 |
|
Verenti
|
|
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Sep 2003
time: 01:37
|
|
Did anyone in this topic mention that Atheism might be a choice yet seeing as you have a gov't choice called "Religion" and you get more gov't choices as you get more tech? Yes? No? I'm just to lazy to read through all this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
I'm just to lazy to read through all this discussion. |
sorry, pal. that's not the way it works.
if you're not sure of something, what you need to do is make some absurd claim about your chosen subject. then sit back and wait for the resident gurus to tell you how stupid you are. they will then rabbit on at length, thus providing you with all the information you were actually looking for. works for me. 
your direct approach might have worked on a real forum. but i fear the oaties have taken over this little asylum. 
in answer to your question,
from the religion thread
quote:
Originally posted by Nikolai
Question: I am a big fan of all of your games. I have been playing Civilization since the first one was released and I can not wait for Civilization IV. I do have a question about Civilization IV as it relates to religion. Can your government have no state religion? If so can they influence border nations with their secular beliefs?
Sid: Hello Orie! Yes, the default is Paganism, which means there is no organized religion. At the other end of the spectrum is Free Religion and that offers tolerance of all religions. It's not possible to spread no religion where there is already religion. It's a play mechanic, but I am pretty sure it holds up that way in history as well. |
it's anybody's guess what that might actually mean.
i'm guessing that no, you can't directly set up an atheist state as such.
however, if you're prepared to accept the approximation that atheism is a religion (with it's attendant innaccuracies of atheist temples, atheist missionaries &c.) then, with a little modding, you can have almost the same thing.
so, it's far from perfect, but yes, it looks like we will have some (very committed!) atheist statesmen on the forums.
as far as government choices go. that's a different story. if you want to allow your population to freely choose any religion, you are looking for a secular state. but if you are hoping to enforce atheism as the only acceptable cult, then you will need to set up a
 theocratic police state!!!
edit -  troubles
Last edited by lebensraum on 18-08-2005 at 07:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
@ platy
...and thank you for showing off your marvellous luminescent marbles!
ok. enough wid da backslapping, le'ss do some biche-slappin.
@ guess who
re: you could have shot me down from the start
too late darl, you're already burnin'. but it's fun to watch your spiralling trail of flames fade into the night. so thanks for the spectacle. 
that's quite a lovely little museum of qoutes you've collected. it's a shame none of them serves to advance your argument. you have still failed to refute my assertion that;
quote:
historically, ...the ussr (had) ... a government which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs |
you have failed to enlighten us with evidence that contradicts the suggestion
quote:
eg. 3
ussr - acceptable religious practice was determined by the state and enforced by security agents |
if you do have any evidence which contradicts those assertions, let's hear it. if not, please stop this brainless repetition. i assure you, practice will not make it perfect. especially given that i have already stated, in as many ways as i need to that
quote:
i understand and acknowledge your definition. |
furthermore, you have failed provide an alternative to my simple and practical suggestion that
quote:
in game-terms, it seems there is a slider with, maybe five positions from 'most-secular' to 'most-theocratic.' if i wanted to model the behaviour of the ussr, i would be setting my sliders for theo! |
if you have a better, simpler, more practical way of modelling such behaviour, by all means, enlighten us!
lastly, i am reeeeally just plain moist at the prospect of you demonstrating that i am unaware of what quote:
is, in my view, theocratic. |
 < --- and let's just take a moment now to think of the flower-children.
since you haven't been paying attention, i'll blether on irrelevantly at length (and you seem to want me to...).
there is a third type of knowledge which you seem to have overlooked.
"know thyself"
up to this point, i have been prepared to offer you the benefit of the doubt. your screen-name signifies an icon of post-modern thought. i have granted you a remarkable degree of latitude. perhaps i should refresh your memory.
Postmodernism
- is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism.
- questions the foundations of cultural and artistic forms through self-referential irony
- is generally characterized disengagement from history and the fragmentation of artistic surface.
- tends to be highly self-referential and typically saturated with irony and allusion.
- tends to subvert traditional models of unity and coherence and instead tries to capture the sense of discontinuity and apparent chaos characteristic of the electronic age
- embraces an open-ended and democratic global civilization
is any of this starting to sound familiar???
your dogmatic insistence on references, history and the primacy of your chosen paradigm goes entirely against the grain of post-modernism. i think it's time you changed your nick,.
re: the analogy "communism=religion."
as an ardent post-modernist, i'm sure you are aware that, in a world devoid of objective truth, analogy is one of our most powerful means of expression. i have certainly not stated at any point that communism=religion. however, it is perfectly fair to say that "communism" bears a similarity to religion. if it disturbs you so much to investigate the nature of that similarity, take a zanax.
so far, i have, in fact offered several analogies.
i stated that the cognitive space defined by "religion" in civ4 is like
- a set of disjointed libraries. each library, or store of knowledge runs its own indexing system and there is no known means of translating from one system to another. even if the same book exists in different libraries, it is not classified in the same manner and it is probably not easy to locate.
