I will repeat once more, you seem to be completely missing the question and instead want to pursue a different conversation apparently concerning obectivism and my personal views. That should be a different thread.
As I have indicated, I accept that you don’t understand (“can’t fathom”) the question. WHY you don’t understand it is not terribly relevant. It is a pretty simple question that at least Mr Kropotkin understood.
Now you are talking about one person’s possible conflicting interests. I don’t agree with your argument but the point is that you still are not seeing the only question being asked. I am NOT asking about any conflict between religion and political party ideals.
Again you point out similarities and ask my personal views. That is NOT the topic. I am asking for broad based DIFFERENCES. How many times do I have to say it? And my personal views are NOT the topic either. I am asking for the views concerning the differences from OTHERS on this board. I already stated my view - that there is no substantial difference. What is so hard to understand about that?
That just goes back to what I said in the beginning - “One says ‘God’, the others says the ‘Good’”. Both say “We good. Them bad”. That is a SIMILARITY, not a DIFFERENCE.
Do you have trouble with those two concepts - similarity versus difference?
Start it then. Are you or are you not an objectivist given my own understanding of the word: someone who believes their own moral and political values are the embodiment of a core self able to grasp the most rational and virtuous behaviors. Given a particular context in which there are well-known conflicting moral narratives and political agendas.
Note to others:
Anyone care to take a crack at this? If you were to take his words here, what would you imagine he is saying about the similarities and differences re politics vs. religion.
No, I noted a particular context now “in the news” in which I examined 1] politics and religion and 2] religion vs. politics. Ask your own question here and answer it yourself. So, that I can see more clearly what you are getting at.
And what is your argument here? We can take it to another thread.
Again, note to others:
A little help here. By “broad based”, is he referring to “serious philosophers” attempts to exchange technical, didactic assessments of “similarities” and “differences” regarding “politics vs. religion”? And, then, only after pinning down the definition and meaning of the words, actually delving into a context in which both politics and religion are now playing themselves out “in reality” in the Senate?
No, the argument that I wish to make is that there are religious congregations who insist that only their own God counts. Just as there are secular politicians who insist that only their own Good counts. God and the Good are interchangeable here. And “for all practical purposes” they want to create a world in which everyone thinks like they do. Why? Because the way they think is thought by them to reflect the way in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think.
Just ask them.
Whereas I see moral and political and spiritual value judgments here as rooted more in the arguments I make in my signature threads. And you will either be willing to read them or not. And, if you do, you will either note how and why you agree with them or you don’t.
Given a particular set of circumstances.
Yes, but the God that the religious folks pray to is invariably seen to be both omniscient and omnipotent. And that is an entirely different frame of mind from the secular politician who claims only that the Good is predicated on one or another secular ideology. To say “We good. Them bad”, with an all knowing, all powerful God around on Judgment Day is on thing. To say “We good. Them bad” from the perspective of just one particular set of assumptions from one particular doctrinaire Humanist agenda another thing altogether.
While, again, my interest is less in noting these distinctions, and more in suggesting that both the religious and non-religious objectivists derive their value judgments from the manner in which I construe the meaning dasein out in a world of conflicting goods embedded in a particular political economy.
More to the point [mine], do you agree with me that in regard to religious and political value judgments, the self is ceaselessly constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed existentially given a trajectory of unique experiences, relationships and access to ideas. And from the cradle to the grave.
And, if you do, in regard to an issue like abortion, how do you see your own “I” as more or less fractured and fragmented?
obsrvr524: Ideals are ideals, religious or political. They don’t change. Democracy is an ideal, a sustaining and ancient ideal. Communism is an ideal, more recently distinguished and named, but still a fixed ideal. These are examples of political ideals that do not change through time nor profess to change. No one says “We need democracy now but later we will change it to a dictatorship”. No one says, “We need Communism now, but later maybe will decide to be democratic.” They are FIXED political ideals being promoted through centuries.
And they each (religion and political ideals) have their own version of dogma - “separation of church and state”, “wealth distributed as per need”, “one party-one nation”, “Bill of Rights”, “Right to Bear arms”, “right to work”, “China good - America bad”, and so on versus the familiar religious dogmas; “pray always”, “attend church services”, “seek Heaven avoid Hell”, “consult the priesthood”, “obey the laws of the land”, “bow to the East” (an interesting one at minimum), and so on. And in both cases, religious and political, if a citizen refutes the dogma of the ruling party or priesthood, they are surveilled, secretly judged, and condemned, often to death.
So after careful consideration I see Mr Kropotkin’s answer to be about a difference between liberal progressivism and conservatism rather than between religion and political party. And that Secular liberalism and progressive communism is filled with ideological dogma just as every other religion."
K: as I have work in less then an hour, I must move fast…
ideals change all the time, they are not fixed and set for all time… that was my point…
how the Greeks saw democracy and how we see democracy is a vast difference…
and part of that difference comes from the socio-economic times they lived
in and what we currently lived through…my comments were not through the lens of
liberal vs conservative, but through the lens of the changes in ideals…
my comments had no liberal or conservative bias…
the many different versions of communism, from Marx to Lenin to Stalin to Mao,
to the more political theorist like Althusser, gives us some idea of the vast differences
that “plague” communism…communism has as many different sides to it as
any ideology we have seen in a long time…and those sides change and adapt to
ever changing enviroments…the ideal of communism has quite often change…
and time is up… I will try to remember to post either later today or later tomorrow…
So you are saying that a square will someday not have 4 corners?
Ideals never change. People’s acceptance of them change at times. Equally people sometimes give up their faith in their religion. That doesn’t change the religion.
Both religions-by-name and ideals-by-name sometimes evolve - “that’s not what this word/name means anymore”. US “Democrat” no longer refers to those who believe in democracy. The title or name is now used to represent, in this case, the opposite of what the people involved actually stand for (centralized oligarchy ). They just play name games to confuse the population and further manipulate from behind a curtain. The ideal of democracy never changed, hasn’t changed for thousands of years and never will. At worst, only the name will change. Someday it might even change back to meaning distributed authority (“by the people”) as it once did.
The same applies to religions. What Catholics stood for 2000 years ago is at least a little different now. The Pope has publicly stated the age of forgiveness is over. That is an extremely serious change in ideology (whether good or bad). Religions change their ideological stance but the ideology that is no longer accepted never changed. The religion’s practice changed, perhaps to include female priests for example, but kept the same name.
How is that any different between religion and politics?
Here’s one I said earlier, but will also work here… ; )
Religion/Conduct… thought over fought, so when man stopped being beast and evolved into homosapien.
Politics/Parliament… fought over thought, when a disagreement turns into tribal warfare, and becomes an Us v Them situation… as seen throughout history.
So religion… stemming from local conduct practices, and politics… stemming from in-tribe disagreement. Religions were/are formed from local requirements of that People, and politics… the vehicle to deliver those requirements through via laws and legislations.
Are both fit for purpose though, in their current forms?
How are you distinguishing “conduct practices” from policy making - “politics”?
It sounds like you are suggesting that Islamic jihadists are just politicians and Parliament members are religious advocates with supreme court justices as their priests.
Although I can see how by watching American Congressional telecasts, someone could get that impression. You aren’t American are you?
Belief in God (Religion) is mostly about Ancestor-worshipping, or “death-worshipping as some say”. In a way, Catholics in 2020AD are still under the ideological leadership of Julius Caesar, if you want an analogy. Being dead doesn’t matter. It’s about following the will of our ancient ancestors. It’s also about comparing those of today, with those of yesterday, using a “higher” standard.
Politics then is actual, living leaders, today. Politics is about the best men alive right now. Statehood is about practical, pragmatic moral, social, and ethical decisions, all of which apply to Modern times. Politics is the embodiment of religions, the “here-and-now”. Religion is everything-before.
