[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Dec 28 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on Dec 28 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

Terez, I absolutely agree with you. As for what was necessary, it's speculation of course, until such a time when atheists manage to make a mark on ethic discussions (in history). The fact is, though, it did happen how it happened.

You said it was necessary. I disagree. While it's nice to see you've backed off to calling that line of thought "speculation", you still seem to maintain that religion was necessary for ethics to develop. Why?

Where did I say it was necessary? The point is, ethics has shown itself in the form of religion, or religion like thoughts - I agree with you that it might not be necessary, in theory, but has there been such an example? I don't know of any, if I'm wrong, please educate me.

And I haven't backed off, I just explained more what I mean. I couldn't possibly foresee a reaction based on an argument I have never heard before.

@Dolorous, see above. If I am misunderstood, am I not allowed to explain myself? To me it seems like, I make a statement, people get horrified, I explain, people say I back down. ROFL! You're the one that are amusing, Dolorous.


--->@ Brood ... You're the one that are amusing, Broodywoodie. <--- Edited out for posterity and hilariousness.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 28 December 2008 - 08:00 PM

[Terez]

Gem said:

@ Brood, see above. If I am misunderstood, am I not allowed to explain myself? To me it seems like, I make a statement, people get horrified, I explain, people say I back down. ROFL! You're the one that are amusing, Broodywoodie.

Oh, Bwoodie is just going to love this...

[Gem Windcaster]

Terez, on Dec 28 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

Gem said:

@ Brood, see above. If I am misunderstood, am I not allowed to explain myself? To me it seems like, I make a statement, people get horrified, I explain, people say I back down. ROFL! You're the one that are amusing, Broodywoodie.

Oh, Bwoodie is just going to love this...

That sound very ominous.

[Terez]

Point being, I think you meant Dolorous Menhir.

[Gem Windcaster]

HAHAHAHAH! Yeah, you're right. Brain fart. ROFL! Brood gets the blame again!

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 28 December 2008 - 07:59 PM

[caladanbrood]

You... I... He... Wha *chokes*

[Gem Windcaster]

Gaahahahahaha! I needed that.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 28 December 2008 - 08:01 PM

[Terez]

Oh come on Bwoodie, it's an easy mistake to make!

[Shinrei]

What I wonder is if ethos would develop with a sense of some sort of universal truth without the influence of deities or pantheons? Higher truth which stands outside of existence is a very Western orientation. Those who have studied Japanese civilization and religion pretty much agree that the Japanese value system to a great extent lacks transcendental and universalistic orientations and Japan and the Japanese for the most part do not act based on some sort of set of ideological principles but rather a mundane pragmatism. Even religion in Japan is 'pragmatic'. Modern Japan's value system is based on human relationships/mundane order, rather than some sort of transcendental order.

Is mundane pragmatism the natural opposite development of religiously influenced transcendental (universal) truths?

The problem with this Japanese orientation of course is if you can convince and point the group towards a certain direction, it is as anthropolologist Nakane Chie says, the Japanese lack the checking mechanism that some sort of belief in universal truth can provide. (Witness the rise to WWII and the bureaucratic stranglehold that exists over Japanese industrial production today).

This post has been edited by The 20th: 29 December 2008 - 01:49 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

The 20th, on Dec 29 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

What I wonder is if ethos would develop with a sense of some sort of universal truth without the influence of deities or pantheons? Higher truth which stands outside of existence is a very Western orientation. Those who have studied Japanese civilization and religion pretty much agree that the Japanese value system to a great extent lacks transcendental and universalistic orientations and Japan and the Japanese for the most part do not act based on some sort of set of ideological principles but rather a mundane pragmatism. Even religion in Japan is 'pragmatic'. Modern Japan's value system is based on human relationships/mundane order, rather than some sort of transcendental order.

Is mundane pragmatism the natural opposite development of religiously influenced transcendental (universal) truths?

The problem with this Japanese orientation of course is if you can convince and point the group towards a certain direction, it is as anthropolologist Nakane Chie says, the Japanese lack the checking mechanism that some sort of belief in universal truth can provide. (Witness the rise to WWII and the bureaucratic stranglehold that exists over Japanese industrial production today).

It's an interesting point you make.

I can only talk from my perspective, and I don't necessarily bind together the metaphysical with deities/pantheon or even the transcendental. Belief systems deal with the hidden world, may it be a universal truth or your own personal world where you make your own choices. Both western philosophers and eastern thought has in common a search for inner enlightenment. It should be obvious that inner enlightenment to me doesn't have to be a universal truth.

As for Japan, I know too little about it to comment on it, but the pragmatism you describe is very much interesting for the subject we are discussing. I am guessing you could, depending on the outlook you choose, ascribe this paradigm of thought to both search for inner enlightenment and something else - much like what I've been asking for in this discussion.