- a solar system. each religion is represented by a different planet. the rules of logic of the different religions are like the physical behaviour of sub-atomic particles. we, the observers are in an indeterminate position and do not (in my opinion) have unbiased, omnipotent powers of observation
given your refusal to define the scope of your own argument, i could extend this to include one more...
- a certain poster is like a belligerent child, stuck in his own linguistic playpen. he is unable to see outside of that playpen. he is equally unable to define the rules and limitations of his own space.
i will refrain from making that analogy (and i apologise in advance) as you might find it to be personally insulting, which is genuinely not my intention. so please don't take offence at that one, but i do believe it is time you started to define your own point of observation.
history
you keep insisting that i back up my argument with historical facts.let me make this clear. i have absolutely no need of such facts to support my argument.
my argument is based on this and yes, please do correct me here if i am wrong!!!
- marx's communist manifesto states that "there is no god."
- the government of the ussr embraced this axiom and strove to implement policy in support of it.
- the government of the ussr committed human rights abuses and even murder on the basis of this assumption.
does that make them any better or worse than any other government? i don't know.
does that make the party members themselves any worse than your average suburban drunk driver? again that is not for me to judge. all i am saying is that,
1. as far as i understand, the ussr is one example of a government which committed human rights abuses in order to suppress religious freedom.
2.this type of government will probably best be modelled within civ4 as a theocratic police state.
as i said, i was not there at the time, i have not thouroughly researched the facts, i accept that i may be entirely mistaken and if so i would be grateful to you for setting me right.
but really sweetness, don't waste your time trying to question my logic.
ps. who's ignoring the hallowed bovine??
i already posted one on page three.
( why do i always fall for the big, stoopid one? )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
 |
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
lebensraum, again you had very nice and interesting post... and I disagree with many aspects of it
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
paradigms
for some time, western thought (imho) had the luxury of working from a single cognitive model, or paradigm. from aristotle to aquinas to newton, there was (at least roughly speaking) a single, coherent system of thought. this meant generally consistent definitions of terms, consistent logical principles and a general agreement about the nature of reality.
one of the major challenges to this situation was the discovery of relativistic phenomena within the physical sciences. for eg. consider the wave/particle behavior of light - light behaves either as a wave or a particle depending on the situation. the only problem here is this:
a wave is precisely that which a particle is not, and vice versa. according to scholastic philosophy, a thing cannot be 'that-which-it-is' and 'that-which-it-is-not' at the same time.
|
It is not good example. Indeed at the time it was a puzzle for some time, but since that time it became understood and explained by quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, in non-physics-major classes they still teach that photon is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which is simplistic but strictly speaking incorrect picture.
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
at this stage, what we have are multiple cognitive models. each one has it's limitations. no single paradigm has any conclusive claim to be 'right', or to prove another 'wrong.' we are very much in the habit of preferring one cognitive model over another. and we simply are not used to the idea that several competing, and contradictory ideas can all be equally 'right.'
for example, let's say a neurologist, a psychologist and a shaman are investigating the nature of 'mind' and cognition. each of these people has a vocabulary and a method appropriate to their chosen field. each may be able to shed light on the other's insights. however, none of them is in a position to question the other on their own terms. and the insights gained in one field may or may not be useful to the others.
|
Here is another example. An engineer and an astrologist try to predict if some particular plane will fly. Will you say that they both give adequate prediction, just using different languages? Will you say that the astrologist is as right as the engineer?
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
we are at a stage in history where there is no unified, conclusive truth.
|
So here is my main disagreement. There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life. It is just not everyone accept it or able to see it. Our earth does go around the sun (in inertial system); there is evolution happening in nature and so on. And very often different cognitive models prevent person to see the truth. As long as astrologist will use his cognitive model, he will not be able to give statistically reliable prediction, better than a coin flip.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
in non-physics-major classes they still teach that photon is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which is simplistic but strictly speaking incorrect picture. |
CONGRATULATIONS!!
i hope the easter bunny was good to you. and yes, there are still some eggs buried back there for anyone else who cares to look.
quote:
Here is another example. An engineer and an astrologist try to predict if some particular plane will fly. |
thanks. that's a much better example than mine. far more down-to-earth (forgive the pun).
quote:
Will you say that they both give adequate prediction, just using different languages? Will you say that the astrologist is as right as the engineer? |
i don't know.
to illustrate the point a bit further. consider this one.
epilepsy
an animist might interpret it as a mark of godliness, or a sign that someone is destined for greatness (eg. alexander, caesar).
a buddhist would say that it is a sickness which causes suffering. that suffering is caused by attachment and the appropriate course of action is to eliminate attachment (to ideas, possessions etc.)
a western medical practitioner would say that it is a physiological illness caused by ... (to quote homer again "wh'i d'no").
personally, i have witnessed all of these interprations in action.
