Religion and Individualism

[Rían]

TWFM - why don't you at least try to explain it from a different angle, or using different terms or analogies. It seems to be a reasonable request from inky. These are complex ideas, and a request to rephrase something that is not understood is normal and reasonable, IMHO. Communication is not an exact science!

And would you please answer my question in post #177? Thanks

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

TWFM - why don't you at least try to explain it from a different angle, or using different terms or analogies. It seems to be a reasonable request from inky. These are complex ideas, and a request to rephrase something that is not understood is normal and reasonable, IMHO. Communication is not an exact science!

i don't know rÃ*an... as one who's rephrased with the best of 'em, sometimes you start to think that people just don't want to try to see things from a different pov

[inked]

To see things from another point of view implies a common vantage point. Utter individualism excludes that. Why, one may as well argue that one is self-derived and that one's parents and upbringing were all imagination, as is the rest of the world. Makes it rather difficult to communicate! Even BoP's sig quotation of Nietzche allows more than that "Morality is the herd instinct in the individual". But the chasm that separates individuals is unbridgeable in a completely self-derived ethic. There is no common ground or vantage point.

I do not myself adhere to that point of view.

The individual is not most highly developed and free when completely absorbed into self. The individual is most free when it is enabled to be its proper self in relation to all of Creation and Creator.

But perhaps that it better on the Why You Believe Thread. It is apparent in TWFM's response that he perceives no commonality. That is very convenient for his point of view and renders response impossible at this juncture. I do remain available.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't know rÃ*an... as one who's rephrased with the best of 'em, sometimes you start to think that people just don't want to try to see things from a different pov

I think his unwillingness to try even once speaks volumes.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think his unwillingness to try even once speaks volumes.

read his posts again... i don't think that's the case at all

[Rían]

OK, maybe I overreacted - it's happened once or twice before ...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

plus, the not being a native english speaker thing?

(highlight above)

[Rían]

*checks a post*

Wait, I thought he was from the US - I thought I remembered wondering why he chose Milan, because he had a US location ...

Are you a native English speaker, TWFM? If not, then I was too "hasty", as Treebeard would say, and I apologize. Where are you from? I haven't been to Milan, tho I've been to Florence and Venice and Rome

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by inked

To see things from another point of view implies a common vantage point. Utter individualism excludes that...the chasm that separates individuals is unbridgeable in a completely self-derived ethic. There is no common ground or vantage point.

I do not myself adhere to that point of view.

I think there would always be a common vantage point though, because experiences and external factors have a big impact in shaping the individuals we are, and these experiences/factors are usually shared....

I guess for some people 'good' morals/ethics can be learned, whereas others need to work out an ethical framework for themselves, based on a lot of introspective self-reflection...I'm not sure that religion (or lack of) is what separates the two groups though. For some, especially those who practice a religion that they were not born into, the process of 'choosing' a religion itself might involve a very reflective process of realising the values they consider paramount
(er..yeah..i guess i'm a subjectivist )

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my best friend not too long back. (I'm agnostic..probably ; she is quite staunchly Christian). She attends youth group meetings at her church, and at one of them the leader asked everyone "what makes a good Christian". Apparently some guy there spoke at length about how we must work out what is "good", and "right"; but my friend's response was simply that a good Christian follows "what God says"

I guess for the other guy, it was just never that simple

[Rían]

I think it's a combination of both.

[The Wizard from Milan]

I am not a native speaker, but I would certainly be able to rephrase what I said in at least a couple of ways. The reason why I don't want to do so is that I don't want to carry on several bitter conversations at once. Personally, I came here to talk about LotR, but then I saw posts that I found objectionable and I started posting in them; I am not sure either of the decisions was wise.

I am orginally from nearby Milan, but I live in the US now.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Personally, I came here to talk about LotR, but then I saw posts that I found objectionable and I started posting in them; I am not sure either of the decisions was wise.

Well I hope you dont start second guessing your decision to post here just because some people disagree with you. rest assured those of us of like minds dont want you to go. and i can almost asuradly say even those who disagree welcome you and your opinions as well. never get put off by disagreement. without disagreement things would be awful boring here dont you think.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I am not a native speaker, but I would certainly be able to rephrase what I said in at least a couple of ways. The reason why I don't want to do so is that I don't want to carry on several bitter conversations at once. Personally, I came here to talk about LotR, but then I saw posts that I found objectionable and I started posting in them; I am not sure either of the decisions was wise.

No, no, don't leave! Don't be put off by those who disagree with you! As IRex says, even those who disagree welcome you and your opinions as well! Please stay, and if I offended you, please accept my sincere apologies, and I hope you and your opinions will stay at Entmoot We've discussed some very controversial topics here, but the people are good people, and we really delve into some controversial opinions without hurting the people that hold those opinions. I think that is SO important - to be able to discuss different opinions without descending to personal insult - and that is the rule here, not the exception.

I am orginally from nearby Milan, but I live in the US now.

Ah, that explains it! You originally had a US location in your location info, didn't you?

[The Wizard from Milan]

I think both Insidious Rex and Rian are right on this one. I am not planning to leave (I never planned to leave the book-related part of the board).