Conduct… abiding by local customs and practices i.e. a ‘when in Rome’ situation / Politics… written legislation, that if not followed, leads to fines, imprisonment, etc…
I am not, and I don’t watch such telecasts… I find EU and British politics much more entertaining though I do keep an eye on US political developments, and really enjoy playing Truth Or Lie, over what is being aired on US news.
I also agree with Urwrong’s below rendition… religion originally stemming from ancestor worship, and politics being the embodiment of religion’s influence past, but on the present.
So what does it mean to separate church from state - merely old from new?
“In the USA you are allowed to believe any old thing you want but you are not allowed to make or enforce any laws based on it. The state can only dictate based on new ideologies.”
Yeah, I think so. Religions seem focused on maintaining a political power that they had won years, decades, centuries, or even millenniums ago (like Catholicism).
So imagine many years from now when our current ideologies are the Old - Democracy, Socialism, Communism, and so on. Politics will be restricted to only some New, not yet discovered ideology?
And that brings me back into my obsession about James.
James seemed to have not only predicted what we are currently politically and medically facing, but also that a new ideology/religion is to spring up. That alone is impressive but not as concerning as the fact that he actually went so far as to lay out what it is going to be.
More than a decade ago, James answered a question about global domination with, “something is going to happen that no one expected”. I doubt anyone paid attention to that but now I’m thinking that he was talking about Mr Trump and the global restoration of relatively independent nations (which he referenced on this board). He warned in a response years ago, “Be careful. It only takes one of my kind”. And indeed both James and Mr Trump are analytical reductionist problem solvers - reducing everything down to the simple basic requirements for solving the problem - and not being shy about saying it and pursuing it despite being hated by just about everyone (such people stand out anywhere they go. I should know, having to observe and categorize the more typical internet mouth-breathers for years).
Much later during Mr Trump’s campaign, he said that even though Mr Trump would win, they wouldn’t give it to him - and they have certainly tried not to - and are still trying not to claiming that he isn’t the “real President” while defying him at every turn.
He spoke of intelligence matters, obfuscation techniques, and the way the Hebrews and Chinese think (Torah, I Ching, and Taoism - “Obfuscation and Extortion” - exactly exactly exactly what has been going on internationally for years by the CCP) and warned of the medical world being the enemy - COVID?
Who in the hell was this guy? And how could he know this shit? He was asked that by several people but never really gave an answer. Interestingly he gained most of his reputation points (where they do that) by the Jewish members (On the Catholic Apologist board actually accused of being “a Jew” to which he responded, “I am NotA - None of the Above”).
And going beyond Jesus, Revelations, and Nostradamus, he explained what Heaven actually is like (something they had refused to do) - “a harmonious dance, a waltz”. And note that “peace in the Middle East” is not about everyone standing around idly grinning at their navel but rather actively trading and conversing in harmony - “not stagnate, boring peace” as he put it - “Momentus harmony within and harmony without”.
He stated that a new religion (political ideology) would arise to take the place of the major religions of today. He did that on this board. And he didn’t just stop there (anyone could have thrown that out there). Although he expressed doubt that anything human or even organic life would continue to exist, he actually spelled out a specific governing form that will take place by the remaining machines if not by people - his SAM co-op and what it grows into - the newer-new religion/ideology/politics of tomorrow’s tomorrow?
James seemed to have an answer to every philosophical and science mystery. The only thing that I can find missing besides any political discussion (a serious disappointment to me personally other than to reveal about 10 years ago that Mr Obama was treasonous which is now turning out to be true too - who was he to be able to know that back then?) are the exact dates but that seems to be the way for such people.
I’m still trying to put it all together - questions questions, questions.
James’ absence is definitely noticeable. I can’t say I’ve followed him as closely as you and others. Although I agreed with many of his religious and political insights.
As for what comes next, I do predict the rise and spread of some ‘new’ religious creed, maybe Neo-Christianity, or something else. Because when people become desperate, they historically turn to religion/Faith.
though I do keep an eye on US political developments, and really enjoy playing Truth Or Lie, over what is being aired on US news.