i have seen people go into fits in the midst of hindu/animist ceremonies. at the time, that was explained to me as a form of prophecy - the god came and spoke through the person who was fitting. the prophecy was taken to be true. i don't know if that particular prophecy turned out to be true, but the society in question is about 5,000 years old and i would think it arrogant to pass judgement on such a practice.
i have also seen my sister undergo extensive brain surgery to correct her epilepsy. she went from being a severe epileptic to having virtually no symptoms at all.
of course, anyone who suffers epilepsy would probably prefer to be free of such an illness. but i don't think this makes 'western' medical procedures 'right' and all other interpretations 'wrong.' even if you are strongly in favour of the 'western' interpretation, there remains the basic principle of "keep an open mind." many of the advances of science have come through ideas that were considered crazy or unorthodox.
old lace
i have also been treated by tibetan medical practitioners. and,.. damn 
again, the system is based on the idea that illness is caused by suffering. the treatment consisted of ingesting herbal concoctions and chanting mantras to the buddha of healing.
however, scientific analysis shows that some of those medications contain dangerously high levels of arsenic.
despite having entirely contradictory philosophical bases, practitioners of the two systems were able to reach a position of understanding and agreement. in many cases the medicines have been modified to reduce the levels of arsenic.
so you see, it's not a simple subject. sometimes two interpretations are mutually exclusive. sometimes the two are complementary.
i certainly do not have a conclusive interpretation.
and, for the record, between the engineer and the astrologer,..
i personally would not automatically judge that one or the other is always right. my personal decision would probably be based on who was most rigourous in the pursuit of their chosen field.
quote:
There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life. It is just not everyone accept it or able to see it. |
oh lordy, here we go.
this'll have to wait. internet cafes are just too expensive for me to give you a worthy reply just now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
that's quite a lovely little museum of qoutes you've collected. it's a shame none of them serves to advance your argument. you have still failed to refute my assertion that;
quote:
historically, ...the ussr (had) ... a government which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs |
if not, please stop this brainless repetition. i assure you, practice will not make it perfect. |
It isn't a museum of quotes. You seem to mistake insolence for sarcasm- let me assure you that it isn't as effective.
I do not have to refute your assertion, since you have not shown, either by a 'museum' of quotes or even a single attributed quote that a theocratic government can be defined by your statements.
You're talking about separate things: the government of Elizabeth I influenced the religious beliefs of individuals, but it was not a theocratic state. If you knew anything about say, recusancy laws, or her religious policy you'd know that.
Similarly, the government of Bismarck's Kingdom of Prussia 'influenced' the religious beliefs of individuals. Again Bismarck's policy towards Jews and Catholics seesm to have passed you by.
As did Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Spanish Empire, the first French Republic and so on.
A theocracy is not solely defined as 'a state which influences the religious beliefs of individuals' since the history of a great part of the world is of states that have 'influenced' the religious beliefs of people, and not all or even the majority of those states have been theocracies.
It seems that repetition is required, because there appears to be a cloud of unknowing enveloping you, about what a theocratic state is or was, and what the U.S.S.R. was.
Lenin's 'April Theses':
quote:
5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.
Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1]
The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.
6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.
Confiscation of all landed estates.
Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.
7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.
8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.
9) Party tasks:
(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;
(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:
(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war,
(2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune state”[2] ;
(3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;
(c) Change of the Party’s name.[3]
|
http://www.marxists.org/archive/len...1917/apr/04.htm
God and religious belief obviously so important to Lenin at this crucial time that they get star billing.... not.
You say:
quote:
i have absolutely no need of such facts to support my argument. |
Actually, you do- you appear to be sorely lacking in the knowledge of what a theocracy is, having seemingly never heard of Calvin's Geneva, Scotland under the Covenanters, or Cromwell's Commonwealth/Republic- let alone modern day Iran.
Your ignorance of what theocracies were, and how they functioned historically, speaks volumes about your ability to present a coherent comparison between what the governmental structure of a theocracy is/was and the structure of government of the U.S.S.R. , given that you have already enlightened us with the (not entirely unsuspected) news that:
quote:
..my argument is based on this and yes, please do correct me here if i am wrong!!!
- marx's communist manifesto states that "there is no god."
[QUOTE]
and:
[QUOTE] i know only the vaguest generalisations about soviet history. |
This being the case, can I suggest that you do actually read 'The Communist Manifesto' by Marx and Engels. It might be a start...
http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/marx/manib.htm
You might then usefully also read any of several good books on twentieth century history, Communism and the early days of the Soviet Union- also have a look at David Shub's 'Lenin', or Cathy Porter's biography of Alexandra Kollontai and John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook The World'.
And while you're at it, read some history about theocratic governments- like the early Caliphate, Puritan England, Calvin's Geneva and Khomeini's Iran, not to mention the early Puritan settlements in North America.