My take on it is that there's no easy answer, but instead it depends on the perspective. The reason is that the discussion of for instance the Japanese pragmatism (is there a general name for it even?) you have to consider the motives. Where does the idea and thought paradigm come from and what caused it? How does it manifest?

Also, there's a problem when you say "the ideological principle is that there's no ideological principle."

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 29 December 2008 - 07:58 PM

[Terez]

The 20th, on Dec 29 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

What I wonder is if ethos would develop with a sense of some sort of universal truth without the influence of deities or pantheons? Higher truth which stands outside of existence is a very Western orientation. Those who have studied Japanese civilization and religion pretty much agree that the Japanese value system to a great extent lacks transcendental and universalistic orientations and Japan and the Japanese for the most part do not act based on some sort of set of ideological principles but rather a mundane pragmatism. Even religion in Japan is 'pragmatic'. Modern Japan's value system is based on human relationships/mundane order, rather than some sort of transcendental order.

Is mundane pragmatism the natural opposite development of religiously influenced transcendental (universal) truths?

Both are pragmatic - the Western tendency is to add non-pragmatic religious morals on top of pragmatic ethics. I think it would be a mistake to view Eastern and Western philosophies as being dichotomous.

Shin said:

The problem with this Japanese orientation of course is if you can convince and point the group towards a certain direction, it is as anthropolologist Nakane Chie says, the Japanese lack the checking mechanism that some sort of belief in universal truth can provide. (Witness the rise to WWII and the bureaucratic stranglehold that exists over Japanese industrial production today).

I can see all sorts of problems with the Western orientation that have led to worse issues in Western nations, so I fail to see how this argument, as you have presented it, is supposed to be convincing of anything. Perhaps you could explain it further?

[Lost Marine]

Terez, on Dec 29 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

Shin said:

The problem with this Japanese orientation of course is if you can convince and point the group towards a certain direction, it is as anthropolologist Nakane Chie says, the Japanese lack the checking mechanism that some sort of belief in universal truth can provide. (Witness the rise to WWII and the bureaucratic stranglehold that exists over Japanese industrial production today).

I can see all sorts of problems with the Western orientation that have led to worse issues in Western nations, so I fail to see how this argument, as you have presented it, is supposed to be convincing of anything. Perhaps you could explain it further?

Sounds like they're trying to say that if you don't believe in punishment from a higher being then it's easier to get you to enslave the Pacific Rim.

Argument is negated by the Holocaust, the Crusades, and dozens of other instances where Western Philosophy and religion failed to restrain excesses.

All the Japanese behavior in WWII shows is that people are stupid and tend to do what you tell them.

[Gem Windcaster]

I have to agree with Lost Marine on that one. Besides, when you go down that path, with describing a people as a type of behavior (or way of thinking), you get awfully close to racism. (not saying that any of you are racist, that's not what I'm saying (better be clear on that point, or you'll all start screaming at me ))

[Shinrei]

Terez, the argument is one of a "chicken or the egg" sort. I'm wondering if perhaps the Western form of pragmatism has the underpinnings of "universal truths" due to the stronger culture of the worship of divine beings i.e. some higher power which stands outside of regular human existence. Therefore, ethos stands as some sort of unalterable principle that we strive for. Whereas, the Japanese do not operate as if there are some sort of self-evident idealistic truths.

@windcaster: It's not an ideological principle. If it became advantageous for the ruling elite of Japan to create an ideological principle, they will (and then discard it when it isn't needed). An example would be the encouraged preeminance of the Meiji Emporer as a divine being. This ideology was a pragmatic move to unite the Japanese in their modernization efforts.

@Lost Marine: Obviously that's not what I'm suggesting. Psychology suggests that the diffusion of responsibility and "just following orders" is a powerful human compulsion regardless of culture.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

The 20th, on Dec 29 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

Terez, the argument is one of a "chicken or the egg" sort. I'm wondering if perhaps the Western form of pragmatism has the underpinnings of "universal truths" due to the stronger culture of the worship of divine beings i.e. some higher power which stands outside of regular human existence. Therefore, ethos stands as some sort of unalterable principle that we strive for. Whereas, the Japanese do not operate as if there are some sort of self-evident idealistic truths.

For the record, there are christian Japanese. They exhibit all of the cultural norms of the majority of Japanese (I know a couple). But they worship as Westerners. Contradiction.

I would even say that the motivator for this strong, quasi-secular pragmatism in Japan is from a history of needing to be pragmatic. About everything. You could say it's been bred into the populace (either in the literal sense or in the cultural sense). Several hundred years of constant internecine warfare, compounded by scarce resources, compounded by extremely limited space, compounded by isolationism. But I digress.

I am going to make an assertion that will annoy many.

So people who act 'morally' do so for a reason. I would posit that it is an inherently self-interested reason.

Having a religiously-based morality system is an easy way to get people to behave 'morally,' that is to say, they don't go raping and pillaging, they're nice to each other most of the time, etc. etc. Which I refuse to do, and refuse to integrate into the discussion. They act this way because there is the threat of eternal (of immense, mind-boggling-magnitude) punishment. It is a self-interested action in the classical sense.

But "moral" actions occur in the absence of this easy way. Intelligent people can see multiple points of view, judge pragmatically that while action A would certainly benefit the actor, it is also in the actor's best interest to retain the support of / evade the wrath of the victim(s) / sufferer(ers) of deleterious effect or that of their community (which will likely oppose you for similar reasoning). This is not to say that this thought process actively goes on. It's natural enough for people to consider without really thinking (i.e. you'd feel bad, you don't want to go to prison, etc). Morality is internalized by the extant crime-punishment system. It is less rigid, and is what we actually see acting in the world (which is one of the reasons there were still police in the devoutly christian nations of Europe throughout history).

The determining factors being
1) The relative severity of the threat
2) The credibility of that threat.

and possibly weighed against the benefit gained by acting 'immorally.'

For Christianity, that goes
1) HIGH (constant, invariant)
2) ?

For more secular systems it goes
1) Low-High (varies with crime)
2) Pretty damn certain (for most crimes of consequence)

Which is more effective? They cover different areas, and it's tough to compare them. But they are both inherently useful, to a degree.
That's a judgment call on each person's part.

[Shinrei]

@Stormy, of course there are. However when studying cultural norms in the macro sense, you cannot provide every detail, and it gets tedious stating again and again "of course there are exceptions to the rule." Windcaster makes the same mistake in bringing up racism in her post. We might as well throw all cultural studies and anthropology out the window. Except, we hope that the inherent understanding is that we are attempting to catagorize in a macro sense without implying that all _____ people are robots and are exactly the same.

I should also perhaps clarify that this mundane pragmatism has continually been a tool of the ruling elite. There have obviously been social and political movements in Japan that have chosen an ideal or ideals to follow. They just have never been in power. Nor has there been enough populace support to put them into power.

But, bringing up Japanese Christians begs the question: Why are Japanese Christians so much more rare than Korean Christians? A great number of Koreans have embraced Christianity, while the Japanese have not. Perhaps this is because Koreans are more oriented to the Chinese persuasion of belief in absolutes.

This post has been edited by The 20th: 30 December 2008 - 07:00 AM

[Terez]

Stormy said:

So people who act 'morally' do so for a reason. I would posit that it is an inherently self-interested reason.

I'm pretty sure I said that already, lol.

[HoosierDaddy]

The 20th, on Dec 30 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

I should also perhaps clarify that this mundane pragmatism has continually been a tool of the ruling elite. There have obviously been social and political movements in Japan that have chosen an ideal or ideals to follow. They just have never been in power. Nor has there been enough populace support to put them into power.

Well, publicity is one way to get a movement out to the population, i.e. posters saying there is no God.

Quote

But, bringing up Japanese Christians begs the question: Why are Japanese Christians so much more rare than Korean Christians? A great number of Koreans have embraced Christianity, while the Japanese have not. Perhaps this is because Koreans are more oriented to the Chinese persuasion of belief in absolutes.

Perhaps it has to do with Korea's being the battleground of China and Japan, and a society that has grown to reflect that of its dominant partner/protector? You had Japan and China telling Korea that each was completely wrong for a couple thousand years, then suddenly a new message comes in that is completely different. I suppose that could have an impact. I have a major problem categorizing the Japanese as "Eastern". There economic system is western, and the entire 20th century was spent westernizing it. Does its historical culture have a large "Eastern" flavor to it? Yes, but not as much as it used to.

Nice post, Stormy.

We should all be able to agree that worshipping a divine power can only be about three reasons: (1) an attempt to control the uncontrollable or explain the unexplainable for early human existence; and (2) Believe or spend eternity being tortured. Or, (3) the more historically accepted reason that believing in an after-life gave people a small sliver of hope that their hellish existence on earth would be replaced by heaven if they believed... which is actually a facet of "controlling the uncontrollable" but it is a very important reason for the rise of the Christian religion in late Rome.

[Shinrei]

Or belief that something exists outside of human existence/understanding that we cannot/never will explain.

This post has been edited by The 20th: 30 December 2008 - 11:26 AM

[Terez]

That falls under (1) an attempt to control the uncontrollable or explain the unexplainable for early human existence.