site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1193 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 4, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are their any non-religious organizations whose members take vows oaths of celibacy, a la the Night's Watch or the Maesters from ASOIAF?

(I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but I'd like to double-check my bases so I can be more certain in replying as such the next time someone "advises" me to "go join the Night's Watch" or similar.)

(Edited per @FiveHourMarathon's fine pedantry.)

Nothing permanent, as the whole concept of a vow is illogical for a non religious organization.

It is often difficult to distinguish a vow from an oath. A vow is an oath, but an oath is only a vow if the divine being is the recipient of the promise and is not merely a witness.

TIL. However, I assume Capital_Room is among those who don't care about the distinction.

I, too, don't really care about the distinction. Absent possible divine punishment, the concept of a promise of celibacy or chastity is kind of ridiculous. It fails often enough with the possibility of divine punishment!

This isn't just limited to celibacy: without divine witness, a promise is just a promise. "Words are wind" to stick with the GRRM theme of the thread.

It fails often enough with the possibility of divine punishment!

In my view this means that vows are unserious things, not that promises are.

a promise is just a promise

This is an annoying thing to read; an aggravating sentiment to encounter. It seems not alright for a promise to be "just a promise". Yet it's something that very many take to be obvious and true - but then why have promises at all? Promises should be a foundational social institution, not a nonsensical rhetorical flourish like the by-now codifiedly useless literally/"literally" distinction. Breaking a promise should be a big deal.

That vows are impossible in secular society and that someone can say a thing like "just a promise" without getting tarred and feathered is a serious failing of modernity.

...it's always been that way, hasn't it?

...it's always been that way, hasn't it?

We've never had a society without an imprimatur of the divine that would guard the concept of promises, so I don't think it has always been this way. Our purely materialist Capitalist worldview puts no value on honesty beyond a market value, which can always be ignored for the right price.

In my mind the modern failure of the concepts of honor and honesty relates back to Marx's idea that Capitalism subsists on the free gifts of human nature. Our society is falling apart because Capitalism is parasitic upon values that existed before and outside of Capitalism. Once people fully adopt Capitalism as a value system, Capitalism can no longer function. Eg: Capitalism requires people to have children to become workers/consumers/etc.; but on a rational Capitalist profit/loss basis it makes little sense to have children.

In the same way, Capitalism requires that we have a way to break promises, Bankruptcy is an important Capitalist innovation allowing for people to break their promises and move on with their lives and continue as producers and consumers after finding themselves unable to keep their promises. But, it only works where people wanted to keep their promises for other reasons extraneous to Capitalism. Once Bankruptcy becomes sufficiently not-shameful that a former bankrupt can become President of the United States after fleecing his creditors, the laws function differently.

Without any reference to the divine, a promise is only to be kept inasmuch as it is beneficial to keep it, and the moment it isn't beneficial there is no reason to keep it. People used to swear by their hope of heaven and fear of hell, implying that breaking the promise would lead to divine punishment; if someone did that today I'd think they were having a laugh.

...it's always been that way, hasn't it?

I don't think so. My Eastoid mind has been blown several times by how much of the Western system relied / relies on an honor system, and then blown even more by how it was actually working until recently.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats