This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's fine. May I solicit an alternative term or concept definition?
Big issue here. Schsims and sex scandals relate to belief and/or allegiance to an institution (to wit, the Catholic Church). My post argues that's a a bad thing to wed yourself to. Values are where it's at. As much ire as I have for secular humanists, it's quite likely I have more for legalistic Catholic doctrine Nazis who seem to view the Catholic faith as SCOTUS arguments on steroids.
I agree with this passage on its own, but I get a little lost in how it threads into your overall argument. I am sorry for not catching your point.
What is the rubric for durable?
Is it possible to fully known "truth"? I'd say both religious tradition and secular philosophy (Popper comes to mind here) would argue it is not, though we may approach it.
I agree with this. If you turn a transcendental belief into something materialist, worldly, and immediate, you've ruined its value. The Christian proverb here is "Be in, not of, the world"
Prayer traditions are largely based on constant re-examination of belief-in-belief.
This makes me quite happy.
Alright, I've been chewing on this for a bit. I appreciated your response, and I'm still not confident that I've done it justice.
The reason I wouldn't choose "identity" is because I believe there are two phenomena at work. Identity as prediction and shorthand for social-interactions: call it "role." Identity as a set of value judgments: call it "touchstone."
Roles support if-then reasoning. If I go to this party, then I'll be associated with the cool kids. If I mention these talking points, then my tribe will know I've got their back. If I experience a certain emotion in church, then it's something understood by my tradition, and I can feel comfortable sharing it with my fellow Christians.
You can't apply the same reasoning to touchstones, because they're operating at a different level. I value associating with the cool kids. I value my political tribal alignment. I value my fellow Christians.
I think your points about developmental failure and mental illness make sense for roles, but not touchstones. A person who fails to model others' reactions has a serious disadvantage. One who picked unwise touchstones? Not so much.
Picking transcendental beliefs is only addressing touchstones. The question, then, is whether stability comes from the touchstone or from the role. If the latter, then holding an unfalsifiable belief--an immutable touchstone--would still leave one exposed.
When I talked about "durable" philosophy, I was thinking about the ability to adapt to new evidence. Whether this is accomplished through serenity or courage, it demands a certain resilience. I don't think this comes from the touchstones, but from how one reasons about them. Consider the Homeric heroes, oath-bound to besiege Troy. The cosmological beliefs are set dressing. Their particular honor culture was one of countless that followed the rule: if one swears an oath, then one must keep it. I'd call that a role.
This is awesome. Very well said.
I think the only addition I might offer is to ask the following; is there a risk in confusing or, maybe a better word, misplacing a touchstone value for a role based value?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link