When two worldviews collide.

[o_mlly]

Seeing as how I only have a 9th grade education I'll consider that a compliment. I take 'em where I can get 'em. For future reference, many of my posts are an attempt at being snarky... (I'm still working on it) With relevant points often being well hidden. You seem to be a practitioner of the craft as well, so I take no offense to any snark you may contribute to our conversations.

But just to be clear, there are relevant points in my posts lest you think them totally facetious.

We're good, partin'. I've been snarked by professionals. So, the amateurs here don't stand a chance.

 

[o_mlly]

Exactly! It's the point I have been making for umpteen posts. I don't think you're going to have much more success than I did in getting that across. There seems to be some block that there is no material cause. But...

...If I'm caught sneaking onto a lifeboat wearing a wig to escape the sinking ship with the women and children then I'm dragged off and publicly ridiculed and quite possibly beaten. If that's not a material cause of my shame then...I'm at a loss to explain it. It's an emotion I desperately want to avoid. To the point where I will risk sacrificing my own life to avoid it. It's a given that some people who have been publicly shamed will commit suicide. It's that strong an emotion.

Is that the only reason? No. Is genetics involved? Yes. Will everyone act in exactly the same way? No. Will I act the same way in different situations? No. Are there other emotions involved? Yes.

"... people who have been publicly shamed will commit suicide." And those who unfortunately do so are deemed mentally unhealthy, ie., not normal behavior.

Emotions may contribute as an initial mover for the self-sacrificial act. But emotions are neither necessary, and certainly I agree, not sufficient, as an explanation. What else is materially missing?

Further, an emotion is passive, that is, unwilled, as a movement of the mind upon sensing a situation. More importantly, shame and guilt are not genetic but acquired emotions based on nurturing, not nature. So, we still have no material cause as explanatory for the self-sacrificial act.

 

[Bradskii]

And those who unfortunately do so are deemed mentally unhealthy, ie., not normal behavior.

So someone who is not mentally ill is shamed. The shame prompts that person to commit suicide. He commits suicide, therefore he is mentally ill. That circular argument has quite a small radius.

Emotions may contribute as an initial mover for the self-sacrificial act. But emotions are neither necessary, and certainly I agree, not sufficient, as an explanation. What else is materially missing?

You're hanging on to this 'material explanation'...but I'm not sure what else there is to explain. You have been given an explanation as to why emotions cause people to do things. Sometimes extraordinary things. Love, shame, honour etc. You have been given examples of such acts. You have even been given the biological root for these feelings - the specific areas of the brain where the chemical, physical and electrical process occur. It's been explained where the desire to do such acts come from.

There's nothing left. There's the act. There's the societal response. There's the internal emotion. There's the response. There's the result. The only thing I've not included is God. So I guess He is the (im)material thing.

 

[o_mlly]

So someone who is not mentally ill is shamed. The shame prompts that person to commit suicide. He commits suicide, therefore he is mentally ill. That circular argument has quite a small radius.

Someone who is not mentally ill is shamed.
The shame does not prompt that person to commit suicide.
That person is mentally healthy.
He makes a 180-degree recovery.

There's the act. There's the societal response. There's the internal emotion. There's the response. There's the result.

Another atheist commented once that if a thing is not measurable then it is not science. What are the measurable properties of emotions?

How wide is shame? What is the depth of love? How long is honor? As to the biological root, what exactly are the physical properties of our thoughts? Same question as to our attitudes or affections? The study you cited was a meta-study that the authors admitted was based on quite statistically weak prior studies. It appears more to be a "publish or parish" academic effort that ignores the GIGO rule.

I gave you an immaterial explanation; you also have given me only immaterial examples. The difference is I am not a materialist; you are.

 

[Bradskii]

Another atheist commented once that if a thing is not measurable then it is not science. What are the measurable properties of emotions?

You study people. You note their responses. You compare reactions. This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[o_mlly]

You study people. You note their responses. You compare reactions. This isn't rocket surgery.

And neither is it science.

You study people.
You note their responses, ie., effects.
You compare the responses, ie., effects.
You still don't have a clue as to a material cause.

 

[Bradskii]

And neither is it science.

You study people.
You note their responses, ie., effects.
You compare the responses, ie., effects.
You still don't have a clue as to a material cause.

Well, thanks for your input anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, thanks for your input anyway.

You are welcome. The thread demonstrates the primary difference in the worldviews of the theist and atheist: one can be an atheist or a moralist, but he cannot be both.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

On the one side the Left which I think is more likely to be athiest or more pluralistic about belief and on the other is the Right which are more conservative and traditional and more likely to be Christain.

There may be some truth to that polarity but I see it differently. I see it between solidarity and individualism. Solidarity seeks a more communal sense of responsibility and care for each other. That, I would say is Christian. Individualism allows for more greed and self determination, which is fine for those with the resources but rough for those who don't.

 

[o_mlly]

There may be some truth to that polarity but I see it differently. I see it between solidarity and individualism. Solidarity seeks a more communal sense of responsibility and care for each other. That, I would say is Christian. Individualism allows for more greed and self determination, which is fine for those with the resources but rough for those who don't.

I think it better to group the "ism's" together as collectivism and individualism. These two approaches to answering economic morality in the world both fall short of the truth.

Solidarity, in our tradition, is grouped with its companion principle: subsidiarity. Both principles work to achieve the same objective, ie., human flourishing. The collective must not absorb the individual so as to diminish his dignity. And the individual in as much as he is able must contribute to the common good.

The totality of social conditions allowing persons to achieve their communal and individual fulfilment is known as the common good. Solidarity refers to the virtue enabling the human family to share fully the treasure of material and spiritual goods, and subsidiarity is the coordination of society’s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities. ...​

​

When those responsible for the public good attune themselves to the natural human desire for self-governance based on subsidiarity, they leave space for individual responsibility and initiative, but most importantly, they leave space for love (cf. Rom 13:8; Deus Caritas Est, 28), which always remains "the most excellent way" (cf. 1 Cor 12:31) (To participants in the fourteenth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (May 3, 2008) | BENEDICT XVI).​

​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think it better to group the "ism's" together as collectivism and individualism. These two approaches to answering economic morality in the world both fall short of the truth.

Solidarity, in our tradition, is grouped with its companion principle: subsidiarity. Both principles work to achieve the same objective, ie., human flourishing. The collective must not absorb the individual so as to diminish his dignity. And the individual in as much as he is able must contribute to the common good.

The totality of social conditions allowing persons to achieve their communal and individual fulfilment is known as the common good. Solidarity refers to the virtue enabling the human family to share fully the treasure of material and spiritual goods, and subsidiarity is the coordination of society’s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities. ...​

​

When those responsible for the public good attune themselves to the natural human desire for self-governance based on subsidiarity, they leave space for individual responsibility and initiative, but most importantly, they leave space for love (cf. Rom 13:8; Deus Caritas Est, 28), which always remains "the most excellent way" (cf. 1 Cor 12:31) (To participants in the fourteenth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (May 3, 2008) | BENEDICT XVI).​

​

Good point. What do we call the opposite of Solidarity/subsidiarity?

 

[o_mlly]

Good point. What do we call the opposite of Solidarity/subsidiarity?

A social order that subsumes the individual ceases to be one of solidarity and becomes collectivism. A social order that ignores the individual's obligation to contribute to the common good ceases to be one of subsidiarity and becomes individualism.

 

[stevevw]

There may be some truth to that polarity

This is an important destinction because I think extreme views of these two positions that is fueling the conflict. Though there is some common ideas that all subscribe to like the Left is more socialist and progressive and the Right is more conserving and supports traditional conceptions of many of the issues.

But there is a degree of overlap in that all may support the truths the West have developed like human rights and freedoms. They just see how this can be achieved differently.

but I see it differently. I see it between solidarity and individualism. Solidarity seeks a more communal sense of responsibility and care for each other. That, I would say is Christian. Individualism allows for more greed and self determination, which is fine for those with the resources but rough for those who don't.

You could say that the Right support solidarily as well but in a different way such as through group solidarity. Each identity group is unified under the groups view and all identity groups are viewed as fighting against similar oppression. Like the LGBTIQ+ community is seen as united against a similar oppression and should be in solidarity with each other. Though that doesn't seem to work out in reality.

But I think they see unification under one people just like the Right does but take a different view of who the enermy is and how unification can be achieved. Whereas the Right/Conservative/Christian try to unify all under one identity. Though this is not always the reality either when this becomes exclusive.

Rather being united is more about life principles like democracy and freedoms of belief and speech regardless of identity group which was our common cause until recently.