Hatred

38 Comments

1. In the Nyamudy language of Ngambri People ancestors, there is no word for “hate”. That is the case for many languages of First People

2. Shane, in the language of the Anungu (Pitjantjatjara) there are no words for “please” or “thank you”, as they were not needed. People know what they have to do and they don’t have to be told to do, and neither do they expect gratitude (as in thanks) because it was their job anyway.

3. I’ve never been quite sure what hatred is. Contempt, yes. Despise, perhaps. Hate … not really. Especially when it comes to people – individually or in groups – rather than the things they do and the results thereof. There are people whose actions merit negative feelings. If the overwhelming majority of someone’s known actions harm others or fewer actions cause major harm, negative feelings towards the person are reasonable; even more so when that person refuses to acknowledge the impact of their behaviour or even relishes it. Some people are beyond redemption.

   I choose not to hate
   I’ve just never done it except possibly one person and, given what that person did … well, they deserved every negative feeling I had (and still have) towards them. It’s not a nice feeling; maybe that was so strong it just burnt the capacity out of me.

   On the wider scale … still can’t relate. It makes no sense to judge anyone by trivialities such as skin tones or sexual preferences or anything they have not personally chosen to do. It’s the behaviour that matters, not appeance or how they identify or things over which they have no control.
   An’ thou do no harm … The Wiccan creed has always seemed more reasonable to me than most religious edicts. (Hmmm, seem to have strayed from thhe point somewhat)

4. Its difficult to navigate such a complex thing you have raised ,,,3 different sets of camps ..Jews ,.Muslims and christians ,all very significant in history ,,History and on going history ..The ongoing struggle between Jews n Musilms ,,and yet christianity ,,the modern world or supposedly ,,the old world versus the new world ,,,Old testament ,,New testament ,,History records one thing ..JESUS ..Not mohammed .Or budda .Of hindu or the catholic pope Or the president of unites state ,,JUst Jesus ,,why >? ,,A D – BC ,,No other figure in History has this distinction ,Jesus is a historical proven Fact ,, why Jesus ,He died on the CRoss , He rose from the dead ,the rest didnt !!!! he claimed to die for all sinners , for all time realms and mankind ,,He was the messiah .the lamb of God . The Son Of God who came down from heaven ,,He healed the Sick ,,Raised the dead ,walked on water ,fed the 5000 . cast out demons , God in the flesh ,,the rest of the relegions didnt do what jesus did !!!! ,they failed in every thing ,,they were fakes and man made relegions and not from Heaven ,,Big difference !!!!!!!! ,we western people celebrate Xmas and easter ,, its been 2024, since christ Death ,, Blessed are the peace makers for they shall see the kingdom of God . A new commendment i give you .which is old ,LOve your neighbour as your self ,,How many Nations and indidviduals have failed Jesus tests ? He truely is the saviour and the only way to God ..surrender to the king of Kings – THe Bible will have the last word in all of Mankinds History ,,BC – AD ,,work it out !!!…. The Bible is the alpha and the omega ,,the begingining and the end ,,thas why is so unique ….History is history ,even its un comfortable ,,, THe Empty Tomb of the Cross , i will sing for ever !!!……

5. Jano:

   Provide reliable evidence that Yeshua ben Yosef rose from the dead. Note: a book compiled over centuries from multiple texts of dubious origin does not qualify.
   Also, every recorded mythology has claims of various superhuman entities being resurrected. They have as much right to a claim of single ultimate truth as whichever version of christianity you follow has.

6. Now, now, leefe … – for someone whose first post on this thread asserts consistent personal detachment from the sentiment of hatred, your second post does make a fairly abrupt turn towards belligerence.

7. Shane MORTIMER,

   is there a word for “love” in the Nyamudy language?

8. Bert Hetebry:

   I choose not to hate. I strive to respect the humanity of all peoples …

   A very noble sentiment … – but would you be as magnanimous if this girl was your daughter. Or if an even worse fate had befallen her, as it did for all too many of her compatriots?

   There have been people throughout the ages who were able to muster that kind of magnanimity and forgiveness. I admire them greatly. I would strive to follow their example.

   But at the same time, I try not to underestimate the challenge.

9. Jano, thank you for your profession of faith, and that is what your statement about Jesus is, an expression of what you believe.
   And you find comfort in that, and that is good.
   Others believe otherwise, and they find comfort in their belief, in their faith, in their understanding of God, or even no god.

   The thing is that no one can prove faith.

   The recording of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were written years after they are said to have happened, the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels were written well after they were thought to be spoken, the Bible is not history, it is a guide to life, it is a means of finding meaning.

   For others the Koran does that, also not a history book, rather a guide to life

   The same with the book of Mormon or any other sacred text we wish to present, they are guides to life.

   And each who believes in their particular God should be free to live out their faith, their belief and extend that right to others who may or may not believe the same.

   It is when religion, and it matters not which religion or faith we refer to, when that is an enforced orthodoxy, blood inevitably flows, people are reviled for not believing the preached, enforced orthodoxy. Take a look at the time of the Reformation, I am currently reading a book ‘The New Jerusalem’, set in 16th century, Germany and The Netherlands, it was a bloody affair, the Roman Catholic Church, Luther and the Anabaptists, each trying to enforce their beliefs, each putting down the others for daring to not conform, and each causing rivers of blood to flow.

   So much better to allow freedom of religion, the alternative breeds hatred and through out history has caused many people to die gruesome deaths for not believing what others want them to believe.

   I have a friend who is a Jehovah’s Witness. She fell in love with the wrong man and was given a choice, him or us, him or her family, father, mother, sisters, nieces and nephews and the fellowship of believers. She chose family and has not dared to fall in love again, The alternative occurs all to frequently, where people are excommunicated for making that wrong choice, separated from family in a means which is almost irreconcilable. And it happens in other religious sects too.

