Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ WillH 10 years, 3 months ago
    I am a religious person, and I make no effort to hide that, but at the same time we should have learned the dangers of attempting to force others to our way of thinking and believing with the crusades. Nothing good ever comes of that, or of judging others either. My beliefs are a cornerstone of my morality, but they are MY beliefs and not someone else’s. I have no business trying to force others to them.

    On the other hand I am also an American and believe in personal freedom. I believe that others have a right to believe, say, think, and do anything they want. I believe that your rights end only when you tread on someone else’s.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 3 months ago
    The hubris of belief of any kind imposed on another person goes completely against any confidence in natural rights or a philosophy that espouses that man is capable of rational reasoning. There can be no right outcome from such actions. I often wonder how any sane, rational person can imagine such an action as necessary or even permissible unless they are convinced in some manner that they are superior to other men in some way.

    Is it ego? Is it a mental aberration of some sort? What is it?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
    Chyrol,
    I'd be interested in your opinion on this article. Frankly, it's kinda all over the map and I have to unravel it. Ultimately, regardless of the author's perspective on missionaries disrupting the lives of tribal peoples, he is just as critical of men of reason and advancement.
    "Belief of this kind needn't be religious, and in recent times it has more often been secular. Some of the largest crimes of the 20th Century were committed out of a belief in reason."
    The author supports the tribal and the primitive-the noble savage. this does not advance civilizations or pull people out of the malthusian trap or increase knowledge or life expectancy or celebrate the man's mind and reason. I reject the article outright.
    also, an aside, check out that painting. there's alot going on in it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Chyrol 10 years, 3 months ago
      Reject what you wish. The writer did make a few good points. Pick any angle you want to come at the article from (political, social, culturally, religious and/or philosophical) and the bottom line still boils down too:
      -"While human beings are willing to kill others for the sake of belief, they are ready to die for the same reason". So who/what is right? Who/what is wrong? By whose standards?
      -"The enslavement, murder and genocide of traditional peoples has nearly always been perpetrated under the banner of development and modernisation." Why must this be so? There are hosts of articles out there indicating that we are losing too much information from these disappearing cultures before we've even had a chance to discover who or what they knew. Information that could have potentially assisted our present civilization, be it medicinally, politically, philosophically, culturally etc. Lost all for the sake of our belief of what is right. Right for whom?
      Another point, do you think the lost cultures didn't use their minds and/or rational reasoning to survive their environment for as long as they did by not learning that A is A? Stemming back thousands of years, it was mankind's development of his/her rational and/or reasoning mind that brought us to where we are now by knowing that A is A. We are lucky that earlier rational and reasoning development did and continues to exist. We as humans just haven't figured out to incorporate all beliefs and co-exist. That's the sad part.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
        All beliefs cannot co-exist. Hitler's belief in his vision and communism belief in their system is not compatible with a system based on natural rights.
        There is nothing to be learned from communist culture, except the depths of depravity humans can devolve under such. most tribal cultures disappear because they encounter a more sophisticated system of living that improves their lives. they abandon their traditions. there is certainly nothing wrong with studying different tribal cultures but are you suggesting that there should be no interaction between cultures? That exposure to other ideas "taints"? are you suggesting a living museum exhibit? Man will exchange ideas.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Chyrol 10 years, 3 months ago
          You are correct in stating that all beliefs cannot co-exist, if they choose not too. Hence my second last statement. As for your statement, "there is nothing to be learned from a communist culture". You are wrong. Besides the depravity aspect, much good has and can still be learned from it and one should take the good and learn from the bad and know the bad is not a route to be taken. What is the, monetarily speaking, richest, country/culture in the world right now?, depraved as it is. I am sure most "tribal cultures" would not agree with you that they are happy with their lives in the 1st, 2nd & 3rd world countries and how the encountering of a more sophisticated system has improved their lives and how the want of abandoning their traditions and beliefs became paramount so they could "live a better life". There are several "tribal cultures" that have outwardly rejected the "new world sophistication" simply because they have been directly harmed by it. Hence back to the original article. It is about the state of belief and to what beginning/end it brings if forced on another belief that is contrary. The original article is about the peril of beliefs and how one's ideology is not necessarily the best for others, especially when it involves the annihilation of another's culture, religion, political system, land, philosophy and beliefs. As for the art work, nice piece of propaganda.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
            The largest ecomy is still the US and the richest per capital is Luxembourg sooo I 'm not sure where you 're going with that.
            The article is a mush mash of vague arguments. The point here is you say progress
            has been bad regarding these tribal cultures. I reject that claim.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Chyrol 10 years, 3 months ago
              Again, reject what you wish. I was more interested in the concept, as a whole, of "the perils of belief" and how it, unfortunately, remains to hold true across all societies. But, the upside is we are slowly but surely learning that one ideology doesn't cover all religions, cultures, philosophies etc. Slowly, but surely being the opportune phrase.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
      check out ksievers excellent post on manufactured intelligence. this author is surely using the Thomas Friedman method of writing an article-
      http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/32...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 3 months ago
        I do not see it that way. The argument seems obvious to me and barely worth analyzing being statements of the obvious.
        I have had bad experiences over the years from believers who would not take disagreement, or discussion or even indifference, as anything but wickedness. This from adherents of a certain major religion and from the new environmentalism. There may be arguments related to altruism in many ways such as the good of my soul or the survival of the planet, but I generally see their own self-interest and arrogance.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
          Well yes the religious argument was made. But I do not think a logical case can be made for a rabid belief in reason. Reason is logical therefore employ it. The idea that progress based on reason has indiscriminately killed tens of millions in the 20th century is at the least misleading. One assumes the author refers to war yet that argument is not clearly made. In fact after stating that reason is responsible the author decides to change tack and discuss communism. One can be a rabid proponent of capitalism-yes -swear by their life on it and not be a "believer."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo