When I first started blogging I was posting everyday. I would spend hours reading and commenting on other blogs. I think at first I just wanted to get it all out and connect with some other people in similar situations. Lately, my posting has gone way down and I mostly skim my blog feeder. I still read some blogs religiously but I don't have the same compulsion. This drop off has been fairly steady. Recently however, it has taken a huge hit. Specifically, since the Wife and I have started marriage counseling my bren for the blogs has died down.I think the key is that since we started therapy she doesn't make an issue out of my lack of religiosity. Whereas before we began counseling and she made it clear she was upset about my atheism and I certainly resented her lack of acceptance (rejection?) of me. I think the blog helped me blow off some of that steam. Now that she's quiet (accepting?) about it I'm not feeling the same pressure to post. That said I have dozens of old half-finished posts that I could throw up here. I like to put out things that I'm actually thinking about but maybe I'll publish these older thoughts just to get them out of my drafts box. Let me know if you think I should post them.
I think another change in my blogging habits stems from the fact that I am pretty much happy with my approach to life. I don't feel the lingering guilt of Auslander, or the aingst of XGH. I am happy in the knowledge that I have no 'greater purpose' and one day I will die a dog's death. Eat drink and be merry is good enough for me. (Plus baseball playoffs are just a few months away)!
I'm fairly certain that people are neither selfish-killing-machines or selfless-altruistic-angels. I think most people have enough moral programing (via nature and nurture) that some air tight philosophy isn't really necessary. Atheists don't automatically become the sex crazed animals JP thinks they are and frum Jews who follow the Torah don't automatically become the saints I once thought they did (pre-pre-LNM me that is).
I enjoy thinking about philosophy and trying to figure out how human morality works (spoiler alert: you don't base it all on a book you say you got from god) but ultimately I think trying to craft a philosophical system is unnecessary. Like littlefoxling (the ignostic Jew) once said (and I'm paraphrasing) "You can toss out all of philosophy and humanity wouldn't change much but if you throw out all scientific achievement and we would suffer greatly". (LF if I misquoted you LMK. I tried to find the quote to no avail). In other words, a coherent philosophy hasn't been integral to life on earth but an honest discovery of the truth has been indispensable.
So on that (downer?) note from the happiest, most optimistic, nihilist you've probably ever met...
Thanks for reading and here's to another year!
----
P.S. As you can see I've also updated my template. (The Candy Man has been telling me since Shavout that we needed an update). I'm still recreating my blogrolls so if you don't see your name up there give it a few days. I like the new template so far but I may try one or two others in the next week. Let me know what you think!
49 comments:
Oooh, I like the funky template! Enjoy the splash of paint. Hope it's not too distracting from your words.
You sound like you are doing well, LNM.
The change in the blog template is refreshing.
You sound as if you have gained a lot of wisdom in the past year, perhaps as Mishlei is a synthesis of Kohelet and Shir Hashirim.
Looking forward to more interesting discussions!
Congrats on keeping up an entire year of blogging! I like the new layout :)
I'm not TOO sure regarding the philosophy statement LF made. Sure, perhaps modern philosophy is not as used today. But what about a few centuries ago? Would modern democracies have arisen?
HH,
> Would modern democracies have arisen?
I don't see why not. Democracy, in some form, predates the great philosophers. If you take a Republic and follow the idea to its natural conclusion it seems like modern democracy is almost inevitable. Certainly once the idea was thought up it was just a matter of time until oppressed people would want to institute it as a form of government for themselves.
I think its easy for you to say that now, that everything has already been done and laid out for you, but personally, I doubt that the the ideas that slowly generated the world we live in today would have arisen without the philosophers. The fact that an idea had to be thought of, as you say, should perhaps say something right there.
Hi, I would be interested in your take on the young generation of Lubavitchers. What is it that propels them to tow the line of their fathers & grandfathers and why are so many dropping relgious life eg Okinov and killing themselves eg Gorodetsky. Personally I think the death of Rebbe who left no master plan has had a profound on the general chabd population
HH,
> I think its easy for you to say that now, that everything has already been done and laid out for you...
Of course it's easy when history backs me up. I'm not making predictions, I'm describing the facts.
> The fact that an idea had to be thought of, as you say, should perhaps say something right there.
I think you are confusing "ideas" with "philosophy". The world as we know it doesn't rely on Plato and Kant. If their ideas were forgotten we would be just fine. On the other hand Galileo and Watson/Crick are vital to life as we know it.
The fly in your ointment LNM is that some people will do what they please without a philosophy. You can't say anything then.
"On the other hand Galileo and Watson/Crick are vital to life as we know it."
Crick believed we should wait a bit in order to decide whether a baby should live. After the waiting period we declare it alive if we didn't have it die.
love the new template
Ah, I remember not long ago when you just started this blog... at least we have some posts to show for it over the last year, eh? A written record.
On that note, I also have some unposted material and I'm planning on putting it up to clear out the drafts folder. I've seen some of yours, it's good stuff, so post it! No need to tell us it's old :)
I like the new look, it's very modern. Although we need a header image IMHO.
"You can toss out all of philosophy and humanity wouldn't change much but if you throw out all scientific achievement and we would suffer greatly"
As a scientist, I can tell you that this is completely untrue :)
LNM,
People often philosophize intuitively, but that's a thoughtless way to live. In any case, philosophy impacts on what you do every day. It impacts what you value, who you vote for, how you structure your life. It's everywhere. Ghenghis Kahn and George Washington were both people, but they differed greatly in philosophy.
Nihilism is no philosophy if you sense any kind of duty to anybody or anything. Why, say, should the nihilist find human rights meaningful at all?
I'm off on a little tangent here, but its peripherally related to your post. I have attended 2 "yeshivish" weddings in the past 2 months, one of which was my daughter's. I have also attended several "secular" Israeli weddings.
I must say that despite all my anti-religious philosophical and theological rantings, I cannot escape the conviction that the religious are onto something. While a religious wedding is full of love, happiness, spirituality, commitment, and community togetherness, the secular weddings are primarily exhibits of overindulgence, decadence, and phony symbolisms. I usually leave a secular wedding feeling quite depressed. I see a wedding as microcosmic expression of the values of each society, and what I see in the secular one is wholly unimpressive. This is not a reason to reject science or lofty ethical concepts from modern humanism. I think all of us try our best to take the positive from both religious and mundane and integrate them in our lives. I came around to this "wisdom" some time ago, and although my wife "believes" more than I do, she has come to respect my positions and I hers. I expect that you, LNM, will do the same in your marriage.
Happy Birthday and please keep up the blogging (you too Candy Man), it's another important voice. And I know exactly what you mean about the Bren being gone, but I still find it a good outlet.
congrats on your blog anneversary.im glad that the reason that you havent been blogging as much means that you feel more settled. i do enjoy your posts, though and look forward to reading future posts.
OP,
> Why, say, should the nihilist find human rights meaningful at all?
Possibly nbecause of a personal preferance? Maybe human nature? But certainly not because of some objective ideal.
LNM,
"Possibly nbecause of a personal preferance?"
Then how can he possibly counter his fellow nihilist who decides just the opposite? There is no duty if it's just a matter of taste. And if you believe in moral duties then you cannot believe in it being just a matter of taste.
"Maybe human nature? But certainly not because of some objective ideal."
As far as I consider it, human nature is in fact objective. It's something you can study and understand to a greater or lesser degree. But I would say it goes further than just describing how people act and goes to the heart of what people are.
LNM since there is for you no philosophy so you can't criticize anyone. You lack even a Golden Rule Model as you may not kill people but you do feel free to do to do with them not as they would do with you at your leisure rather than as a philosophy on what the Golden Rule should in detail be. You developed the Golden Rule model for yourself as a pact for you to do as you please rather than as one for you to grow beyond your programing.
LNM since there is for you no philosophy so you can't criticize anyone. You lack even a Golden Rule Model as you may not kill people but you do feel free to do to do with them not as they would do with you at your leisure rather than as a philosophy on what the Golden Rule should in detail be. You developed the Golden Rule model for yourself as a pact for you to do as you please rather than as one for you to grow beyond your programing.
Sex crazed? Who said that?
>I think you are confusing "ideas" with "philosophy". The world as we know it doesn't rely on Plato and Kant. If their ideas were forgotten we would be just fine. On the other hand Galileo and Watson/Crick are vital to life as we know it.