10. Leefe, one of the hardest things to do is to forgive in some circumstances. The result of not forgiving is to carry the resentment, the hurt through life.

    That leads to anger and makes future contact difficult, The pyramid at the bottom of the article was added by the editor of this magazine, it shows concisely how hate is manifest, from the hatred which leads to genocide, or to murder or just in denigrating people for being ‘not like me’.

11. Arnd, it is not always easy. In fact it can be the most difficult thing we can do.

    An interesting book which explores some of the worst that people can inflict on others and how it is dealt with by people is The Ten Types of Human by Dexter Dias. Dexter Dias is a C
    Human Rights Barrister and a judge in the British court system. He has dealt with cases which include human trafficking, slavery, religious discrimination, child soldiers and other horrible situations. The book is very accessible, Dias is a good story teller, but he will at times bring tears and other times anger. In that book, you may find an answer to the question you pose

    That answer may be one of forgiveness or it may be one of festering hatred.

12. I have heard it said that “Love and hate are the two sides of the same coin.”

    Is it the coin of passion and desire without understanding? Perhaps. It may be worth reflecting on.

    And similarly, when it comes to ‘belief’, as opposed to ‘knowledge’, it is said that moving somebody who has committed to a ‘belief’ to commit to a different ‘belief’ is much more difficult than to change or add to someone’s ‘knowledge’. Perhaps a quick read of Machiavelli’s prose might shed some light.

    Just a quick nit-pick, Bert. Where you state ” …here in Australia we send anyone trying to arrive illegally off to a prison island …”, I’m not so sure about the ‘illegally’ bit, as under UN conventions on refugees, they are not deemed ‘illegal’, and there is an obligation to accept them, and Oz is a signatory to that convention.

    When it comes to comes to defenders and freedom fighters vs terrorists, it is well worth a read of the agreed UN definition of terrorist, terrorist groups and terrorist states. And also the USA’s separate such definitions, which are spread over a few different Acts. It might bring a further understanding regarding the assertions and designation of ‘terrorists’ and who is making them, why, and whether they stand up to thorough scrutiny. To me it seems there exists various levels of weirdness, and perhaps hypocrisy afoot.

13. Both the ALP and the LNP have a policy that when people arrive by boat, through the not legitimate way, we criminalise them, they will ‘never set foot on Australian soil’, so off to Nauru where they are treated as criminals at great expense to the public purse.

    That was the result of fear mongering, children overboard, all the hate around the Tampa incident at election time and the ongoing baiting of who can take the toughest stance against those asylum seekers.

    And yes, terrorist organisations are defined by the UN, but those waters get muddied pretty quickly when sides are taken, when politicians and the press lead with biased headlines, to shut down thinking, to shut down any sense of understanding where the conflict started.

    Is the destruction of Gaza to a pile of rubble, leaving over two million people with now where to live an act of terrorism or an act of self defence?

    So does the term Terrorist have a political bias or is it an accurate descriptor?

14. Bert, thanks for the book recommendation. Here is Zoe Williams’ review in The Guardian.

    Dias is a barrister and QC. Very much an establishment man!

    I’m not! I did develop a teenage interest in law and jurisprudence, which led me almost immediately to age-old questions about responsibility, intent, culpability, and most importantly, actionable definitions of “justice”:

    justice. Plato’s Republic begins with the question, “What is justice?”, and with the famous refutation of the view that justice is the interest of those with power; in other words, it argues for the non-identity of rights and powers (For the persistence of the doctrine refuted by Plato, see Rights and Powers). Since then, Plato’s question has lain at the heart of all moral, political and legal philosophy, and is often considered to be the single most important question in political thought.

    So begins the rather lengthy entry of “justice” in Roger Scruton’s A Dictionary of Political Thought.

    After repeatedly returning to this subject from a goodly number of different perspectives over one-and-a-half decades, I eventually generated a definition of “justice” that I considered satisfactory.

    Disappointingly, it was not a definition that provided me with a reliable red thread to tie together all (bourgeois) jurisprudence in one sensible whole, and set me on a Royal Road to repeated courtroom victories as defense counsel for the poor and oppressed.

    Quite the contrary: it impressed on me the urgent need to to replace our contemporary legal understanding, based as it is on threadbare conceptualisations of “just desert”, with one based on “need” and “capability”.

    In that sense, I m right outside of the jurisprudential frame of reference that Dexter Dias QC must wholly embrace.

    Have a look at the reality of (criminal) justice – incarceration rates, prison conditions, recidivism – in the UK. Or Australia, for that matter. Here, pay particular attention to the situation of Aborigines.

    Don’t forget the US – the Land Of The Free – which has the highest incarceration rates of all countries.

    There’s a lot of ground to cover yet. And we need stronger stuff than heartfelt proclamations of goodwill to all humanity!

15. Hate is a negative sentiment used electorally by the RW MSM, as negativity and pessimism are more effective than positivity and optimism: ‘divide the electorate & multiply the vote’ Mike Moore, Frontline.

16. Ah Justice, Arnd, what an interesting concept.

    Is there really such a thing? I agree with your rather cynical view of justice, when the rich criminalise the poverty but do nothing to alleviate it, when the powerful are able to steal at will, refuse to pay their share of taxes, and use every power available to them to have their way, including the purchase of politicians to have laws written to support their desires.

    And what is the answer? Can we, dare we look at the motivations behind the revolutions of Russia in 1905 and 1917, the overthrow of the corrupt, self-serving Czarist regimes to be replace by self-serving communist elites?

    And that is reflected in just about every well intentioned power grab…. those who take the power, enjoy it so much they become entrenched in it, deposing of any who challenge their power.

    So justice…. mmmm what a dream to have justice in a pure sense.

17. Arnd:
    A politely worded request for a credible source of information in support of an illogical claim, accompanied by a simple statement of fact, is neither belligerent nor hate. You might best refer to Dennis Hay’s latest article and consider the bit about cognitive dissonance; sometimes people see negative attitudes in other’s words simply because they don’t like the words and their import.