It will, I hope, prevent you indulging your taste for verbiage, post modern philosophical whimsy and perhaps impress upon you the importance of knowing more than a tiny amount about the subject you are arguing about, because at the moment your 'argument' exhibits all the delusions of adequacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TriMiro
|
|
When people say Communism they think of the 'Communist Manifesto'. Actually the 'Communist Manifesto' deals mainly with economy. The philosophical teachings the communists had about the surrounding world were called Dialectic Materialism which I do not think came form Marx. The DM says that there are no supernatural powers only natural and that all of them could in time be discovered and undestood by mankind. Also there is no such thing as spirit or spirituality (only Vodka). DM is a form of Atheism.
USSR and other countries used oppression against the church (is Eastern Europe it was mainly the Christian Church). For example in my country it was illegal to go to church on Easter. Churches existed more as historical monuments than anything else, like the ancient Greek temples, they still exist however I do not think anyone goes there to pray to Zeus.
If implemented in Civ IV "Atheism" (name could be different) could be a form of modern religion that decreases the influence of all religions in your empire. You do not have any religious bonuses but also other empires could not influence you. From what I hear it may be very unfortunate for you if you do not have any Holy Cities in your empire, that will advantage your foes and "Atheism" could decrease that advantage.
There is already closed borders thing in the game, but "Atheism" could be different in the sense that it does not prevent trade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But this us an utterly preposterous and useless definition of a "theocracy," since it could apply to ANY society pre-enlightened democracy. After all, virtually all political states had a state-sanctioned religion and monitored/enforced at least some form of religious line-towing. |
agreed.
hey, i never said my definition was perfect. i'm happy to admit it has holes in it you could drive a truck through. i simply disagree with the criticisms that have been proposed up until now. oh, and it can hardly be said to be entirely useless, given that it has already inspired some fairly detailed debate over a difficult and, to many people unfamiliar topic, which was my purpose anyhow.
quote:
The standard accepted definition of a theocracy is one in which there is a universally-accepted and enforced religion and wherein the leader(s) authority is said to be derived from a deity or deities. |
however, the standard accepted definition of a theocracy has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
as molly rightly pointed out, usage and etymology are powerful tools. what he failed to mention is that they are useful tools within the scope of linguistics.
philosophy repudiates common usage for a very simple reason. most philosophical concepts are 'difficult' in that they require a form of abstraction which is not commonly used in other disciplines. the meaning of philosophical terms is quite strict. with 'common usage' however, meaning builds up around words. the same word can mean different things to different people.
philosophers commonly define their terms for the purposes of a given argument. that term is then employed strictly as defined and not in any way according to common usage. in fact, such 'everyday understandings' of words can be counterproductive. when a philosopher defines a term which has a similar meaning in everyday usage, it can confuse and mislead people into thinking they have understood a concept when in fact they have no idea what he is talking about.
this is why it is perfectly acceptable within the scope of philosophyto say, for eg.
blackness is the roughly equal distribution and amplitude of all frequencies within a given spectrum.
and
whiteness means having effectively zero values for amplitude for all frequencies within the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
(in other words, to say:
black (mine) = white(in common usage)
and white (mine) = black(in common usage))
the only requirement is that the definition be logically coherent, (and, to a lesser extent, useful - depends on what constitutes usefulness!)
so i'm simply not going to argue about which dictionary has the most authoritative defintion of "theocracy." it's irrelevant.
(and anybody who has ever played scrabble will know the sort of problems we are up against - if i insist on using the macquarie and you insist on the petit robert, we'll never get a game goin')
etymology is a valuable tool in philosophy. it is useful in that it can provide us a more detailed picture of the mind/world of ancient authors, not because it provides some sort of authority in the interpretation of terms. the only authoritative use of any given term is still the definition, as provided by the person attempting to explain a given concept.
consider this - two philosophers use the same term, but define it differently. philosopher 1 becomes more popular and his terms enter into common usage. does that mean that you can have a full understanding of the works of philosopher 2 by using the common definitions as 'everybody' understands them from philo.1??
now, i'm not claiming to be a philosopher or any sort of wise-man. what i am saying as that this model (for defining terms) is more suitable for discussing the topic on an internet forum. different peope will have different views. some of these different views may not be able to be reconciled into a single paradigm. rather than argue forever about what is the 'right' usage of a given term, i am much more interested in laying aside the insignificant details and trying to understand - what is the meaning of the term as the poster intended it.
quote:
The USSR meets neither criteria, as it did not have a state-enforced religion (atheism is NOT a religion) |
are you saying that atheism was not enforced or are you saying that it was enforced but cannot be compared to a religion??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
A theocracy is not solely defined as 'a state which influences the religious beliefs of individuals' since the history of a great part of the world is of states that have 'influenced' the religious beliefs of people, and not all or even the majority of those states have been theocracies. |
woohoo!!!
i just knew we'd get there sooner or later. yes, that is a perfectly valid critisism. well done moll.
quote:
God and religious belief obviously so important to Lenin at this crucial time that they get star billing.... not. |
and another!! you're really on a roll this time.
thank you. at last you are actually addressing the argument on it's own terms.
quote:
there appears to be a cloud of unknowing enveloping you, ... |
it just get better and better.
nice one moll. you see, now you're using your imagination!! didn't hurt too much i hope.
and be honest, doesn't that just feel a whole lot better?
