The European tends toward extreme zealotry. It's called a [purity] or [holiness] spiral, but the spiral reliably corrupts the source material. Poisons the well. It's a tendency towards profanity and unholiness dressed up as devotion or faith. (Duh the devil will identify themselves as an angel. What possible reason could they have to do otherwise?)
"What was Greek religiosity commonly like before literature and the growth of a middle class? Most likely extremely strict. We know they stoned adulterers and taboo breakers to death, for example." https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1574943488344739840
They went way overboard with their religion there, exactly the way Christian Europe went and continues to go overboard with Christianity. The problem is the genes, not the ideology.
If the problem is the genes, you would expect the same thing to happen with philosophy, because yes indeed philosophy is a religion.
"Epicurus said that the gods do not get angry nor do they pay attention
to us. That the heavens are not eternal(addressing fears of astrology)" Ah. Yup. Close enough for a tweet, anyway.
"and that there is no worry about impurity or punishment in Hades" Uhhh wut?
"Questioning everything and attacking custom and religion was considered a
threat to society. If enough people won't keep their oaths and
considers religion only a social convention then society would go into
chaos."
Philosophers shouldn't claim that folk needn't keep their oaths, but lo and behold, they do.
Or: Diogenes. Yes, houses are suspect, no that doesn't mean everyone should live in a bucket. You can get away with not using cups, that doesn't mean you should...
"Philosophy eventually did reach a state where total skepticism was the dominant stance." Yes, I do indeed despise the Akademeia and hold it in contempt.
Question, yes. Very philosophy, much logic. You're supposed to answer the question in the end, though. You question the dogma because the dogma might be (is) wrong, not because dogma per se is wrong.
In pursuit of logic, the European philosopher becomes illogical. Impurity spiral. Unholiness spiral.
P.S. If dogma per se is wrong, why bother questioning it? Your dogma of questioning is itself wrong, dumbasses.
If oaths aren't absolute and custom is merely a tool among others, the philosopher, question thyself. If there's nothing you needs must do, then nobody can say you "shouldn't" take your oaths seriously. If there's nothing you ought not do, then you can't say ought not to respect oughts, Hume.
I was thinking about your definition of property as a reasonable expectation of control. It is politically useless. Can't argue against taxation. We know we cannot control that part of our income that the government has our employer deduct from our paycheck. Maybe it can be used as an argument against sudden surprise tax hikes. But if the government announces the payroll tax will be 99% in 5 years then everybody can adapt their expectations. And stop working for a salary. Or do it in another country. The truly good argument against this is that it is Kantian self-defeating.
ReplyDeleteIndeed your argument against the thief only works because the thief acts secretly, causing a surprise. If everybody in your city would loudly announce they will try to steal your wallet, you would not have reasonable expectations of controlling it. Most likely you would stop carrying a wallet, which is exactly the Kantian categorical imperative: where stealing is a social norm, stealing is impossible, hence stealing always violates an anti-stealing social norm. The thief can only succeed by pretending to be not a thief - pretending to accept the norm.
My argument against taxation would be that the government does not own me. Perhaps it owns the land (Georgian taxes).