    Bert:
    No. A lack of forgiveness is not the same as resentment nor is it hate; nor is forgiveness necessary to move forward with one’s life. I don’t hate any of the people who have done me so much harm (with the possible exception of the one to whom I have already alluded). In my book, forgiveness without genuine remorse, without a genuine attempt at atonement and without a genuine attempt at reformation is simply a licence to reoffend. If there are no consequences for unacceptable behaviour, that behaviour is no longer unacceptable.
    You have to draw the line somewhere.
    I don’t share the table with fascists and bigots. I don’t hate them either; I just protect myself by a refusal to engage. The strongest of my negative feelings and attitudes towards them is not for them as people; it is for what they do.

18. Interesting article Bert. I’m reminded of Francis Bacon who lived in the same era as Shakespeare in England. Queen Elizabeth I appointed him as her royal adviser and so he became the first Q.C. in England. He was a forward thinking renaissance man. He did however, have his enemies within England. As a philosopher he pursued and encouraged the practice of scientific methodology. James I was impressed by him and appointed him as Attorney General. He wrote a considerable number of Essays, eg Of Truth, Of Revenge, Of Envy, Of Love, Of Cunning, Of Friendship, and many others. None specifically about hatred but no doubt he would have examined it. My thought is that hatred is a most destructive emotion. Especially if held for a long time. As far as religion and belief goes, Christianity has I think, only one redeeming feature, The Concept (ie Practice) of Forgiveness. According to the scriptures that was something preached by Jesus of Nazareth which an atheist such as myself could agree with. It would seem that forgiveness can overcome hatred. Catholics would say that confession is good for the soul, but I would say that forgiveness can achieve that as well. Assuming that one believes in a soul (or spirit, or life energy or essence).

19. leefe, do you mean this quote from Denis Hay’s missive:

    a) Cognitive Dissonance: People prefer information that confirms their existing beliefs and avoid information that contradicts them, leading to a skewed understanding of issues.

    That’s not actually Cognitive Dissonance; what Denis Hay described here is Confirmation Bias.

    There’s quite a few other problems with Denis’s MMT gish gallop – which indicates to me that he has not considered the issues under examination as deeply and as exhaustively as he might have convinced himself. Which, in an article about deep thinking, presents as a problem of a particular – namely “self-referential” – kind.

    I stand by my earlier words: your “politely worded request” was bristling with personal annoyance – and that’s kind of ok. But own it! And don’t insist on pretending that this attitude doesn’t stand out – in a particular “self-referential” kind – on a thread about how we should just replace hatred with various forms of kumbaya.

20. Arnd

    I’ve said this before and I shouldn’t have to repeat it: do not ever presume to know my feelings or motiivations unless they are explicitly expressed. You aren’t me, you don’t know me, you don’t know how my mind works; you read into my words what you want to read and not what I actually say.
    Not silently acquiescing to another’s words is not belligerance. It is not aggression. It is certainly not hatred. There was no “personal annoyance” in what I said nor in me at the time; I am, however, getting some now because it REALLY pisses me off when people presume to dictate what I meant or how I felt when there is no justifiication in the words I actually used.

    Yes, what Denis refered to is actually Confirmation Bias but I wanted to make sure you refered to the right section of his essay so used the term he did. Sue me (ooo, look, real personal annoyance).

21. leefe,

    … do not ever presume to know my feelings or motiivations (sic) unless they are explicitly expressed.

    It wasn’t that long ago that you were rather insistent that I ought to loosen up a bit, not take everything you write unfailingly verbatim, and read between the lines a bit more … – only to then subsequently accuse me of “not just reading between the linen, but shoving whole essays between every one of your words”. Remember?

    And look, maybe I did get you wrong – but “bristling with personal annoyance” is certainly how your words sounded to me. Subjectively speaking.

    However, all of this is incidental. My real bone of contention is that you (seem to) demand a level of proof that is impossible to provide, and worse, that you do so selectively.

    From reading your (and Bert Hetebry’s, and Denis Hay’s, amongst many others) contributions, it seems clear that there is a whole range of assumptions, about politics, economics, law, and the human condition in general, that you have not gotten around to questioning at fundamental level. Yet you reproach others for not subjecting their respective assumptions to exacting critical review.

    In short, your – leefe, Bert, Denis et al – assertions and contentions indicate a disturbing ignorance about the Münchhausen Trilemma.

    leefe, I submit, for your consideration, that if you had a clearer understanding of the incompleteness of all human “knowledge”, including your own, you, too, might be less insistent that the key to further progress does lie in not making questionable assumptions (because we all do, all the time), but in not enforcing agendas based on our respective assumptions on others.

    An anarchist refutation of coercion, in other words, rather than categorical insistence on unattainable epistemological perfection.

    What do you say?

22. However, all of this is incidental. My real bone of contention is that you (seem to) demand a level of proof that is impossible to provide, and worse, that you do so selectively.

    I don’t respond to every single article or comment I read. Do you? I respond if and when I have the time and the mental and emotional energy to do so. I don’t even read every article here because I’m often out bush and online time is home activity only.
    There have been so many anti-religion comments posted on various artiicles here but you don’t challenge all of them. Yet mine, which was fairly mild … Well, you and only you know why that gets up your nose so much.
    It’s not like anything we write here has any impact in the real world. This is a form of entertainment for us, a way of passing the time and, possibly, learning a little.

    I submit, for your consideration, that if you had a clearer understanding of the incompleteness of all human “knowledge”, including your own, you, too, might be less insistent that the key to further progress does lie in not making questionable assumptions (because we all do, all the time), but in not enforcing agendas based on our respective assumptions on others.

    I’m well aware that there is a great deal I don’t know, and that human knowledge does not have answers to every question. But I’m still trying to decipher what the last part of that means. Of course we all make questionable assumptions; one has to constantly check oneself on that and try to ensure that one questions those assumptions oneself. That’s why, when I’m wondering what unspoken meanings might be behind other’s words – or even just whether something is there – that I ASK rather than dictate.

    It wasn’t that long ago that you were rather insistent that I ought to loosen up a bit, not take everything you write unfailingly verbatim, and read between the lines a bit more … – only to then subsequently accuse me of “not just reading between the linen [sic], but shoving whole essays between every one of your words”. Remember?

    I remember the second part of that. The first … different conversation? It sounds a little like something I might say in some situations if someone was taking an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment seriously, but I don’t specifically recall saying just that or, if I did, what it was in relation to. “Lighten up” – yes; “don’t take it verbatim” – depends very much on circumstances and context (there is no sarcasm font and I wouldn’t use it anyway because that takes away the whole point of sarcasm).

    OK, a clarification: my mental state* is highly variable and so is my writing style. I can do anything from glib, smart-arsed one-liners to long-winded, complex, carefully though out and worded essays. Mostly I try to avoid the latter because such essays become too convoluted and intricate for most people to follow. The smart-arsery is probably not always evident, which is where some misunderstandings arise.

    (*ASD, ADHD, cPTSD, borderline DID … It’s a real tangle up there; that doesn’t mean that I don’t mean what I say or don’t say what I mean or that disagreements can be put down to me being a raving loony. It affects how/when I write/speak, not what I think/feel about things.)

23. Leefe, you are so right, sometimes you have to walk away.

24. Bert,

    … sometimes you have to walk away.

    Sure! Walk all you want, Bert! The beauty of discussion sites like this is that nobody can force a conversation on anyone else, even if they wanted to.

    Otoh, you do have a habit of raising big subjects, ogling at them from a few different angles, skimming over their surfaces like a pebble bouncing over a still pond, noting how difficult and indeterminate they are, and then “walking away”.

    And maybe that’s all you want to do: now, that you gained some distance to your previous routine of daily 10hr grinds at the corporate coalface, and you find yourself with time to muse on all sorts of things as you enjoy your second cup of coffee whilst listening to the birds chirping in the trees surrounding the deck in your backyard.

    And so we get treated to weekly sermons on China’s relations with the West, on Narcissism, on Critical Thinking, on Gaza and the West Bank … – you name it.

    But nothing too deep, nothing too critical, nothing too challenging. Just keep it lite ‘n eesy.

    Certainly, be forever circumspect about asking whether we ourselves may have questions to ask about ourselves firstly – our systems, of politics, of economics, of law.

    AND MOST CERTAINLY, do not even think about entertaining questions as to why we are so sluggish about changing the systems that make us behave the way we do. That really would be cutting ourselves to the quick – too painful, too disturbing, and not at all conducive to enjoying leisurely trips6 to the Margaret River art shops …

    And look, Bert, by all means, enjoy your retirement – the world will not improve simply because we make ourselves miserable!

    And continue to reflect on, and raise for public discussion, subjects of perennial importance and interest to thinkers since antiquity.

    But don’t be, or act, all surprised if others show up and want to dig a bit deeper, and seek to do so with a greater sense of urgency and immediate personal concern.

    After all, the problems of the world – practically all (political) problems of the world – had been identified when we both were young, back in the 1960s and 1970s (renember?). But they have not been dealt with! Quite the contrary: these issues have been allowed to become worse, and worse, and worse still. And no solution in sight.

    Bert, as a fellow sexagenarian, I am reminding you that this has played out during our watch. OUR WATCH!

    Therefore, any questions that need to be asked will necessarily have a personally discomfiting “I have met the enemy, and he is us” dimension.

    Either that – or we’re not asking the questions that really matter.

25. Bruce White:

    As far as religion and belief goes, Christianity has I think, only one redeeming feature, The Concept (ie Practice) of Forgiveness. According to the scriptures that was something preached by Jesus of Nazareth which an atheist such as myself could agree with.

    Except that, once you really think about it, “forgiveness” and “redemption” as basic (re)organising principles for the whole of the human condition really do not make sense without faith in God and Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis peeled it back to its essence:

    I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

26. Arnd:

    That (to Bert) was uncalled for. People do what they can, when they can. Not doing what you want or not doing things how you want them to be done does not merit that sort of response.

    As for the rest … confirmation bias to the fore. I know plenty of atheists who think that forgiveness and redemption (at a human level) are possible and even necessary at times. Just because you (and Lewis) can’t imagine them without a belief in the superhuman doesn’t mean others can’t.

27. leefe, why was it uncalled for? Was any of what I said factually wrong? If so, what? If not, why should I not have said it? Because it is too personally confronting? It pushes our exchanges out of the bourgeois comfort zone?

    It is not I who makes this stuff uncomfortable on purpose – for a larf, or because I like to rub people the wrong way. It IS uncomfortable! I found it uncomfortable when I ran up against it three decades ago. All you are trying to do is shoot the messenger – and you are not the most accomplished of all shootists.

    … confirmation bias to the fore …

    Oh, really? Or is this now a case of you – who has repeatedly reprimanded me for making unwarranted assumptions about you – making unwarranted assumptions about me?

    Here’s a little background: earlier on this thread, I linked to the Wikipedia entry about the “Münchhausen Trilemma” – but you may not have bothered looking it up.

    The Münchhausen Trilemma is a generalised exposition of the Incompleteness Theorems as formulated by Kurt Gödel – and I find it difficult to imagine an approach to cognition that is more strictly rational and uncompromisingly logical than mathematics.

    I was introduced to Gödel’s reasoning in Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach in my early 20s. Back then, it did occur to me to apply this logic to political philosophy, and to apply it in the strict rational formalistic manner that comports with the dialectical method, and as applied to materialistic exploration only – you know: dialectical materialism, or Marxism, as it is colloquially known. Thus, I do credit myself with having explored atheistic materialism as widely and as far as anyone else. And you would have read enough of my posts on The AIMN to grant me that for all secular and material purposes, I routinely reference material concepts, and stay away from spiritual adventurism.

    But follow materialistic reasoning as as far as you can go, and you DO end up at its inconclusive nihilistic dead ends. As Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto:

    … All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned …

    (emphasis mine)

    I remember arriving at that nihilist endpoint of materialist exploration, a point where nothing, BUT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, makes sense. I think of it at the point when I fully understood Marx’s most profound insight about how:

    All philosophy hitherto has got it wrong! Philosophy tried to understand the world. However, the point is not to understand the world, the point is to change it!

    In other words, it is not about what is, but about what we want to be.

    And in trying to answer what we want to be, I found it increasingly impossible to go past the teachings of one J. of Nazareth. But I had to realise that, just as Lewis explains, you can’t just pick the tasty bits. You need to accept all of it – or be left with none of it.

    Nietzsche, coming at it from the obverse angle, arrived at exactly the same conclusion:

    They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females a la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.

    We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth–it stands or falls with faith in God.

    Now, leefe, you do your own thinking, and you come to your own conclusions.

    But please, do not insinuate that my Christian faith, such as it is, is the mere result of unreflective, one-dimensional confirmation bias! I spent 25 years sitting on the agnostic (razor wire) fence before choosing my side – or as I see it, “finally submit to the inexorable dictat of reason”.

28. Arnd, the comment of ‘walk away’ actually reference a personal dilema, where within a fairly close circle there is a difference of opinion which appears quite irreconcilable, and so for the sake of peace, that is a forum I choose to walk away from the dispute, but not the person, respecting the right of that person to differ, but not wanting to engage in an argument which tends, on the part of the other, to become laden with insults. In that case it is better to walk away (from the argument, not the person)

    As far as responses on this forum, if you think I skim the surface, add the depth you wish to plumb, it is an open forum. have a monthly philosophy discussion group where we dig deeply into questions, a fortnightly writer’s group and there too we encourage each other, challenge each other to think and address the issues dear to us… and to depth.

    I guess if through these pages people get to think deeply and perhaps from different angles, then it is a good thing.

    On the trips to the Margaret River art scene, art is one of the things I really enjoy, as I do theatre and music. Never having played an instrument, I now have a Guitar, a Banjo, a Ukulele, harmonica and kazoo and join weekly with friends jamming for an evening and even getting to perform with the group at open mike events and a local Christmas party, it is fun, music, theatre, arts are such pleasurable things as part of life, and they are communal where we spend time in fellowship with others, just enjoying each other and the various activities. Through those times, I do get to see human nature at its best, collaberative, non-judgemental and a real sense of community, something so very different that the hum drum of working life, and yes, we add value to each other’s lives and can address issues in discussion if we choose to. I am also involved in a progressive art group, collectively painting canvasses, and sharing time with people in a relaxed setting. It’s fun, it is creative, it builds community and trust.

    Are we sluggish in addressing those questions?

    Collectively, as communities, as a nation as a world population, maybe, as individuals, some more so that others, also some communities are very actively addressing the issues as best they can.

    Our former Premier Mark McGowan pointed out to me once, as I asked him a question regarding fracking that politics is a balancing act. The leaders we have are there for us and all those who are citizens, and each has a different set of priorities, we also have the balance of interest with employers and the rest of the citizenry.

    But when it comes to individual responses, there we can make a difference, in the way we consume the things we need or want, the vehicles we drive, the way we use power, solar wind or fossil fuel generated, the commitment we have to the use of plastics and how we recycle. Our involvement in community and in politics is where we can sometimes make a difference

29. Arnd

    It was uncalled for because it was more a personal attack than a discussion of views and attitudes.

    As for the rest, I have done my own thinking and come to very different conclusions than you: mainly because I don’t default to accepting any religious viewpoint.
    Both you and Lewis are rusted-on christians; that’s your default setting and that’s where the confirmation bias comes in. I don’t know – and don’t want to know – what got you to that point. Study of religions, their histories and their multifarous self-contradictory texts, along with a lot of deep thinking got me to a very different place, despite ongoing attempts at the usual brainwashing throughout my childhood and adolescence.
    Religion is not necessary to lead a good life or behave ethically, nor does it guarantee such behaviour. And it is behaviour that concerns me as far as people are concerned, not what they think or believe.

    And now, as Bert has suggested, it’s tiime for me to walk away from this.

30. leefe,

    “The personal is political” has been one of the most foundational assertions of second-wave feminism, and has been around for over half a century. And the “wokism” that has gained pace over the last decade or so has certainly succeeded in imposing the inverse notion that “The political is personal”.

    More generally speaking, I find your remonstration indicative of the degree to which we have managed to “de-personalise” and “corporatise” virtually every aspect of modern life. I’m old enough to remember companies having “personell departments”, and I am not the only one to have noted the determination that is arguably implicit in the change to “Human Resources”. After all, resources are, by definition, the means to achieve ulterior ends.

    More generally still, I contend that for the last half century or so, we have, even if inadvertently, pursued an overall political agenda that steadily scrambled and then supplanted ideas of personal responsibility with ever more comprehensive structures of “I am only doing my duty” type institutional accountability.

    And, so I contend without going into detail, the above trends have a huge bearing on the subject matter of Bert’s article, i.e. “Hatred”.

    But this would be a complex and long-drawn-out discussion, which, as you have made clear, you are not interested in pursuing.

    One thing I do find utterly baffling, though: we have had enough encounters on his site for you to note that I combine Marxist-style materialistic analysis, a communist outlook on political economy, and an anarchist perspective on matters of political philosophy and jurisprudence, within a Christian framework of faith. Whilst I obviously took inspiration and information from many different sources, the way I combine them is the result of my own efforts, and I (quite unfortunately) do not know of anyone else who does this quite in the way I do – although there are Christian communist and Christian anarchist thinkers, they are comparatively very few and far in-between, and each have their own ideas of how things fit together.

    Therefore, how on Earth do you work out that my views qualify for the epithet “Rusted-on”? “Confused”, “muddle-headed”, “delusional”, “utopian” … – I get those, even if I obviously disagree with them. But “Rusted-on”? How did you get there, leefe. I am genuinely curious.

31. Arnd:

    First, define “woke” and “wokism”.

    Second, it’s rusted-on because it’s the framework; the foundation, if you will. Everything else has to fit within that, and you do not react well to having christianity specifically and religion in general criticised. We all have our tabus; that’s one of yours .

    Third, “I’m old enough to remember companies having “personell departments”“; being not that far short of 70, and having been financially independent for most of that time, so am I. The “Human Resources” label is another bit of neoliberal coporate bullshit I neither trust nor approve of.

    Fourth, “More generally still, I contend that for the last half century or so, we have, even if inadvertently, pursued an overall political agenda that steadily scrambled and then supplanted ideas of personal responsibility with ever more comprehensive structures of “I am only doing my duty” type institutional accountability.” I don’t know that I agree with that. In some ways yes, but the overall socio-political push of neoliberalism is the onus on the person (regardless of barriers) to take responsibility for everything, rather than for institutions (corporations, governments, etc) to do so. This happens even when – sometimes most of all when – those institutions are egregiously at fault.
    The onus being on the individual to cope with the system as best they can and the devil take the hindmost is, after all, the essence of the neoliberal agenda.

32. Oh leefe! For someone who pointedly insists that “I don’t know – and don’t want to know – what got you to that point”, you sure ask a lot of questions. And you have a strange knack for combining those questions with insinuations that I have not thought at some depth about the issues that we review on this site, only to then casually dismiss my elaborations. It does get quite frustrating, and I mostly do not reply to try and convince you, but more because it may give other readers reason to pause, reflect, and look at some of those issues anew, and from a different angle.

    First, define “woke” and “wokism”.

    That’s easy enough: from my anarcho-communist vantage point, “Wokism” are the attitudes and agendas of those activists who insist that the bourgeois (capitalist) systems of politics, jurisprudence and economics accommodate their individual pet causes, without ever getting around to contemplating actual systemic change as such.

    For the longest time, I didn’t take too much issue with that attitude, believing that drawing attention to such a large and diverse number of individual shortcomings of “The System” would help build the case for system change. But that didn’t really happen.

    Instead, and quite paradoxically, “Wokism” keeps opening ever more opportunities for corporate green-washing, and white-washing and pink-washing, and all other manner of virtue-signalling, all the better to conceal the actual root cause of most of our issues, namely the ruthless pursuit of corporate profit.

    I therefore now take a very dim view of practically all single-issue activism.

    Second, it’s rusted-on because it’s the framework; the foundation, if you will.

    What, exactly are you insisting on here: “You must, invariably, reinvent the wheel yourself. And whatever the shape the wheel of your invention, you better make sure that it is not round. Round wheels are sooo unimaginative, and simply demonstrate your abject inability to engage in critical evaluation and original thought. You hopeless, hapless rusted-on round-wheeler, you!” Really?

    Let me try to say the same thing again – loosely following the argument as set out in my first attempt at writing an Anarcho-Communist Manifesto: There is at times very insistent preference for empiricism, or “free thinking”, in other words: cognition that is not bound by doctrine. And there is nothing wrong with free thinking, brain-storming, making room for new impressions and intuitions.

    But is it not obvious that, in thinking freely about “stuff”, one is just about certain sooner or later to detect patterns and regularities, and thereby build the beginnings of a systematic understanding, or “doctrine”, in the original, and non-derogative meaning of the word.

    And does it not also stand to reason that any one of us is never the first person to think about “stuff”, that indeed others have thought about these thing before, and have come to similar insights?

    So I ask again, and this time without the round-wheel jibe: is my referencing Socrates in an approving way really indicative of slavish submission to his thought from two and a half millenia ago? Do you hold it against me that I consider Karl Marx, despite his flaws, a major historical and conceptual turning point in philosophy? Many do, in fact. I have repeatedly been accused of dogmatic blindness and ideological bias – and most often by those whose own contributions to the discussion betray serious and un-examined commitment to a bourgeois outlook.

    … you do not react well to having christianity specifically and religion in general criticised.

    I have relatively little problem with criticisms of religion in general and Christianity in particular. The thing that irks me is people cloaking their criticisms in pretences of issuing them from some sort of pinnacle of reason and rationality – which I recognise as proof positive that they have not yet reached, let alone surveyed and charted the limits of reason, and run their arguments in abject ignorance of the Münchhausen Trilemma. And that is about as unreasonable as it can get. In short: I do not have a problem with criticism of Christianity. I do have a problem with ridiculous criticisms of Christianity.

    We seem to agree on the dehumanising implications of “Human Resources”, even if perhaps imputing differing degrees of importance to those implications.

    … the overall socio-political push of neoliberalism is the onus on the person (regardless of barriers) to take responsibility for everything …

    I think we might benefit from a comprehensive review of “personal responsibility” vs “institutionalised accountability”, and the difference between “performing a duty” and “doing a task”. There’s a dictum that “What gets counted, gets done” – hence the prevalence of “Key Performance Indicators”. As against that, there is another dictum “Not everything that counts, can be counted. And not everything that can be counted, counts.” Ruminate on those for a while, and get back to me if you want.

33. Arnd:

    Again, you are assuming meanings in neither my words nor my mind. I did not try to insinuate anything when writing that. I gave you my opinion and asked some questions, no more.
    There are no insinuations, stop already with that bullshit. I shouldn’t have to tell you so many times.