@aeonoftime
quote:
Errrm, this is probably a little offtopic here, but I've been dying to ask you what a theocratic police state is? I couldn't find any direct definition - what advantages would you get with such a state? |
ask and ye shall receive,..
(although you have to be prepared to put in the work - three pages of studious flaming and button pushing  )
quote:
you appear to be sorely lacking in the knowledge of what a theocracy is, having seemingly never heard of Calvin's Geneva, Scotland under the Covenanters, or Cromwell's Commonwealth/Republic- let alone modern day Iran. |
quote:
And while you're at it, read some history about theocratic governments- like the early Caliphate, Puritan England, Calvin's Geneva and Khomeini's Iran, not to mention the early Puritan settlements in North America. |
there you go mate - one of the best rough guides to theocracy you're likely to find anywhere on the internet.
isn't 'poly just amazing? (ps. don't try these research methods at home - but the english are always fair game )
quote:
can I suggest that you do actually read 'The Communist Manifesto' by Marx and Engels. |
dull as dishwater. i'll stick to a nice cup of chamomile when i need it.
quote:
have a look at David Shub's 'Lenin', or Cathy Porter's biography of Alexandra Kollontai and John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook The World'. |
thanks for the suggestions
quote:
You seem to mistake insolence for sarcasm |
of course!!!
you're a capricorn! hence the complete absence of a funny bone.
well, ok. i deliberately pushed some buttons and prodded some ribs. this was based on the assumption that you were big enough to defend yourself and mature enough to take a little ribbing in good humour. if i hurt your feelings at any stage, i apologise.
quote:
at the moment your 'argument' exhibits all the delusions of adequacy. |
aww moll, that is just so sweet!!!
i was certainly trying to include as many delusions as possible. but i really don't feel i deserve the compliment. there are, sadly a few delusions i had to leave by the way-side.
and lastly, a little bed-time story for us all,..
at the very beginning of what may be one of his best works, g.k. chesterton tells of a romance he conceived of writing. the work he envisioned is, in a sense, the statement we wish to make in what follows. hence there is no better way for us to begin that by relating this story chesterton never wrote.
it concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen garden, shining flat on the hillside like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen.
the condition of chesterton's young boy seems to us to be the present condition of western man, and of western philosophy in particular ...
a simplified introduction to the wisdom of st thomas
there is more than one way to stand on the shoulders of giants, my friend.
ok, i know. as an earth rooster you're happiest clucking about the farmyard. your keen eye for detail and exceptional memory serve you well in that context. you don't like wandering uncharted wilderness or sailing at the whim of the breeze.
you have a strong belief in solid, tangible, provable reality. what's more, the fates are more than likely to conspire in your life so as to re-inforce those beliefs. but those are your personal beliefs, not everyones'.
oops,.. 
astrology doesn't fit your paradigm, does it?
oh dear, that means everything i just said must be absolute madness!!!
Last edited by lebensraum on 21-08-2005 at 23:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life. |
hmmm
when i first read this, i thought you were heading towards one of those "the way, the truth and the life" statements. "truth" is a definite buzz-word for christianity and i have tried hard to avoid it thus far.
then i realised, you probably haven't visited damascus since your original post, so i have to admit, i have no idea what you're on about here. could you explain this one in slightly more detail please?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
|
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
hmmm
when i first read this, i thought you were heading towards one of those "the way, the truth and the life" statements. "truth" is a definite buzz-word for christianity and i have tried hard to avoid it thus far.
then i realised, you probably haven't visited damascus since your original post, so i have to admit, i have no idea what you're on about here. could you explain this one in slightly more detail please? |
No, I did not refer to Christian Truth here. What I was saying is that some points of view are right and some are wrong. You sound as if all points of view, no matter how ridicules are they, are equally right. And the earth being hold by 3 elephants who stay on a see turtle is as valuable theory as astronomy. Yeah, right...
Last edited by MxM on 22-08-2005 at 20:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
heyya mxm,
edit: hmm, last attempt at an answer was too heavy and not really focussed, i haven't deleted it, for the sake of consistency, but feel free to ignore the lot.
i really don't like the terms 'right' and 'wrong'.
valid, logically consistent, empirically verifiable and useful are all much better terms.
an example like "the earth moves around the sun" might be too broad to explain anything. it's more significant to say, for eg. "does a particular system make accurate predictions about the movement of stellar bodies?"
in this case, as an example, aztec atronomy was quite mythical in nature. the stellar bodies were described as being mythical foxes, jaguars and so on. nonetheless, it's predictions were, on the whole, quite accurate.
i feel it simply doesn't matter how you describe them. if a system makes accurate and useful predictions, then it is worthwhile. i don't personally care whether the aztecs thought the coal sac was a mythical fox, or a cloud nebula. it was sufficient for their purposes and made predictions which were useful for them at the time.
if a psychic sees spirits that no-one else is aware of, who is 'right' and who is 'wrong?'
i am really not interested in passing judgement in such cases. what interests me is understanding exactly how different people see the world. since it is an individual interpretation, 'right' and 'wrong' just don't apply.
anyhow that's all i've got for now, except to say that you might want to take a closer look at your fundamental assumptions before deciding on the validity of another system which might be based on completely different axioms.
original post follows, i don't think it's very well written, but feel free to read through it if you like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
intention: i've got an exam tomorrow. so i'll make this quick (or maybe i'll just end up trolling 'poly all afternoon and fail my exam like usual ). so if the wording's not perfect, sue me.
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
What I was saying is that some points of view are right and some are wrong. You sound as if all points of view, no matter how ridicules are they, are equally right. |
firstly, i would say that yes. all opinions no matter how ridiculous are all equally right. in this case, what i mean when i say 'right' is that all opinions have equall validity. they all have a right to be expressed.
if i have one opinion and you have another. then my opinion is always 'right.' ie. it really is my opinion . if you are trying to tell me what my opinion is then you are simply out of your tree.
ok. maybe if you are a hypnotherapist and you 'put me under' then it is possible you might actually know my opinion better than i do. but otherwise, it's simply ridiculous for you to say i am 'wrong' about my own opinion.
that was one of the problems i was pointing to in the above discussion. i was quite careful to put my statements in context. when i gave a personal opinion, i pointed out that it was what i considered to be true. for someone to come along afterwards and tell me that i do not know my own opinion is absurd.
nuff said
the other point is that am hoping to get us far enough to have a reasonable, if simplistic discussion of theology.
thomas aquinas classifies theological data/arguments into three broad categories. they are
i) that which can be discerned by the action of unaided human reason.
ii) that which might, with difficulty be discerned by natural human reason, but is made more easily accessible by virtue of faith and divine revelation.
iii) that which is unaccessible to human reason and can only be known through the action of faith and divine revelation.
let's leave the first category aside for now. the second two categories (roughly speaking) require the action of faith and divine revelation. i've already defined faith as a personal phenomenon. revelation is also, in my opinion, highly personal.
so, in at least two out of three categories, we are talking about something which is different for different people. a simple case of reality being dependent upon the observer.
so, according to scholastic theology, there may very well be a 'right' and a 'wrong' answer, but, as humans, it is simply beyond our capacity to know which is which.
the other question is one of scope.
it is not within the competency or scope of classical mechanics to judge the validity of mythology. they simply address different aspects of the human experience. it's comparing apples and oranges.
at the same time, there is sometimes a problem of conflicting scope. this is one of the reasons why i was pushing molly so hard to state his persective.
from the point of view of classical philosophy, there is a hierarchy of disciplines.
philosophy is the 'first science' as it were because it's level of abstraction and difficulty are greatest. then come the 'abstract' sciences such as mathematics, then the physical sciences and so on. so, for example, while a mathematician can criticise a physicist for using insuffucient or inaccurate formulae. you cannot use empirical, physical data to criticise the validity of mathematical reasoning. (similarly, a linguist cannot criticise a philosophical definition).
in some post-modern philosophies, however,
hiercharchies are deprecated and this careful ordering of the sciences is not accepted as being valid.
not only that, language is often taken to be a primal element . so discussions of any type are sometimes considered to be 'language games.' so, once again, if molly had stated that he was giving an opinion on the basis of some particular post-modern philosophy, then it would be quite fair to say that language supercedes logic and hence, his opinion overides my own. at least in the from his perspective.
briefly, from the point of view of classical philosophy, logic precedes language. but there are alternative viewpoints which hold that language precedes logic.
that is the sort of thing that can happen with conflicting scopes. acccording to one field of study, i might be 'right.' according to another, i am 'wrong.'
how you choose to resolve this problem in your own mind is up to you. my take on it is that, both disciplines have the potential to provide a correct answer. both disciplines should be considered on their own merits.
however, if i am making an argument in terms of (for eg.)buddhist philosophy, it would be invalid to use the principles of, say,classical philosophy to refute my argument.
(note: you might use classical philosophy to state your own argument and then demonstrate empirically that your conclusions are true and mine are not, however, you cannot use classical logic to criticise buddhist logic internal to a given argument).
bloody hell, i go on some!
hope that made some kind of sense.
other points to consider include:
any observation requires a point of view,
knowing your own assumptions. (eg."the earth moves around the sun" which is a statement of classical physics requires that "the earth exists" which is a statement of scholastic philosophy.)
Last edited by lebensraum on 24-08-2005 at 13:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MxM
I think I found the reason for disagreement. I believe the above statement is strictly speaking incorrect. Here is why (from dictionary.com, edited for relevance):
Secular:
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body
|
oooh - that is really close to hitting the nail on the head.