Ideas come from a certain philosophy. What about people like John Locke? Is he not a philospher that influenced us today? And I disagree with you regarding if Plato etc ideas were gone, we would be fine today. I believe everything influenced everything. If they had been gone, they would not have influenced others after them. Even if just subtly.
I'm a philosopher!
HH,
> If they had been gone, they would not have influenced others after them. Even if just subtly.
I'll give you that it's a fairly (unfairly?) pat statement. But I think it works in a general sense. The point I was trying to make with it was science is much more necessary then pilosophy.
OP,
> Then how can he possibly counter his fellow nihilist who decides just the opposite?
By making an argument that appeals to his nature or his personal preferance. Or with force. But there is no "proof" that will compel him.
LNM,
I thought we've already discussed this and you've agreed that morality is objective. If so then it must, at least theoretically, be amenable to demonstration and convincing beyond appeal to the subjective.
In general though, as I've said in the past, any theory of morality that cannot bring itself to call terrible actions *wrong* is an impotent theory which only serves to open the door to all sorts of terrible actions through moral equivocation. This is why we need philosophy.
Congratulations on your blogaversary!!!! (and I like the new template too...)
Oh, and, please post the old stuff. I don't comment all that often, but I enjoy reading what you have to say (old or new.)
The objectivity or lack thereof of morality is a topic of current study by psychologists and neurobiologists.
"The objectivity or lack thereof of morality is a topic of current study by psychologists and neurobiologists."
I believe that Sam Harris and Steve Pinker have written about this.
If a universal goal is to minimize human suffering (note that this is distinct from the golden rule), then we can argue objectively as to what is the best way to go about this, using the tools of history, sociology, psychology, etc.
In my humble opinion, it is obvious that on the average Orthodox Jews are nicer, happier and more sober than atheists. Also, Judaism is clearly more rational than atheism. Orthodox Jews who convert to atheism do so primarily for sexual freedom.
"If a universal goal is to minimize human suffering (note that this is distinct from the golden rule), then we can argue objectively as to what is the best way to go about this, using the tools of history, sociology, psychology, etc."
We could use a lot of things to minimize human suffering.
A number of people here are equating "happiness" with religion, which is utter nonsense. I don't usually post links on strangers' blogs, but please indulge me, Lubab. I think it would be very worthwhile for some of the happy-face religionists to listen to this podcast.
By the way, I agree with you for the most part about philosophy, which is essentially mental masturbation. But I do think it's difficult to distinguish between ideas (even scientific ones) and philosophy, particularly as you go back in time. Most historical people that we classify today as scientists thought of themselves as "philosophers," because up until relatively recently there was an unclear line between scientific and philosophical thinking.
Happy belated bloggerversary, LBM!
"up until relatively recently there was an unclear line between scientific and philosophical thinking."
Science is a type of philosophy.
"But I do think it's difficult to distinguish between ideas (even scientific ones) and philosophy, particularly as you go back in time. Most historical people that we classify today as scientists thought of themselves as "philosophers," because up until relatively recently there was an unclear line between scientific and philosophical thinking."
Unfortunately people battling relgion in the name of science are producing a politization and stifling of science. They are thus blurring the line between philosophy and science, producing fear and protestations of Orthodoxy. Science can say whatever the hell it wants. If science accomadates religion or atheists fine. If not then we'll deal with it but all this political crap in the name of science stifles discovery and has no place in serious scientific discussion anymore than when such antics are done by religious fundamentalists.
Reb Gamaliel:
As do most people with a religious agenda, you've twisted someone's words to make them seem to mean something else.
When I pointed out that philosophy and science were up until recently overlapping spheres, I mentioned absolutely nothing about religion -- which is neither philosophy, nor science, nor anything else of value to the human mind, whatsoever. Religion is just a collection of the most infantile ideas and puerile jabber, whether it masquerades as Talmudic argumentation or Jesuitical exegesis or Protestant apologetics, or Koranic scholarship or ... whatever.
Religion, no matter which one, is always about hindering humanity's advances beyond a tribal mentality. High priests and a pious populace always discourage curiosity and skepticism, always stand in the way of real intellectual achievement.
"Religion is just a collection of the most infantile ideas and puerile jabber"
Hey that sounds like evolution!
It has been a pleasure reading your blog. Congratulations on your anniversary, and I hope you find many reasons to keep going. Yes, post your old stuff. Like many have mentioned, we won't know if it's old.
"Religion, no matter which one, is always about hindering humanity's advances beyond a tribal mentality. High priests and a pious populace always discourage curiosity and skepticism, always stand in the way of real intellectual achievement."
That's absurd. I could enumerate many examples where religious people and religious organizations were at the forefront of human progress - moral as well as intellectual. And whether you like it or not, monotheistic faiths actually excelled at unifying many tribes under a conceptual banner of brotherhood.
"Reb Gamaliel:
As do most people with a religious agenda, you've twisted someone's words to make them seem to mean something else.
When I pointed out that philosophy and science were up until recently overlapping spheres, I mentioned absolutely nothing about religion -- which is neither philosophy, nor science, nor anything else of value to the human mind, whatsoever. Religion is just a collection of the most infantile ideas and puerile jabber, whether it masquerades as Talmudic argumentation or Jesuitical exegesis or Protestant apologetics, or Koranic scholarship or ... whatever."
I never twist someone's words nor do I unlike you have an agenda. I see that I needn't respond to your charges since their ignorance is plain, a collection of the most infantile ideas and puerile jabber.
I agree with Orthoprax's comments. Human progress has its ups and downs, many having to do nothing with religion. WW 2 and Nazi Germany wasn't because of religion, unless you want to blame the victims.
I think that the main source of misunderstanding (and thus making resolution impossible) in debates such as these, is that the 2 sides cannot even agree on the "rules of the game"-- ie what is acceptable as proof, what is the agreed upon standard as determining "truth" etc.
Therefore, we are reduced to opinions based on flawed ad hominem and authority arguments.
Imagine an orthodox Jew and a devout Muslim arguing about what God wants. Is there any way to reconcile?
This is reflected in the "dialogue" with JP. For us skeptics, the standard for "truth" (parentheses are intentional!) is logic and scientific evidence (not the experts themselves but the evidence), but his arguments are ad hominem and authority based.
(JP, don't bother, your "reversal" tactic doesn't work here.)
Evolution is not based on logic or science, any more than the Resurrection is. And I have never written that atheism is false because atheists are bad people (although most are). Atheism is false because it makes no sense.
"For us skeptics, the standard for "truth" (parentheses are intentional!) is logic and scientific evidence (not the experts themselves but the evidence), but his arguments are ad hominem and authority based. "
Dr.J you are describing an ideal. Oh thart all skeptics would do so in practice.
RG said: Dr.J you are describing an ideal. Oh thart all skeptics would do so in practice.
Everybody likes to think of themselves as logical. Nobody is going to come out and say, "Hey, I am illogical!"
Yet the fact is that all religion is authority based. The logic is after the fact, and attempts to justify accepting the authority, and reconcile the contradictions. For skeptics there is no real authority. We aren't Darwin followers. We don't say, I believe this because Darwin or Dawkins or whomever said it, we accept it because of the evidence. When new evidence comes up, we can change what we accept. With religious believers, NOTHING can change what they believe.
"We aren't Darwin followers. We don't say, I believe this because Darwin or Dawkins or whomever said it, we accept it because of the evidence. When new evidence comes up, we can change what we accept."
You are describing an ideal, not a reality. Most people who follow Darwin do because of the popularity of the idea.
"With religious believers, NOTHING can change what they believe."
That's because religion is a value system. I don't want my values to change.
"With religious believers, NOTHING can change what they believe."
I think you're talking about evangelical Christians; that's not my attitude.
I would consider atheists to be as a rule religious believers in Satanism.
JP said,
"I would consider atheists to be as a rule religious believers in Satanism."
"Satanism" is harmless. The most that is ever done in Satan's name to was slaughter an animal. In contrast, YOUR biblical omnipowerful and jealous god kills millions through holocausts and natural disasters. At this very moment your biblical god is making a million New Orleans residents homeless. What is their sin? Screwing a mentruant? worshipping a different god?
Don't pretend to have the high moral ground.
Post a Comment