    OK, that’s your definition of wokism. It doesn’t cover “woke” and it’s strayed a long way from the real meaning of the terms, but at least I know what you mean when you use them.

    If I’m reading this right, the only real struggle you’re interested in is the the class war, and everything else has to take second place to that. It’s an attitude that comes from a position of privilege (straight, white, cis, abled, male) so it’s not surprising.

    I do have a problem with ridiculous criticisms of Christianity.

    It’s ridiculous to point out that asserting biblical dogma as uncontrovertible fact is not supported by objective evidence? Wow.

    I can’t find a reference in this thread to Socrates so I don’t know what that question is even about.

    What, exactly are you insisting on here: “You must, invariably, reinvent the wheel yourself. And whatever the shape the wheel of your invention, you better make sure that it is not round. Round wheels are sooo unimaginative, and simply demonstrate your abject inability to engage in critical evaluation and original thought. You hopeless, hapless rusted-on round-wheeler, you!” Really?

    Where did I say that or anything like?

34. The poms set up partition terror hate.
    Pyramids are for human hate and only they have a choice at every act.

35. leefe, you do not concur with my definition of “woke”, and fair enough. But just for comparison purposes: what’s your definition of “woke”?

    It’s an attitude that comes from a position of privilege (straight, white, cis, abled, male) so it’s not surprising.

    leefe, that statement, taken neat, is straight out one-dimensional ad hominem. But before I begin to extemporize on the many different meanings, undercurrents and insinuations that I can read into it, I thought I ask you to unpack it a bit.

    I can’t find a reference in this thread to Socrates …

    It was meant hypothetically.

    Where did I say that or anything like?

    Here:

    Second, it’s rusted-on because it’s the framework; the foundation, if you will. Everything else has to fit within that.

    That, to me, sounds very much like an a-priori dismissal of all Christian doctrine.

    Of course you have every right to dismiss out of hand any doctrine you deem invalid or detrimental, and you do not owe me, or anyone else, any explanations or justifications.

    But don’t dress up such categorical dismissal as “critical thinking” or “persuasive elaboration”.

    I don’t know why, but you seem to think that the only way to arrive at a Christian world view is to deliberately shape, trim, curtail and accommodate one’s thinking to fit into this framework.

    That the cognitive process could run the other way round, that independent reflection could lead to the recognition of supremely profound truth in Christian doctrine – that possibility does not seem to register with you at all.

    Or can you name a single Christian thinker whom you respect, and do not consider “rusted-on”?

36. Arnd,

    To me it seems logical that if the christian principles are the framework, that everything else has to fit within them. What happens when there’s a conflict – are the christian principles the ones modified, or the sociopolitical ones?

    The whole history of the modern cultural use of the term “woke” begins within the Afro-American community. It was a word they used – originally particularly amongst the young male members – as a warning and a reminder to be aware of the dangers of existing within a highly racist society and system. It spread from there until it became a popular way of saying “aware of structural inequalities and inequities and trying to resist them”. Then the neoliberals and conservatives – basically the USAnian RRWNJ ranters and ravers – started to use it as an insult, because they take their racism, their misogyny, their ableism, their transphobia, their homophobia and all the rest of their bigotry as a matter of pride.

    It’s an attitude that comes from a position of privilege (straight, white, cis, abled, male) so it’s not surprising.

    To elaborate: it’s easy to dismiss a struggle against oppression that does not harm you. You’re straight? Then you aren’t negatively affected by homophobia. You’re cis? Then you aren’t negatively affected by transphobia. You’re white/caucasian? You aren’t negatively affected by racism. You’re a man? You aren’t negatively affected by misogyny and sexism. Those things are still major structural issues within our society and they do a great deal of harm to a great many people, but you consider the struggles of those people, against those things, to be nothing more than a distraction from the only struggle that does matter to you. Or at least, that’s how your words read.

    That, to me, sounds very much like an a-priori dismissal of all Christian doctrine.

    Say, rather, a reasoned dismissal of all religious doctrine and superstition. It is not necessary to dive very deep or look very far to find inconsistencies and contradictions within each and every one.

    That the cognitive process could run the other way round, that independent reflection could lead to the recognition of supremely profound truth in Christian doctrine

    Given the history of that doctrine (and I have studied this), I cannot see any way that logical, rational thought can lead to an acceptance of it. And, again, that applies to all religion and superstitition.

    As an atheist, I reject only one more god and one more set of beliefs than you. There have been millions of gods and thousands of belief systems developed by humans. You accept one; I accept none. That does not mean there is no wonder in my life: the natural world is beautiful and complex and full of marvels. I have seen and experienced enough of them to be in awe of what is there and to glory in it. But, as Douglas Adams said “Isn’t it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it?”
    I lack the (what seems to be) arrogance to assume that we humans are so special and so important that some divine entity has devised us and this universe for us.

37. leefe:

    What happens when there’s a conflict – are the christian principles the ones modified, or the sociopolitical ones?

    Good question – in theory! Practically speaking, I have always been insistent that we need to change our present sociopolitical principles. As to the question how we should change them, I gradually realised that bringing them into alignment with Christian principles – Sermon on the Mount, anyone? – would be a very useful direction to take. So yes: at this point I’d say let’s modify our socio-political principles. THEY SUCK!!

    Thanks for the recap on “woke”, and I agree. Including with your remonstration of RWNJs usurping the term and abusing it for their own iniquitous agendas. The problem (as I see it) is that the progressive side of politics leaves itself wide open to this abuse precisely because they do not address the biggest conflict of them all: the class conflict.

    There’s virtually endless exposition and commentary on the race conflict, and the gender conflict, the disability conflict, and any number of different culture conflicts (culture wars). You can read about the generational conflict, and the educational conflict (disadvantage).

    But class conflict? Not a squeak! Meaning that there is a huge hole right in the centre of the progressive project – a hole big enough to drive through with truckloads of bigotry, mysogyny, racism and all manner of home-brewed conspiracy theories.

    And from here we can seamlessly continue to your observation that as Straight White Man, I have it made. Which is simply not so: I cannot remember ever not having fully subscribed to the Socialist notion that “The Freedom Of Each Is Dependent On The Freedom Of All”. Even as a little kid, and long, long, long before I ever came across the word “socialism”.

    I did read a lot when I was young, and a fair bit of science fiction. There’s a few short stories that left a lasting impact, and none more than Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. This tale exploded, once and for all, any temptation to assume that any one of us can secure our own individual happiness at the expense of others’ misery. It is a bullshit notion that simply does not withstand examination.

    Also, Berthold Brecht’s Einheitsfrontlied. The German version packs a lot more punch than the English translation – but have a look at the third stanza, anyway.

    If you prefer a philosophically more demanding treatment of the subject of the deceit of privilege, I can offer G.F.W. Hegel’s ruminations on the Master-Slave Dialectic, which directly influenced Marx’s ideas about the revolutionary working class consciousness. Also, I seem to recall some of the observations at the end of Peggy McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack, which had some of her non-white interviewees insist that, even for all the presumed advantages, they would not want simply to switch positions with white folks. They did value the insights that their disadvantage generated, and would want to see those integrated into any new world view, rather than dropping them in exchange for “white privilege”.

    If you want to dial down the jargon, have a look at Grayson Perry’s very engagingly presented commiserations with the chronically unsatisfactory lot of Default Man. I just re-read it, and was promptly teleported back to London, where I recently stayed at Canary Wharf for a few days, and where I took some photos of the (Thatcherite neo-liberal, accountant-designed) concrete and glass phalluses lacking any discernible architectural merit. A dismal confirmation that I may not have missed much by not parlaying my carpentry apprenticeship into the study and practice of architecture, as originally intended.

    The purported freedoms of “Default Man” are merely one more fraudulent figment of the capitalist imagination. In reality, they constitute just another cage. A golden cage, for some, but a cage nevertheless.

    I cannot see any way that logical, rational thought can lead to an acceptance of [religion and superstition].

    Ahh … – I agree: it can’t (and you’re not meant to accept superstition, anyway). All that rational thought can do is lead you to the very margins and limits of reason, at which point – if you are possessed of unflinching intellectually rigor and personal honesty – you have to admit that reason and logic can provide no more cognitive traction. At that point, you have to make a choice. A bet. This bet even has a name: Pascal’s Wager.

    Of course, if you read through the linked Wikipedia page, you will find a lot of critical arguments against Pascal’s Wager. I have something to say about all of them. But maybe that’s for another day.

    As an atheist, I reject only one more god and one more set of beliefs than you. There have been millions of gods and thousands of belief systems developed by humans. You accept one; I accept none.

    This is an oft-repeated argument to support atheism. Richard Dawkins makes it, Ricky Gervais riffs on it to great mirth, and I believe even Stephen Fry (for whom I have a lot of time) tried it on for size.

    It doesn’t stand up: yes, there are a lot, and perhaps even an infinite number, of wrong answers to any given question – but that doesn’t mean that we can safely discount the possibility of there being even one single right answer.

    In the same way, from the fact that throughout history there have been a lot, and perhaps even an infinite number of proposed gods that were false, it does not follow that there cannot be even one single true and rightful God.

    Hence, this argument, about dismissing merely one more god, may look clever and superficially persuasive – but it really has no logical merit.

    Of course, this does not mean that you, leefe, (or Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais) are now under any (logical?) obligation to embrace the Christian God, or any god(s) at all.

    It only means that this particular argument in favour of atheism is not valid. And that the prominent thinkers who advance it, as well as their audiences who gratefully receive it, really are nowhere near as sharp as they routinely credit themselves.

    I lack the (what seems to be) arrogance to assume that we humans are so special and so important that some divine entity has devised us and this universe for us.

    I have been confronted with versions of this argument before – and I can’t see how you impute arrogance. Whenever I allow myself to meditate on the idea that God created us, and this universe for us, it evokes a sense of awe and deep humility. (Maybe I should meditate on the wonders of creation far more often than I do?)

    The other sentiment it evokes is a sense of sorrow, that we would abuse our world and ourselves as badly as we do, in complete abrogation of our duties and responsibilities.

38. *”What happens when there’s a conflict – are the christian principles the ones modified, or the sociopolitical ones?”

    Good question – in theory! Practically speaking, I have always been insistent that we need to change our present sociopolitical principles. As to the question how we should change them, I gradually realised that bringing them into alignment with Christian principles – Sermon on the Mount, anyone? – would be a very useful direction to take. So yes: at this point I’d say let’s modify our socio-political principles. THEY SUCK!!*

    Like the rest of your comments, a particularly specious piece.
    I was refering – as you must have been aware, given the context – to your own personal principles. Of course, you duck the question, so I’ll repeat it with added clarification: when your sociopolitical principles come into conflict with your christian principles, which gives way?

    Almost everything else you say here is arguing backwards: effectively saying “christianity is the ultimate truth, therefore you must be wrong, therefore your arguments have no merit.”

    For the record, I have no difficulty with the phrase “I don’t know”. It’s the mature and rational thing to say when you run out of logic and facts, rather than jumping to myths, fantasies and other superstitions (and religion, despite your dislike of my saying so, is just another set of superstitions. All religions rely on blind faith rather than logic and evidence; that makes them superstitions.)
    Pascal’s Wager is schoolboy reasoning; besides, one cannot make oneself believe and, if this supposed god of yours is so all-powerful and all-knowing, it would know I was just pretending to try to get out of whatever fate lay in store for non-believers. The whole thing is stupid and childish and inconsistent.

    I’m done with this pointless exercise.