Absolutely, that’s fair.
But I’m curious about what the term literally amounts to (or means) in this context. My thought is that I don’t take metaphor to mean that the Bible can, must, or should be reduced to or simplified in terms of something else. For example, I don’t think religion can be wholly explained in naturalistic terms, as if it were merely the product of an adaptation or biological mechanism (if you’ve ever read William James’ The Varities of Religious Experience, that’s how I tend to think about religion).
I believe a metaphorical approach to the Bible is to take the religious symbols as manifestations and encapsulations of underlying phenomena that could be conceptual, existential, etc. (This is a way, I think, of articulating what Jordan Peterson does in biblical interpretation, although not perfectly expressed, nor is Jordan’s position something I totally agree with. I think he tends to stretch biblical meaning too far - like into scientific knowledge). Anyway, an example may be where a possible discussion about Abraham would be to locate him as enacting a heroic journey, a human archetype or universal pattern regarding flourishing, happiness, or salvation, and where the content, the specificities of their beliefs and desires, aren’t absolutely essential. What’s crucial is the narrative one lives out, the kinds of problems he or she faces and the ways they’re overcome. The virtue of this is that the stories have to transform overtime as people’s understanding shifts and (hopefully) progresses. We no longer believe the same things as the hebrews did or the early Christians. Our knowledge and self understanding has changed, and so our interpretations and readings of an ancient text should as well. But the way toward the good, righteous, or holy should remain stable across human nature and it’s varied historical epochs.
I’m not personally religious in the sense of being devout to a particular doctrine, so I understand the disagreement still. But, philosophically, I have difficulty with seeing a literal methodology as the best tool for understanding old religious texts.
I had never had an account on X before trying Nostr, but since there was so much talk about it on here, I figured I should try X out. And man, what a shit show that platform is. The way people communicate, the lifeless beliefs and ideas, the lack of curiosity and interest in what other people have to think and say, what they have to share; it’s all there on X.
Nostr is different. There’s an electricity that’s moving through here. And I’m stoked to get to experience it. Please keep the great content coming, people are onto something here.
No I don’t wrestle anymore. I was doing jui jitsu for a bit but I stopped after a while
Personally, I think what you say at the end is correct. When a text presents itself as perplexing and an effort is made toward positioning oneself so as to allow it to disclose its meaning, the success of that process should result, I think, in further, deeper, more insightful questions. If such a development were to terminate, the desire and motivation for something spiritual and meaningful would go with it.
Something I find interesting about what you have to say, and about biblical passages more generally, is the anthropomorphic verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc., used to speak about God. I think they will always fail to disclose insight when taken literally. Their meaning has to lie in suggestion and metaphor. When attributing wrath to God, its an error to then begin picturing some infinite being who is literally angry, who feels a wrath on account of the ways human beings have been conducting themselves, and who will inflict punishment to rectify the situation for the sake of some eternal justice. Rather, the more appropriate interpretive strategy, I believe, is to locate this notion of wrath in the ways human beings live. It’s suggesting something about how there’s a true way such creatures should comport themselves that corresponds to an inner nature and reality that is being obstructed, frustrated, and subverted by other capacities that are bent toward injustice, inequality, unfairness, self-absorption, heartlessness, and so forth. I see the Divine as having more to do with the way of things, their process and nature, where the task is to align oneself with it through virtue, than as something relating to literal stories about characters in a drama who play specific roles that are dictated by some higher, anthropomorphic being.
Absolutely. I started out doing jui jitsu when I was a kid and then switched to wrestling around middle school. I got pretty good in high school, but I couldn’t ever get past my mental game. I was always in my head thinking about things that had no real relevance to my improvement. And so, to use your language, I couldn’t ultimately overcome my ego. But because of the tools those kinds of sports (or martial arts or whatever) gave me, it definitely has helped me to keep learning how to sort through and gain insight into ego later in life.
Therefore, it is the most qualified who are to administer the state, the philosopher kings, who are to enforce a myth upon the people, and keep from them the lie that will one day hopefully be forgotten by the kings themselves.
I could certainly see the hope economically and the possibility for more financial autonomy. But what is it about bitcoin as a set of values that would be an antidote to nihilism?
What are some instances where you believe that cycle has been broken?
I was giving your article some more thought. I think what’s interesting about your explanation of violence is that, as a society develops alongside another, one or the other slowly realizes that their self-interests align with treating the other more fairly; that because a society’s goal is to, in some sense, flourish, it would therefore be rational to consider and act on the other society’s interests. So there’s this kind of rational development that a society participates in as it grows and becomes more productive. It’s worth wondering about whether that development is a moral one or not; whether a society that undergoes this process is also developing a collective moral conscience, or if it’s simply reducible to some biological process. Just a thought.
Yeah that’s interesting. It could be the case though that those who are exploited (e.g., society B) have been disciplined in a way by society A to see violence as a hindrance (or too costly) to their needs or projects, but whereas in fact it may be their only way toward some form of liberation. So violence has incrementally been reduced due to an expanding monopoly on violence that was achieved through convincing others that violence is contrary to their interests.
If there is no human nature, if human beings aren’t, in essence, rational, reasonable creatures, then my demand for someone to give me their reasons for what they say and do is no different than the gangster with a gun who demands to be given money. Rather than being frightened by violence, they are anxious to not look foolish, stupid, shameful.
It’s true that there isn’t a clear line that indicates the Allie’s being categorically good. Take the First World War for example. The Allie’s foisted most of the reparations from the destruction on Germany and it toppled their economy, led to extreme poverty, and, as everyone knows, they looked for the quickest way out. Keynes predicted how bad that decision would turn out in his The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
But claiming that the Axis did good for the world is a tough assertion to justify. On a utilitarian calculus, they certainly were horrible actors. It could not be argued that they produced better outcomes than they did bad ones. The world would be better off if someone like hitler never existed.
Laws are contingent. Other than the legal institutions that embody them, they have no objective, humans-independent reality. But while all laws could’ve been otherwise, what they express may be inscribed onto something universal and unchangable, and which informs the good laws, the ones that are just and worthy for a society to adopt and enact in their institutions. But where would this higher Law come from? How would it be know to exist?
When the first amendment is invoked, are we only referencing a document, something that means nothing past the society it exists within and that wouldn’t of come into being under different social conditions, or are we referring to an objective, universal principle that is captured by a law?
yeah that’s probably right. But what’s the rule for knowing when to pull the plug?