EdenicFaithful's profile - The Motte
@EdenicFaithful's banner p

EdenicFaithful

Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC

				

User ID: 78

EdenicFaithful

Dark Wizard of Ravenclaw

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:50:58 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 78

There's definitely a fair amount of talk about Christianity, but that word "fundamentalist" is doing a lot of work there. Just looking at the Wikipedia pages on Christian Fundamentalism makes my head spin, because I have literally never heard of 99% of the people mentioned. There's like a tiny amount which I know from reading about creationism.

Look at the page for the admittedly ancient essays described as "widely considered to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism." It's just a long parade of names that I've never heard about.

This is something that I've noticed about people who criticize "evangelicals" too. I hear a lot of talk about them, but I almost never hear names of actual evangelical writers mentioned, much less their specific ideas. It looks a lot like there's a rich history there that I'm just unaware of, and I suspect that's true for a lot of people on The Motte.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on The Dawn of Everything. Not much progress.

So, what are you reading?

Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything has raised expectations, but it remains to be seen if it will fulfill them. So far they have tried to reconsider the Enlightenment in light of discussions missionaries had with the natives of the New World, on the assumption that the records of these discussions are sincere and not just European uses of "Indians" as characters to project their own subversive beliefs.


The topic of indigenous influence on what we call western culture has been on my radar ever since I read Felix Cohen's brilliant 1952 paper Americanizing the White Man. Normally I would consider these kinds of things to be proto-woke nonsense, but Cohen immediately struck me as a man of intelligence, dedication and nerve, so it has stayed with me. He posited that core American traits existed before the settlers ever came:

As yet, few Americans and fewer Europeans realize that America is not just a pale reflection of Europe - that what is distinctive about America is Indian, through and through. American cigarettes, chewing gum, rubber balls, popcorn and corn flakes, flapjacks and maple syrup, still make European eyebrows crawl. American disrespect for the authority of parents, presidents and would-be dictators still shocks our European critics. And visitors from the Old World are still mystified when they find no peasants on American soil. But the expressions of pain, surprise and amused superiority that one finds in European accounts of the habits of the "crazy Americans" are not new. One finds them in European reports of American life that are 200 and even 400 years old. All these things, and many things more important in our life today, were distinctively American when the first European immigrants came to these shores... Something happened to these immigrants. Some, to be sure, remained European, less hungry, perhaps, but equally intolerant and equally submissive to the authority of rulers and regulations. But some of these immigrants became Americans, tolerant and neighborly, as strong and self-reliant men may be, and for the same reason disrespectful of all authority. To such Americans, a chief who forgets that he is a public servant and tries to tell other people what to do has always been an object of ridicule.

Cohen goes on to describe what he sees as native contributions in various domains including democracy, agriculture and sport. I have also found it amusing that he mentions " the golden tan of an Indian skin" given that arguably the most famous trait of Donald Trump is that he is orange.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Scruton. Also picking up Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything.

So, what are you reading?

I'm reattempting Scruton's Fools, Frauds and Firebrands. Has been collecting dust for far too long.

So, what are you reading?

I'm retrying Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth Essays and Other Writings.

So, what are you reading?

Still on The Eternal Dissident. Reattempting Isaiah Berlin's The Roots of Romanticism.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on The Eternal Dissident.

So, what are you reading?

Still on The Eternal Dissident: Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman and the Radical Imperative to Think and Act.

It seems strange that a Rabbi would proclaim himself agnostic and have his first sermon be about how Adam ought to have eaten the whole fruit of knowledge and not just part of it, but I have to agree with the introduction that there is an authenticity to it. Beerman, if he is to be believed, was inspired by the Spinozan God-as-nature idea, and argued that authentic doubt can be a religious stance.

The tropes fit perfectly into today's leftism: social justice, activism, inequality, racism, oppression, but these things must have made a different impression before Current Year. Various dubious aspects pepper the narrative, like support for the Rosenbergs. If there's one thing I've taken away from it, it is the reminder that I'm not exactly a church-goer myself, and that perhaps a renewed study of my relation to God is in order.

