Books

[Demilich]

started up with Jeffrey Steingarten's "It Must Have Been Something I Ate" yesterday

awesome, insightful, witty essays on food ftw!

 

[MFJ]

diggin' the knut hamsun recently

 

[~Neurotica]

I found Strugatsky's Roadside Paradise in a short-story collection. One trip into the Zone and I feel like it is affecting my life already.

 

[Krilons Resa]

Re-reading "Psychoanalysis & Buddhism" by Jeremy Safran

 

[Russell]

Very extensive, and so far pretty readable

 

[MFJ]

diggin' the knut hamsun recently

come on, where are my norwegian bretheren at?

 

[einride]

okay here i am, sorry i don't usually read this thread

i've read four books by hamsun: "sult" ("hunger"), "under høststjernen" ("under the autumn star"), "pan" and "markens gröda" ("growth of the soil"). i really liked them all. "markens gröda" is very inspiring and is a great argument for living a simpler life. fucking city folk always ruining everything. fuck stockholm. "sult" is fucking awesome in the "keep the aspidistra flying" (by orwell, one of my favourite books ever) way -- starving artist, the troubles introduced by setting the shackles/comforts of society against the freedom needed to create -- how the necessary discomforts introduced by rejecting society's value yet still insisting to live in it makes artistry impossible (or does it?), blah blah

 

[einride]

On a similar note, I'm currently reading [russell's why i am not a christian]

actually i found this pretty friendly. yes, he doesn't mince his words and is clear enough about why christianity is harmful, but he does come across as taking some care as to not intentionally offend, too. i think the title essay is interesting, but far from complete or elaborate enough. there are many better reasons to not be a christian -- for me, but then again the book isn't called "why erik is not a christian" -- and i don't necessarily share his belief in a brighter and sunnier future through science and reason alone. this is also the main problem i have with dawkins.

"has religion made useful contributions to society?" and "what i believe" i remember as both being more interesting and poignant than the title essay.

 

[swizzlenuts]

So what's better than science and reason?

 

[Ellestin]

metal obviously

 

[einride]

So what's better than science and reason?

death and destruction





naw it's just that i think that the happiness of man has stayed fairly constant through the ages -- neolithic, dark, enlightenment or information does not really matter in the end -- so while the abolition of christianity would ease certain oppressions, others would surely take its place. my philosophy is whatever happens, we're fucked -- so make the best of it!

 

[swizzlenuts]

Dawkins is not about just eliminating Christianity; he's advocating science and reason rather than faith and superstitious thinking. He want's to push society forward.

 

[einride]

Dawkins is not about just eliminating Christianity; he's advocating science and reason rather than faith and superstitious thinking. He want's to push society forward.

i understand that -- i'm just saying that as long as you define "progress" as "knowing more" that's fine -- but i'm going to argue that knowing stuff is useless if you don't live a happy life. i really don't care if i live in a mud hut and pray to sun god Xulhangatha as long as i'm content with myself and my place in the universe. i know that there are very many bad things about christianity, but i don't think there is a valid basis for saying science is better than superstition.

 

[swizzlenuts]

The point is that superstitious beliefs can hurt others, and when you have science and reason you get rid of those harmful things. For example, believing that a demon can go into people's bodies can cause death by exorcism. Understanding what reality, and recognizing there isn't any evidence for these demons can help figure out the correct problem. I would assert that doing the least amount of harm to others is the basis we need. The only way we can figure out what causes harm is science and reason. We can't just make up shit like, demons did it.

 

[Krilons Resa]

lmao @ swizzlenuts

 

[einride]

The point is that superstitious beliefs can hurt others, and when you have science and reason you get rid of those harmful things.

i honestly shouldn't have to point this out, but "science and reason" are not infallible -- as much as the superstition of christianity was an improvement on the superstition of judaism, the scientific beliefs of today obsolete those of yesterday, and science is blind -- it does not have a morality.

it was in the name of science that the mentally ill were lobotomized 50 years ago. it was in the name of science that the jews were declared an inferior race. there is nothing that says today's values are any saner -- being children of our time we completely lack the perspective to make that judgement. maybe tomorrow you will find out that your favorite piece of "science" actually ends up killing people or making them miserable?

god is for some an excuse to do evil, like god for some is an incentive to do good. in the same way, people can justify good or evil with beliefs based upon the scientific method. all we're doing is changing our symbols around, switching one oppression for another. in the end it's just another brand of boot stomping on a human face forever.

I would assert that doing the least amount of harm to others is the basis we need.

so essentially, utilitarianism. there are a few problems with adopting this as a standard -- most glaringly, there is no way to accurately predict what actions do harm to others in the grand chain of causation, and there is also no accurate way to measure "harm" -- it is meaningless to say that action A causes slightly less harm to the general public than action B and is therefore preferable.

 

[Ellestin]

Christian mythology is at the root of most of the most (cool phrase here) significant art of our era. From painting to classical music to, uh, wait, black metal.

Just sayin, I wouldn't switch my 2,000 years of lil' jewboy nailed on a stick and wussy apostels for 2,000 years of ottergod-worshipping, but you never know what would have been the dominating belief.

Of course it would have been much cooler if the Greek had taken over and we'd have a colourful and horny pantheon to chose from.



WARNING STUPID POST AHEAD

uii that was misplaced.

 

[einride]

Christian mythology is at the root of most of the most (cool phrase here) significant art of our era. From painting to classical music to, uh, wait, black metal.

whatever, honestly. you could exchange jahve and christ for anything else in the general neighbourhood and get art of the same quality, if not the same basic nature.

Of course it would have been much cooler if the Greek had taken over and we'd have a colourful and horny pantheon to chose from.

pity they didn't, really. i would so desperately have wanted to read the slithering scribbles of the zeus apologists and ares theologians, as if religious theory could get any more absurd

or why not my native religion; if i had a time machine i would totally go back a couple thousand years and tell all our priests and elders that (by authority of being a mysterious man from the future) odin personally told me that evangelizin' is the way to go and a surefire way to get into valhall is to convert others to our faith! then i'd return, listen to beethoven's symphonies about heimdall, and read in the news (runic script, natch) about how they blow each other up over in israel over whether thor's hammer was gold or silver

 

[WhiteBeastofWotan]

^ Good post.

 

[Plastic Nathrakh]

I think that Christianity as a story is much more interesting than some viking bullshit. Its dominance of the history books is why the world is how it is. If viking lore had any attachment to any mainstream religion then I guarantee the stories would change with some of you. It just goes back to how I feel the collective interests of any internet forum have the "it's not cool if it's popular" state of mind.