Looks, money and intelligence...

[GrowingSmaller]

Theres a Muslim saying all people worship something, they all "submit" to rules and hold high what they hold high.

A wealth seeker will make an "idol" out of wealth, and follow wealth seeking rules, so to speak, and this will be his so called God.

I live in the UK, a largely secular society, and IIRC in a newspaper article a couple of years ago people thought the 3 most valuable things were wealth, looks and intelligence.

Are they "woshipping" IQ? Are fashion models "goddesses"? Is money the new "Summum bonum"?

There a Shi'a story about intelligence. IIRC it goes a little like this:

An angel was offered either intellect, modesty or devotion. It took intellect and the other two came along with it. For where true intellect is, there also are modesty and devotion found.

Are we (in valuing looks, money and "IQ") falling prey to corporate interests and pressures, advertising workplace and university values etc. and losing touch with other skills and values etc which make us human too?

Theres another muslim value IIRC: marry the faithful. Note, not wealthy, good looking or intelligent. But faithful... Life skills, work, intellect etc are included in this, but theres a spiritual dimension too. Trying to get to the mosque 5 times a day etc.

That contradicts the spirit of the age once again. If youre in the mosque, youre not at work!!!

So, who is in the right and wrong here, if I have my facts straight?

Is secularism showing its cards, all three? Do they sum up nicely what we need for the "game of life"?

...and that a man shall have to his account only as he has laboured
- Koran 53:39

 

[Eudaimonist]

Theres a Muslim saying all people worship something, they all "submit" to rules and hold high what they hold high.

Christians say the same thing. Personally, I find this sort of thing incorrect. Having values is not the same thing as submitting to values.

Are they "woshipping" IQ? Are fashion models "goddesses"? Is money the new "Summum bonum"?

No, almost certainly not. There may be rare exceptions, but this is just not true of people in general.

Are we (in valuing looks, money and "IQ") falling prey to corporate interests and pressures, advertising workplace and university values etc. and losing touch with other skills and values etc which make us human too?

No, not in general. There is nothing wrong with valuing looks, money, and IQ. Valuing these things does not mean that people are "falling prey" to anything. Of course, the worth and context of any value can be misunderstood, but generally I'd say that people are smarter than they are given credit for.

Theres another muslim value IIRC: marry the faithful. Note, not wealthy, good looking or intelligent. But faithful... Life skills, work, intellect etc are included in this, but theres a spiritual dimension too. Trying to get to the mosque 5 times a day etc.

That only makes Islam cultish.

Is secularism showing its cards, all three? Do they sum up nicely what we need for the "game of life"?

There is no "secularism". It's largely an illusion created by critics of pop culture.

I do think that looks, money, and intelligence certainly have their worth and proper roles in a good life, but my reasons for thinking this have nothing to do with any mythical "secularism".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

A wealth seeker will make an "idol" out of wealth, and follow wealth seeking rules, so to speak, and this will be his so called God.

I'd say that's a God, or a god.

I live in the UK, a largely secular society, and IIRC in a newspaper article a couple of years ago people thought the 3 most valuable things were wealth, looks and intelligence.

I'm not sure British society is as secular as i could be (I'm British).

There a Shi'a story about intelligence. IIRC it goes a little like this:

An angel was offered either intellect, modesty or devotion. It took intellect and the other two came along with it. For where true intellect is, there also are modesty and devotion found.

I don't see what intellect has to do with 'modesty' or devotion. Modesty isn't really a thing, and devotion is dependent on values and commitment to them, not intelligence.

Theres another muslim value IIRC: marry the faithful. Note, not wealthy, good looking or intelligent. But faithful... Life skills, work, intellect etc are included in this, but theres a spiritual dimension too. Trying to get to the mosque 5 times a day etc.

Skills, work, and intellect aren't part of the definition of faithful. And praying 5 times a day, and not eating pork, is moronic (unless for reasons like health).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'd say that people are smarter than they are given credit for.

And praying 5 times a day, and not eating pork, is moronic (unless for reasons like health).

Well there you both go, the smart/dumb binary opposition comes into play instantly. As if smartness is doctors orders.

But is valuing smartness really that "smart"?