1) i agree that the statement may be incorrect, but i disagree with your reasons. in the context of civ4, i believe my statement is correct. but it is pure conjecture. the game isn't out yet, so we can only guess.
my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong. it may mean something more like what molly was trying to say, where there is some sort of priesthood. perhaps it actually affects your ability to produce things like missionaries and so on.
in other words, it will really depend on what the game mechanics are, and i could be way off the mark. my statement is really just based on a 'best guess.'
so no, i don't think a dictionary will prove me wrong, but soren may very well do so.
2) the part that really tickles me is that after three pages of arguing about scope and method, i still haven't had a chance to state what my argument re:theocracy actually is. from my point of view at least, the above debate has nothing to do with "theocracy." yes, i'll say that again.
the above debate has nothing to do with theocracy.
what we have been arguing about is scope and method.
what are the sources of disagreement? (imo)
i) scope - i've already stated what i consider to be the scope. ie. all religious phenomena and beliefs within the seven chosen religions and, to a lesser extent, other minor religions, in particular paganism (default state).
molly has not so far offered an explanation of what he considers to be the scope of the discussion.
i assert that the scope is, in fact, so broad that no particular language or cognitive model is able to express everything within the scope.
molly seems to be assuming something like what you said - that there is a single objective truth, and there exists a single language and method appropriate to investigating that truth.
so that is one part of it - there is no explicit agreement on the scope of the discussion. and i have been forced to guess at what molly considers to be an appropriate language and cognitive model for discussing subjects within that scope.
ii) method - it's an inaccurate analogy, so please don't take this one too far, but...
the model i am proposing will be familiar to students of philosophy, mathematics and the physical sciences. the model molly is proposing is more in tune with the liberal arts.
put simply, definitions are commonly treated in a particular way within the liberal arts, and they are commonly treated in a different way within the sciences.
i don't know if molly really gets this, but he seems to be assuming that there is one, single and appropriate method. i certainly don't disagree with the validity of that method, but i am still waiting for an acknowledgement that it is only one method among others.
in brief, i think the disagreement is about
a) being able to state your assumptions
b) schoolyard antics based on the division between liberal arts and sciences
it really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy, because, as i said, i haven't even got around to stating what my argument actually is.
having said that, you made a very perceptive guess, and yes, dictatorship certainly has something to do with it. just ignore xorbon. ok he has a valid point, but who let him back in here anyway??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MxM
|
|
Planet Earth, Solar System
Jan 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
i feel it simply doesn't matter how you describe them. if a system makes accurate and useful predictions. |
This statement is much better. The prediction part is where I wholly agree with you. It does a bit contradict your earlier statement
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
if i have one opinion and you have another. then my opinion is always 'right.' ie. it really is my opinion . if you are trying to tell me what my opinion is then you are simply out of your tree. |
But I think that that you understood yourself that this statement is not very good. People make mistakes. Sure, I have my opinions, but it does happen that I am sometimes wrong and I understand it from the beginning of any conversation or argument. Only very narrow minded people use the principle that that they are "always right". (I do not think you are one of them )
Now as for the way to describe the event/effect, I still think that there is right and wrong ways. Again, the main criteria could be the capability to make right predictions. I will not go into such things as astrology, which is mostly crap IMO (not completely though, as it does have an entertainment value). I will give you example from physics. For some time scientist thought that there is some liquid which is responsible for the transfer of heat. The more you have that liquid in the body, the higher its temperature. And it gave correct prediction for the many processes. However, If we still used the same description of the process, then we would not be able to advance physics and engineerings to the modern level, and describe such things like chemical reactions on thermodynamic level.
Or if our only ancestors described the Earth as a piece of land on elephants, which is quite good description if you do not go and try to find the age of the Earth, then they would not discover Americas.
I can give you actually very absurd example to stress the point. Two woman discuss why some particular man does not have hair on his face. One woman says, that he is shaving each night. And another says "No! Each night a giant space rabbit with razor sharp teeth lands in his backyard and then attacks the man. The man looses his facial hair, because the rabbit bites them off". Both woman correctly describe the effect - each morning the man is shaved, but does it make them equally right? No! because if they could check they would see the truth. The fact that they can not spend the night in the man's bathroom (let's assume this is true for this example  ) does not make them equally right.
The same goes for Aztec astronomy. The fact that they (and we still) can not go to the stars and check if they are stars or those mythical foxes, jaguars, does not make them right!
Through the history we (humans) had to make some assumptions, that were sufficient for description of the world around them, until we were able to find better explanations that give better predictions to more events. This does make one theories more right and others more wrong, by you own suggestion - by the ability to " make accurate and useful predictions".