So, what are you reading?

Still on lots of things. Also attempting The Eternal Dissident: Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman and the Radical Imperative to Think and Act.

So, what are you reading?

Still on G. Kirilenko and L. Korshunova's What is Personality? Also going through some Gramsci essays.

Too early to tell, but it's written well and looks effortful.

The main reason I'm reading it is because I want a sense of the ethos of a lost culture. Not really expecting to learn truths about the human condition.

Here. Lots of Progress Publishers books are on the Internet Archive. As far as I know, they're not in print anymore.

Maybe I'm being gung-ho about this, but that second link looks like it boils down to "he got what he deserved," which sounds like a celebration of murder to me.

I'll say that there's room for doubt, and also that there's probably a way of wording that sentiment so that it doesn't make me think that it's a celebration of murder. I suppose I should add that there's no reason why my feelings should be the judge of this.

Still, if this is the main problem, the debate should be about whether someone is celebrating murder or not. Instead, I've seen (or, more accurately, I feel as if I have seen) a lot of discussion about whether celebrating murder should be a firable offence.

I actually don't know what the norms or precedents on this question are. If you asked me before this killing, I would have assumed it wasn't that controversial. Maybe I'm wrong.

I have to admit that the debate on this topic confuses me.

People who are merely talking negatively about the legacy of a public figure are fine in my book, but isn't actual celebration of murder something that would usually get one shunned?

I'm not being sarcastic: Is there a norm of it not being a fireable offence to openly celebrate murder? There may be a point that actively calling an employer to get someone fired is not healthy behaviour, and also that a witch-hunt atmosphere may or will also drag in innocent people, but should I be worked up over the firing itself, if the facts of the case are correct?

I suppose there's a nuance of whether people are celebrating his mere passing, or the actual fact that he was murdered.

imagine if George Soros died...should this be grounds for cancelation?

If he was assassinated, and people are celebrating it, I don't see why not...? He isn't an enemy soldier of a country I'm at war with. Personally I've enjoyed watching videos of him speak before, whatever I think he's responsible for.

So, what are you reading?

I'm picking up Kirilenko and Korshunova's What is Personality, from the USSR's Progress Publishers. It's a somewhat dizzying but fascinating application of dialectical materialism to individuals.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason he flew under my radar was because he was doing normal, boring, decent things in a relatively respectful manner. I keep seeing people call him a provocateur, and it's true that he could be aggressive, but from what I've seen his style wasn't conducive to soundbites; in fact, everything allegedly bad that he said came from a longer nuanced speech which had to be quoted in full to be understood. The kind of speeches that no-one who was habitually media-savvy would make.

I think a lot of people are going to experience what happened to Stephen King, where they assume that he was some kind of hard-right debate bro caricature who said the wildest things, and find out that, no, this was just an articulate, well-prepared guy who took thinking and discussion seriously, and put much more effort than expected into being charitable with his opponents.

So, what are you reading?

Still on a bunch of things. Trying Durant's The Story of Philosophy again.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Red Dynamite. Going through King Lear.

So, what are you reading?

I'm still on Red Dynamite.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Red Dynamite: Creationism, Culture Wars, and Anticommunism in America.

So, what are you reading?

Still on a bunch of stuff. Adding Red Dynamite: Creationism, Culture Wars, and Anticommunism in America, another open access book, to my list.

So, what are you reading?

I'm adding Jews in the Soviet Union, Vol. 1, another open access book, to my list. Looks like the full series isn't published yet, but volumes 1, 3 and 5 are out.

So, what are you reading?

Adding Who Killed the Berkeley School? Struggles Over Radical Criminology to my list, another open access book. It's from a radical left perspective, and sadly spends more time on the struggle than the Berkeley School itself, but its a good read.

So, what are you reading?

I'm picking up With and Without Galton, an open access book on Vasilii Florinskii and Russian eugenics, or as the author calls it, 'eugamics' (ie. well-married), as distinguished from Galton's eugenics.