Do you think that if we could safley breed designer babies, smartness would be a good thing to breed into the population?

Smart prople seem to run the show, and get all the credit. On TV, in suits, at the managers office etc.

But the "show" - is it rally that good, especialy for those like me with bad "moral luck" - ugly, dumb and poor. Sniffle. Where are the smart people when you need them?

I have a thinkg about Christians vs Muslims. I have been to many Mosques and any Churches. Christians tend to be too smart, Muslims tend to be more sociable.

I put it down to 1) Westen values, as mentioned, and 2) Free mixing in Churches taking the mind of Godly things (ie translates as paying attention to me).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Christians say the same thing. Personally, I find this sort of thing incorrect. Having values is not the same thing as submitting to values.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I think the idea is in order to attain your ideals and related goals, you have to submit to rules of conduct. See "ibadah" - lit. to be a slave.

The values you hold and your actions, plot a course for you. Its a navigation. If you dont "submit" to the conduct, youre not really actively valuing what you value. Value America, value China etc... then chart a course and submit!

I htink though, part of the objection may be that the idea has religious connotations.

And it is usually used perjoritively for non--religios people. But there can be productive secular "submitting to values and rules" ie of medical science and the means there to.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And praying 5 times a day, and not eating pork, is moronic (unless for reasons like health).

Also if youre at the mosque, especially 5 times a day, its a bit less materialistic. You're gaining happiness inwardly, and so it doesnt cost much in terms of electricity or shopping bags etc. So as a virtue (in theis specific context) in terms of planetary responsibility at a materialistic consumtion level, its not a bad idea. Also you get a good stretch, get to see the sunrise and sunset skies, socialise constructively, and increase lood flow to the brain in each prostration. Its not just enduring a "material fast" - it can be rewarding in itself.

As a system for me it has advantages on "youre on your own, dummie"...

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well there you both go, the smart/dumb binary opposition comes into play instantly. As if smartness is doctors orders.

I'm saying that you are treating most people as stupidly falling for "worshiping" material values. I'm saying that they aren't generally that stupid. They are more aware than you think.

But is valuing smartness really that "smart"?

Yes, it really is!

I'm not suggesting that smartness is an unqualified good. As the movie Forrest Gump attempted to show, intelligent people can sometimes do foolish things. However, wisdom is more likely to flourish where smartness exists. Smartness grants an awareness of issues that allows wisdom to blossom.

The alternative is just passively accepting the alleged wisdom of others, and that "wisdom" might not be so wise.

Smartness is a good thing if you want people to really think critically about their beliefs. Smartness is what allows science to be done, and for an educated citizenry (most of whom aren't scientists) to distinguish science from psuedo-science, just for instance.

Smartness is going to enable, if not exactly guarantee, the practical intelligence (phronesis) needed to prudently live one's life, and to live it well.

Do you think that if we could safley breed designer babies, smartness would be a good thing to breed into the population?

Yes, in general that would be so. I fimly believe that if the average IQ could be raised by ten or twenty points, the world would be improved overall.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In the shi'a book I was reading theres the initial presence of intellect, degree of intellect, using it to come to conclusions, and acting on those conclusions by putting it to proper use.

It constantly says that God loves those with intellect, and only those, but contrasts true intellect with "clevernesss" which involves putting the intellect to an improper usage, even if there is much capacity there for plotting and calculation etc. The case mentioned was that of Mu'awiyah who killed the shi'a leader Hussein, even though he would probably score high on an IQ test.

There are very "clever" and capable terrorist and military leaders, and super computers are being used to fight in wars and battles. But what does intellect actually do to help people deternine which side to fight on? If "IQ" were the sole deciding factor, or even a that significant a one, wouldnt various intelligence agencies be in accord rather than fighting etc? Espionage etc?

I dont see where breeding may lead society except (and this exaggerates the issue to make a point) in creating more able soldiers and spooks....?

There a whole bundle of other drives, innate and learned - and strings to be pulled culturally and biologically - which make us "humane" as well as simply clever ones.

A boffin in the wrong hands is a bad idea.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is there anything more obviously self serving than a religion which tells it's followers to value faithfulness to their deity above anything else?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there anything more obviously self serving than a religion which tells it's followers to value faithfulness to their deity above anything else?

Isnt following God ideally in ones interests, because God is good? The whole thing about Islam, is that it actually presents a 100% self serving concept of faith.

In surah Fajr, at the end people enter paradise "pleased with God and pleasing unto him". The two are linked together inextricably. Faith is not a chore, but a helping hand (see the idea of the "rope of Allah").

And the rewards (i.e paradise) are, well, at least the psychology appeals to some of us...

Which (paradise) is in line with what ought to be the case, no?

Pleasing God is pretty much defined as being in ones intersts, it is "fitting, appropriate" (mustaquim, straight) and brings "success" (falah). So yeah, its a self serving "conception" at least, meaning the logic of benevolence is there even if you dont accept the premises of God's existence etc.

 

[Nithavela]

Why submit to Allah in hopes of his paradise when you can get into Valhalla?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nice to see you all - Paradoxum especially. Thats not a chat up line, just I seem to think that to you I may be to you too rhetorical and sophistic, and difficlut to converse with.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Why submit to Allah in hopes of his paradise when you can get into Valhalla?

because a civilisation tethered to that spitituality pees that one up against a wall, which, basically, tends to stink IMO.

 

[Nithavela]

because a civilisation tethered to that spitituality pees that one up against a wall.

Could you elaborate on that? I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Koran 2:219 They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, "In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.

Than again you may argue I am gambling on faith?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Could you elaborate on that? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Well if we hold high getting drunk, and see that as heaven, what does that portray of a "humanistic" anthropolgy or self concept that a faith is meant to help us get to grips with.

If I taught you the best things in life were riotous drinking, well, would that be a good core value for society to collectively "feel the pull" of? And identify with and mould its spiritual direction (telos (intention, hope, motivation, desires, conceptions etc)) thereto?

 

[Nithavela]

Their civilisation seemed to be doing very fine during their time. It didn't survive, but so did many christian and islamic civilisations.

 

[Nithavela]

Well if we hold high getting drunk, and see that as heaven, what does that portray of a "humanistic" anthropolgy or self concept that a faith is meant to help us get to grips with

Valhalla is described as a bit more than just a bunch of men getting smashed. They ARE in the presence of their gods, who eat the same food and drink the same drink as they do. They also fight endless battles against each other, being regenerated each day. And why do they do this? So that they can better fight at the side of their gods during the last battle, Ragnarok. Their tests and labours aren't over after death, and only the worthy are allowed to serve in this way, the rest are condemened to hel.

What does this tell us about their concept of faith? It tells us that those who have proved themselves worthy are taken to the side of their gods, to enjoy the fruit of their faith, but also to prepare for serving their gods until the end of time. Why would you belittle such a notion?

 

[Unix]

Is it about quantity or quality? To me, battles (of course not physical ones but with words, citations, references and languages in books) are about setting an example of a path of faith, Biblical scholarship and related things. EDIT: And when I'm not knowledgeable enough I will refer to others, which is also an important part of pointing at the path. In practice, what I will do is to author one book - and as it's not all a battle when it it's inspirational as it's more about who will actually buy the book, I will be able to include some things which don't need to be fought about in order to have the specific views. Then I'll also see to that (with little help from a wife) the book gets a long life, and also that my books, both the ones in Bible Study softwares and the print ones are passed on to someone who will continue my research. Additionally I'll see to myself (and with some help from what the publisher arranges) that the book gets marketed in effective ways but not with big campaigns - as I'm not aiming at broad circle of readers that's a tricky part and something I have to think about when considering what kind of things to include in the book.
In some sense I would feel like broadening the circle of people to whom my book might appeal, but would want to remain trustworthy and to have a purpose with all of what's included:

They ARE in the presence of their gods, who eat the same food and drink the same drink as they do. They also fight endless battles against each other, being regenerated each day. And why do they do this? So that they can better fight at the side of their gods during the last battle, Ragnarok. Their tests and labours aren't over after death, and only the worthy are allowed to serve in this way, the rest are condemened to hel.

What does this tell us about their concept of faith? It tells us that those who have proved themselves worthy are taken to the side of their gods, to enjoy the fruit of their faith, but also to prepare for serving their gods until the end of time. Why would you belittle such a notion?