Here is to our discussion of what is USSR and what is theocracyquote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
i agree that the statement may be incorrect, but i disagree with your reasons. in the context of civ4, i believe my statement is correct. but it is pure conjecture. the game isn't out yet, so we can only guess.
my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong. it may mean something more like what molly was trying to say, where there is some sort of priesthood. perhaps it actually affects your ability to produce things like missionaries and so on. |
I think that we do not know enough of civ 4 in order to decide how better to model USSR in the game which is not yet released, and thus still modified. I think that the thing what we can discuss here is how it could be modeled, assuming small changes (of yet unknown) game. Or, may be, if Firaxis reading these posts, to help them implement those things in the best possible way. By the best way in this context I mean two things
1) The concepts should be relatively accurately correspond to the actual definitions.
2) Most of the gamers should be able to understand quite easily those concepts.
I believe, especially for #2, the description of USSR as secular or atheistic dictatorship is more accurate and much more easily accepted by the most of players.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lebensraum
my impression is that 'theocracy' a la civ4 means that you 'encourage' the people to adopt a particular religion. but i could be completely wrong.
molly seems to be assuming something like what you said - that there is a single objective truth, and there exists a single language and method appropriate to investigating that truth.
|
I suspect you are wrong.
I'm not the one doing the assuming: the reason you've written so many posts full of entirely unnecessary waffle and rambling is because (as you inimitably showed with your lack of knowledge of the U.S.S.R.'s history ) instead of engaging in even the smallest amount of historical research about models of government that have existed in reality, you choose to make inaccurate comparisons between them based on your own erroneous assumptions about documents ('The Communist Manifesto' of Marx and Engels) you haven't read and forms of government you clearly know nothing about.
And if you are going to reference my posts, instead of making incorrect paraphrases, just quote me. It will mean that your posts at least contain some correct information.
I can't recall calling you an
but if you think the cap fits, by all means wear it.
Oh, and by way of reply, less is definitely more.
And please- don't give me a sermon on linguistics or philosophy: I studied linguistics at university, and if I want to read philosophy, I'll do what I always do, and go to the originals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:37
|
|
IMHO having atheism as a religion is like having anarchism as a government. Is more the absence of religion. So if you want your nation to be atheist just don't choose a religion at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
you got sumthin' gainst anarchism? do ya? huh! do ya?
i take your point, but making a conscious decision to remain in anarchy, does amount to choosing a form of government. it's a good analogy though. in a similar way, you could argue that without a seat of government or any ruling parties, there is no government.
i like it. again, it's one of those realities that is dependent upon how you choose to view it (with apologies to mxm ).
quote:
Originally posted by OliverFA
Is more the absence of religion. |
this could use some clarification. as a personal decision, i don't think any particular faith constitutes "religion." but if you are talking about an organised group who all choose to practice "atheism" in a consistent manner, then that is a different kettle of commies.
quote:
So if you want your nation to be atheist just don't choose a religion at all. |
there appear to be two separate decisions to be made here:
first - choosing a state religion,
second - setting a religious "civic."
if you simply choose not to adopt a state religion, that does not guarantee that the populace will follow your lead, they can still be converted by other players.
it might work, but it's far too passive a strategy for my taste.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
There is essentially a continuum of possibilities for religious freedom, with theocracy at one end of the spectrum and complete religious freedom on the other. Looking at some of the points on the spectrum, and at their atheistic inverses, we find:
1. Theocracy - government where the ultimate authority is in the hands of religious leaders. The atheistic inverse would be a government with power directly in the hands of the leaders of some particular atheistic system of beliefs and values. Since the Soviet government was directly in the hands of the leaders of a particular type of atheistic system of beliefs, the Soviet Union can reasonably be regarded as the atheistic inverse of a theocratic society. Government did not just work with the leaders of the communistic system of beliefs and values, but was run directly by those leaders.
2. Government-enforced religion - The political leadership is separate and largely independent from the religious leadership, but government punishes people who do not belong to the "right" religion and especially those who actively oppose it. The atheistic inverse would be a society where government punishes people who profess or promote a belief in God, and possibly also those who profess or promote alternative atheistic systems of beliefs and values that compete with the system supported by government. (Note that I'm using "God" in a generic sense for simplicity rather than trying to find a wording that encompasses all possible theistic religious beliefs.)
3. State-sponsored religion - Government does not attempt to force people to adhere to a state religion, but does provide special financial or other advantages to a state religion. The atheistic inverse is to have government provide greater support to systems of beliefs and values that either reject God or treat God as irrelevant than it does to systems of beliefs and values that view God as important. (America's public schools are often accused of behaving in such a fashion because they restrict the freedom to present religious concepts far more than they restrict the freedom to present competing concepts that treat religion as irrelevant.)
4. Complete religious freedom - Government treats religious issues and conflicts as none of its business and tries to neither promote nor hinder religion. Note that complete religious freedom is its own atheistic inverse, since government's role in an atheistic society with complete religous freedom would be essentiallly identical to its role in a theistic society with complete religious freedom. (Edit: Note that by "religious conflicts," I mean conflicts of ideas. If conflicts go beyond ideas and become a threat to public order and safety, government has reasons to intervene that have nothing to do with trying to give one system of beliefs an advantage over another.)
Last edited by nbarclay on 28-08-2005 at 19:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2005 19:39
|