This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have often conceived of Christianity as a belief system that replaces the hierarchy based on strength with a hierarchy based on moral goodness. "My status hierarchy is not of this world." But there still is a status hierarchy. (Just like there's still a kingdom -- just one that God rules personally.)
Of course, that's what Nietzsche said -- instead of badness, inferiority, Christianity criticizes evil, moral turpitude. But unlike Nietzche I believe this is both a positive development and a necessary one.
The thing is that goodness applies to many things, including how you use said position. Companies typically have a hierarchy, but high positions in that hierarchy are not really "status" in the conventional sense. The higher salary they bring might be status, but the position itself is largely-exhausted in what you have to do to keep it - managers authority as opposed to owners authority. Of course its not always like this, and sometimes positions do lean more towards feudal fief, but you get the idea. The kind of status you describe christianity as bestowing is managers authority, and it often seems to be opposed to anything but its particular management authority, and that is what creates a quasi-communist impression.
I’m not actually talking about the formal hierarchy of the Church here — which I agree is a manager’s authority — but about the hierarchy of the saints. The hierarchy it’s replacing isn’t the hierarchy of government, but the more nebulous, albeit extremely real, hierarchy of informal status that drives people to compete for praise, attention, and mates.
Im also not talking about the church hierarchy. Those are officially managerial positions. What I mean is that general christian virtue ends up being a "jealous god" about the use of your status to an extent that becomes effectively managerial. Youre not supposed to derive worldly rewards from it. Matthew 6 goes in that direction relatively explicitly.
Of course this has mostly not been actual practice, but its been there, and radical/restorationist people keep hitting upon it, and... I see their point.
Correct. You’re supposed to derive heavenly rewards from it. Which is why I’m talking about a hierarchy that is not of this world!
I see what you're saying, and I agree it is a serious problem people often have with Christianity, but the supernatural and cosmic justice elements are load-bearing. There are elements of Christian moral teaching that I believed before I converted to Christianity and would doubtless still believe even if I apostasized, but the whole scope of the Christian doctrine about holiness, martyrdom, charity, and asceticism is founded on the principle that Heaven exists and there's treasure there.
I thought this was you saying "People still compete for praise, attention, and mates, but now the game is different" - because that would sound like worldy rewards. If you mean something people do instead of competing for those, then... it seems your prescription on earth actually is communism. Youre saying its not communist only because your reasons are different, where originally I thought your defense was along the lines of "Some christian beliefs in isolation would prescribe communism, but if you consider the supernatural principles as well, it no longer prescribes communism even on earth.".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Auctoritas vs. potestas, is pre-Christian (compare Potestas/Kratos the God, supporting dictatorship and advocating for random violence) although Christianity somewhat reenvisioned them. (N.b. further concepts like imperium remeasure the semantic fields in different ways in different thinkers' works.)
Moral authority (earned by correctness, selflessness and hard-earned reputation (dignitas, not yet dignity, but social standing) vs. raw exercising of power. Without moral goodness, power is illegitimate. But moral goodness without power is also lacking - although Socrates condemned to death has the highest authority of all, if it can't work good in the world, it's a tad selfish - like a desert hermit, isolated from society for his own soul compared to those monks' kenosis, who engage with the dirt and grime of humanity and lift it up, however slowly, through holy struggle and love.
A modern systems thinker, applying EA (is this now looked down upon? Well, applying financial metrics and industrial engineering) can improve the lot of thousands instead of spending their time administering aid to individuals, one at a time. To some extent, the traditional Christian image/aesthetic looks down upon this, preferring the Pope to bathe the poor's feet, Navy Devos to teach people to read etc. I at least think overall betterment's important.
I believe Christianity is fairly "aristocratic", believing everyone can be better and flourish (overcoming their sinful urges), but forgiving them for succumbing to this fallen world. (My faith is grounded in gnostic-curious Platonism, though.) The lower classes can rise beyond that station, but if they don't, they still have their own path to God. (N.b. this is not prosperity gospel, rather just... If you don't waste your time on vices and sloth, you can trivially better yourself and the life of those around you, building, learning, teaching etc.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link