisdom of the past, but such wisdom must always be evaluated in relative terms, and in line with how the world which produced such ancient wisdom functioned.

That sort of veers close to the ad hominem, don't you think? I'm not even close to a biblical inerrant. I can reiterate my response by saying that liberal progressivism is basically dead, don't you think? 9/11, the 2008 economic collapse and bailout, and the increasing environmental degradation are material signs that this whiz-bang world of technology has some major stumbling blocks.

Perhaps it is a crutch! I am not so certain about the "similarity" of human experience. I am 37-years-old, and I have a very limited understanding of patriotism. I've never seen a war, and have no first-hand knowledge of any sort of ideological armed conflict. I don't believe that I would be prepared to die for my country in large part because of this. My experience of life on this particular level is considerably different than that of my grandfather's, who believed this to be a FUNDAMENTAL responsibility. This is a change that has occurred inside of less than a century, and within my own culture: how much change affects our experiences spread across hundreds and thousands of years, and tens of thousands of kilometres?

Do we ask why this change occurs or whether it was good? We've seen the breakdown of the nation-state in a big way the last 50 years and its replacement with the bureaucratic state. Is this a good thing?

[peter12]

I can actually accept a relative harmony between our two positions, to be honest. Just as long one understands the dialogic intrinsic between conservatism and progressivism, it's absolutely fine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

That sort of veers close to the ad hominem, don't you think? I'm not even close to a biblical inerrant.

I never meant to suggest that you were, and meant no offense by this. I only sought to show that this is the level at which I encounter this line of reasoning. My apologies.

Originally Posted by peter12

I can reiterate my response by saying that liberal progressivism is basically dead, don't you think? 9/11, the 2008 economic collapse and bailout, and the increasing environmental degradation are material signs that this whiz-bang world of technology has some major stumbling blocks.

I can agree with this in part, but am not so naïve as to conclude that the challenges to the modern worldview have spelled its end or doomed it to failure. Furthermore, each one of those material signs tends to be evaluated in a very limited sense. "Environmental degradation", for example, tends to presume that nature is prestine, failing to acknowledge that the natural world is also savage and hostile to our species.

Originally Posted by peter12

Do we ask why this change occurs or whether it was good? We've seen the breakdown of the nation-state in a big way the last 50 years and its replacement with the bureaucratic state. Is this a good thing?

I honestly cannot say for sure, because quantifying such changes as positive or negative will will generally become subject to the collective conscience.

[HPLovecraft]

Lock the thread! No more burning.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/flo...pt=T1&iref=BN1

Crap, I'm late.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by peter12

I can actually accept a relative harmony between our two positions, to be honest. Just as long one understands the dialogic intrinsic between conservatism and progressivism, it's absolutely fine.

Yes, as long as one understands that, everything will be fine.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Lock the thread! No more burning.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/flo...pt=T1&iref=BN1

That's like so 3:34.

[jayswin]

Haha, I love everyone running in to proclaim that there will be no book-burning without checking the thread first. I wonder who will be next?