Jump to content


Samuel Dravis

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Samuel Dravis

  1. An interesting parallel is the discussion between Socrates, Polus and Callicles in Plato's Gorgias. Polus maintains a fragmented idea of what constitutes goodness, and hence Socrates is able to trap him into realizing he was inconsistent. But Callicles divorces his ideas completely from recieved notions of justice, etc, and Socrates is unable to force him to find fault with his system (Callicles being the counterpart of the atheist you met). As you may note, I am not against indoctrination as such, and I even suggested that it is a necessary part of morality. I simply object to the idea that the state (or any other entity) presenting one type of indoctrination as "the truth"-- when in fact there can be no such determination. Hence I tend to object to any heavy-handed approaches like the original post, where one type of indoctrination is replaced by another wholesale and it is presumed that by doing so moral advancement has been achieved. This can hardly be so when it suffers from exactly the same problem that supposedly precipitated the previous system's removal (that it "indoctrinates"). As free individuals we shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing. In this case there is probably something else which makes the offending system unappealing. For example, if you're not religious you're unlikely to think much of religious explanations. But there are plenty of other ways to argue against raising children religiously than that there is some type of indoctrination going on.
  2. It's probably helpful to acknowledge that not everyone divides up morality and reality into separate areas of inquiry. Eg. Thomism, which acquired this idea from Aristotle. Hence the idea of punishment in some religious views is seen rather as the natural, unavoidable consequence of certain behaviors. In this case, one would have to show that the parents are being remiss in their duty to protect and nurture their children. But to do that, one has to have a moral theory which at once makes it a duty to behave toward the children in that manner and also means that certain acts like indoctrination are incompatible with itself. But I don't know how it is possible to have morality without a social structure that includes something akin to indoctrination, even if it doesn't happen to be about any gods. In fact, I would suggest that such a "morality" would merely be a disguised emotivism, a social fiction masquerading as a moral system. Personally I really don't feel like having the state decide who has the monopoly on "good" indoctrination.
  3. I hope you guys acknowledge the irony of advocating violent ends to those who disagree with you while believing in your own ability to promote those ends with impunity (which frankly is more deserving of censorship than anything Westboro has said).
  4. I posted this on sabre's wall but you can read it too. Quite good.


  5. Basically, it's because then it would set precedent for someone to decide what people can and can't protest on public land. I am not personally willing to allow any of the ideological crazies in charge of the government that ability, even if it does have the unfortunate result that things like this happen occasionally.
  6. http://www.theshortstory.org.uk/stories/downloads/green.pdf

    Rather good story. If you like this you should read "Earth" by Brin also.

  7. Alright, I have made blag but no content as of yet. Wait in patience, grasshopper.




    my feelers feel like makin a blag

    what do you think of that

  9. I support the ruling 100%. I have zero faith that the hypothetical free speech deciders will always be people of integrity, unbiased and apolitical. They're people, after all. I don't want someone else's failings getting in the way of my rights.
  10. I have already been assimilated by the Borge. :p

  11. Just as something interesting to read in a similar spirit, try Borges' Three Versions Of Judas. The only reason I know about it is because Sabre forced me to read one of his collections.
  12. If you weren't something else already I would suspect you of being Cretan.
  13. According to Kierkegaard (or anyway, at least my poor understanding of him), the essence of Christianity lies in the affirmation of the existing subject that they will, continuously, strive to imitate Christ. Hence, any reasons given for why God is "worthy" of worship, whether the Bible is true, or even whether God exists or not, is at best irrelevant and at worst downright disingenuous. Those types of issues only arise in an objective worldview, which is obviously not the case with any human being who has ever lived. Someone may be convinced that Christianity is completely true historically, and yet not be Christian. Presumably, one can object to this on the basis that plenty of people believe based on such reasons. But in that case, he says, they are absurd because they are resting their supposedly eternal happiness on something which can and does change easily, and this contradicts their existential status as subjective individuals. According to K, this is one of the causes of fanaticism: placing an infinite reliance on a finite piece of evidence or reasoning leads directly to irreligion. Cf. the Danish state church of Kierkegaard's time, in which theologians would endlessly debate details about the historicity of Jesus but didn't have any time to consider whether their lives reflected the affirmation of Christ characteristic of Christianity. Because of this Kierkegaard didn't consider them Christians, even though persons such as Bishop Mynster preached about it every Sunday, they had all been baptized and they all lived in a supposedly Christian state. However, this doesn't mean that K thought reasons like this unimportant or that they served no purpose. They were just no good for founding an authentic faith.
  14. Puzzle Agent 2. SO GETTING.

  15. It's true, I prefer jmac to other names. That's because of familiarity.
  16. Want, but the trailer is depressing enough that I may not actually want. Interesting marketing strategy. This isn't Left 4 "Infinite Ammo Pistols" Dead.
  17. Even though I'm late to the party and I'm sure he's already had a great birthday...
  18. Note: I'm not a christian but I've put some thought into it the past few years so take from this what you will. My personal reason for leaving the fold is that I intellectualized my beliefs. Interestingly, this is exactly what Kierkegaard warns against in the second quote below. All the talk about hell as something forced on a person is pretty strange to me. I suppose it must be a protestant thing. The way I think of it is simply that certain actions are incompatible with God and therefore if you do them you separate yourself from him willingly. Hence, the separation of Hell is not a punishment decreed by Judge Jesus but simply the consequence of an action, in the same way that you get wet as a consequence of diving into a pool. Additionally, the idea of "unforgivable sin" is simply the idea that, if you don't get out of the pool you won't get dry. There's nothing stopping anyone from getting out of the pool. As for whether there actually is anyone in hell or not, well, as far as I can tell it isn't said one way or another. The idea that there some people who are certainly condemned is unsustainable even for egregious examples like Hitler. No one knows who God forgives or who has asked for forgiveness. On the subject of faith and works, Kierkegaard has some interesting things to say: On genuine belief: edit: I did find this book fascinating also, I recommend it as well as Ascent Of Mount Carmel.
  19. I don't even know what went on in that movie, and I watched it. Dammit sabre. Have some prehistoric avant-garde poetry.


  20. <3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3

  21. So this means RD lives again? Good morning everyone, I am Samuel X. Dravis. I enjoy posting (occasionally) and improvised comedy... or both at the same time. Also I love Jared Leto and <3 Lee Pace. And pie.
  22. Confucius say, "My emphasis on authoritarianism is why I am more popular with antidemocratic governments than Lao Tzu."
  • Create New...