Rian, yes, I seem to remember that I had originally put my current US location in my profile and then took it away

[inked]

One shouldn't leave because of the rough and tumble of debate, not in the 'Moot nor in the public square. The exchange of ideas, viewpoints and philosophies is vital to an informed proletariat, public, bourgeious, underclass, and individuals.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Rian, yes, I seem to remember that I had originally put my current US location in my profile and then took it away

ah-HA! I'm NOT crazy! Whew!

I'd say where I thought you were from, but I think I'll stop while I'm ahead!

Glad you're staying Now, do you want to answer my question about your option #2? (post 177)

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd say where I thought you were from, but I think I'll stop while I'm ahead!

You can say, I took it away just because I did not see it as interesting. I am from New Haven. By the way, the usage of listing the last place of residence as the place from which one claims to be is (as far as I know) an american usage. I have a hard time getting used to it. When I write "I am from New Haven" it sounds wrong. I would say "I am from Italy, but I have been living in New Haven for years". Well it is just linguistical usage and completely off-topic

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Glad you're staying

Thank you

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now, do you want to answer my question about your option #2? (post 177)

I saw this question the very fist time you posted it. I did not answer it before because by the way you worded it you seem to feel very strongly about this topic and I think I feel differently from you. I just wanted to avoid to hurt/anger you and open another useless debate in which we both state our position and than agrue on an important point in but without making any progress.
So the answer is that I feel that there are situations in which for the good of the unborn (that would be otherwise born) it is ethically the right thing to have an abortion. I am not saying that abortion should always be used. I am saying that sometimes the life prospects of the unborn look so bleak that abortion is ethically preferable. This is the case when the small chance of happiness is not worth the big chance of unhappiness. I understand that the evaluation of these chances is far from objective, but it is also true that after the abortion the non-life is not painful for the unborn.

I answered because you really wanted an answer and I hope you are not too hurt/angered. I also hope not to have to drag the discussion overlong

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

You can say, I took it away just because I did not see it as interesting. I am from New Haven. By the way, the usage of listing the last place of residence as the place from which one claims to be is (as far as I know) an american usage. I have a hard time getting used to it. When I write "I am from New Haven" it sounds wrong. I would say "I am from Italy, but I have been living in New Haven for years". Well it is just linguistical usage and completely off-topic

I think a fun way to say it would be, "I am from New Haven, by way of Milan, Italy". That's kind of an odd little American phrase, "by way of", and using it that way is kind of fun and humorous, as Milan is rather far away from New Haven!

I enjoy reading people's locations mainly because I want to know what country they consider home, because I love hearing about different cultures and talking to people from different cultures. That's why I wish Nurvi would change her location to reflect that she's actually Canadian, and just temporarily somewhere else for school, because then a new Canadian could identify with her more and see if they have things in common in their country.

I saw this question the very fist time you posted it. I did not answer it before because by the way you worded it you seem to feel very strongly about this topic and I think I feel differently from you. I just wanted to avoid to hurt/anger you and open another useless debate in which we both state our position and than agrue on an important point in but without making any progress.

Yes, I worded it pretty combatively, and I apologize for that. But again, we Mooters have discussed some very controversial topics, including abortion, and while people have not changed sides, I think both sides have advanced in knowlege and understanding of the other side, which is a good thing, IMO.

So the answer is that I feel that there are situations in which for the good of the unborn (that would be otherwise born) it is ethically the right thing to have an abortion. I am not saying that abortion should always be used. I am saying that sometimes the life prospects of the unborn look so bleak that abortion is ethically preferable. This is the case when the small chance of happiness is not worth the big chance of unhappiness. I understand that the evaluation of these chances is far from objective, but it is also true that after the abortion the non-life is not painful for the unborn.

I answered because you really wanted an answer and I hope you are not too hurt/angered. I also hope not to have to drag the discussion overlong

That is well-worded and thought out. Thank you for answering. I disagree, but now I understand you better.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think a fun way to say it would be, "I am from New Haven, by way of Milan, Italy". That's kind of an odd little American phrase, "by way of", and using it that way is kind of fun and humorous, as Milan is rather far away from New Haven!

I think it would be fun, but I guess it should be "I am from Milan, by way of New Haven". Since "I am not from New Haven "

[inked]

TWFM,
"So the answer is that I feel that there are situations in which for the good of the unborn (that would be otherwise born) it is ethically the right thing to have an abortion. I am not saying that abortion should always be used. I am saying that sometimes the life prospects of the unborn look so bleak that abortion is ethically preferable. This is the case when the small chance of happiness is not worth the big chance of unhappiness. I understand that the evaluation of these chances is far from objective, but it is also true that after the abortion the non-life is not painful for the unborn."

In the event of incompatible with life syndromes or medically threatening the life of the mother, I understand the option for abortion as ethically viable. But those are defined parameters. I am not sure that your perception of"the small chance of happiness is not worth the big chance of unhappiness" fits in, however. Also, what does the assertion "after the abortion the non-life is not painful for the unborn" mean? This statement is a quadruple negative ( a-, non-, not, un-). It seems to say that the absence of life is good in essence. That seems a religious sort of statement or at least a profound belief.