On a Different Note: Concerning Truth: Ethics as Logistics.

I just had to repost my comment:

It seems to me that once we say “religion” and we understand the word to indicate something other than what the particular “religion” means, then we necessarily are discussing something other than whether the content is true or false, but are talking about how those “objects” to which the term “religion” refers, i.e. Islam, Christianity, Wicca, etc… relate. what might be common of them, different, aspects, etc..

If you think about, say, Judaism. It was not a religion. It was the Truth. It only became a religion when there was another group who didn’t ascribe to those laws and such. And then not even then did it become a religion. There were no religions until like 1000 years after Christ. Christianity wasn’t a religion. It was another Truth that entered the arena of battling over what is True.

there wasn’t even Faith. Faith, in the context of religion, is something that one has to Will for. There is no need to Will for anything or believe anything if you are killing people because they do not think the same as you. It is only when there are many more people who think differently than you than there are apparently people who think like you, that you have to “have faith” the what you understand as true is indeed true.

If it is the truth, there is no need to believe. The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter what any One else thinks because the truth is the truth, including that fact that they don’t believe it: that fact is true, there is no need to prove to them that their “not true” is true in its being not true.

It is only when a person of faith is overcome with the bare fact that an overwhelming number of people do not see the truth, and that you cannot get rid of them, that now one who has faith must “have compassion” for others to try to convince them or get them to see that their “not truth” is indeed “not true”. Hence this ethical mandate is not some essential kind of commandment or gift from God as much as it is a manner by which consciousness is attempting to deal with the contradiction of knowing something is true that no one else understands as true.

If I know the truth, then it is true. Nothing that can happen can disprove to me the truth. It is not “my” truth. It is simply true. It only becomes “my” truth to the extent that I could be wrong. but then it wouldn’t be the truth, but merely a belief or religious faith.

The distinction thus has nothing to do with what is known as ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’. It is not about any sort of assertion of truth which defect then admits of its inherent ‘untruth’. It has to do with an entirely different manner of coming upon real things, a difference that I indicate through the term orientation.

10 Comments

    1. It’s not letting me follow your blog for some reason. And I’m interested in that book you have there. Yours I guess the blue cover.

  1. All I know is, when the world was polytheistic, there were no religious wars. Wars were about strategy and politics etc. But not religious. On the contrary, civilizations respected each others deities. So they were used to different truths. Only monotheistic religions claimed the exclusivity of truth which explains the battles for religion

    1. I’m sure that human groups always fought with each other.

      I tend to think in terms of the terms themselves. The reason why I say that there was no religion before maybe the 13th century or something like that, is because there was no word religion and so there was no way for anyone to conceive or understand the world through religion.

      Granted, I’m just kind of playing With ideas in this post. But one might see that it is an encompassing economic system which then develops the idea eventually that there are “beliefs systems” or religions.

      I am not a scholar of history, but I don’t think that people often thought of other groups of people as different “cultures”, as though there is this common thing called a human being and then it just so happens that different groups “believe” differently..

      I think it was more proprietary, more self ownership, self-righteousness as group sense that what Was known is true was indeed true. We can even look at it in the sense of how people viewed other groups because in many of those older type civilizations we find in some writings this idea of “barbarians“, and we get the indication that these other groups were not considered human beings. They were considered something else, and we could even move this up into the more modern industrial area that I saw black people and people of color as not human beings or somehow beneath respect because they were not of the same type of creature as the dominating force. But this is not only located in the west; it has instances all over the world in every civilization at all times. The Chinese people viewed the homes as not human beings and that’s why they built the wall because they couldn’t destroy them.

      We see this all over the world and all over history. The idea that there is a common human being that just thinks differently in different occasions ultimately arrives in our modern condition where every single human being has such a subjective experience that we’re all caught in our own worlds of meaning. Less involved in a group of people who have a common meaning, the end result or the modern individual is caught in its own world of meaning that cannot find substance in any any group, and this is capitalized the pond because any sort of movement into a group leave some sort of access that can be taken of advantage of by a different group are a different person.

      And so I’m taking another step here, in this post, to say that FX perhaps is not some sort of innately universal cosmetic joining of consciousness that has been severed somehow, maybe, such that ethics is this kind of natural motion to want to re-join with other human beings or the world or whatever.

      Ethics could be just a way that consciousness solves the problem of having to deal with a creature that it sees or understands inherently as different or not of the same sort of substance as it self but yet can’t get rid of or can’t destroy.

      Perhaps Ethics, from a strictly physical universally objective standpoint of development, is a compensating element of the mechanism of consciousness. Yeah I suppose it matters if we take ethics as something that occurs “first”. Because I am not entirely sure that it is in human nature to treat other people with kindness. I think that is something we learned in our immediate family and by our mediate culture group. But still when someone offends us we don’t naturally approach them with kindness; on the contrary I think often we act towards them in defense, we act in a way to get them out of our way to move them away from us to get them out of our field of experience, so to speak.

      And when we look at history and we look at groups, usually the first response was to go win and try to kill that group to destroy that group unless they had some sort of benefit for the original group.

      I’m suggesting that ethics arises perhaps due to the fact that we can never destroy that group that is offending us entirely.

      OK. Voice dictation, man.,. It lends itself to just rambling and rambling so… 😄

      1. So to put it differently, we are naturally racist or intolerant and ethics is an exercise that we should do permanently to tolerate the other different.. very logical to me!
        I enjoy discussions with u.. we always reinvent the world 😊

      2. Lol.

        I am
        Enjoying our interaction also.

        I am skeptical about agency. And I am skeptical whether these terms that we decide to label each other by are really indicating something essential to our interaction. Indeed they do under certain conditions and so we have to take them seriously and we have to work with them.
        But

        For example, just because the world might be based in nothing, does not mean that we are not ethical creatures, as some theists like to argue. They would say that if there is no God instilling in us innate notions of good and bad, then we are free to do whatever we want. I think that doesn’t hold water because of the very fact that I don’t do whatever I want anyways. It doesn’t matter what I believe; I still can’t do what I want. Lol. What I believe only has at most partial effect on what I do in my life.

        Yeah and I think you’re probably pretty right when it came up to the theist groups that they perpetrated war in the name of God.

        But I guess I’m saying it doesn’t matter why we fight; I think human beings just fight. Sucky and depressing as it may sound. 😆

        I don’t want to argue with my wife, I have 1 million reasons why I don’t want to and why I shouldn’t, all the benefits of not arguing, etc…

        And yet we find ourselves at times in arguments.

        Who knows why?And honestly, does it really matter?

        I would argue that no it doesn’t matter what we argue about because we’re not, for one, going to inflict injury upon one another.

        I think there is a certain mount of or certain measure or something, some type of awareness, that at least in our marriage love is foundational and it goes beyond any like passion or rational thoughts or argument or proof or anything like that I think there is a certain mount of or certain measure or something, some type of awareness, that at least in our marriage love is foundational and it goes beyond any like passion or rational thoughts or argument or proof or anything like that .

        it comes down to a simple commitment and a care for one another and an understanding that we are partners in life. And so even though we get in arguments, the substance of those arguments are pretty much set aside, and we of course apologize and make up and stuff. And then we learn about ourselves and each other.

        But often enough the content of the argument really means is next to nothing, as we find usually it has something to do with with that I’m feeling insecure about where she’s feeling insecure about or just some communication problem or something that really has nothing to do with the content of the argument.

        Anyways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s