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 related questions that intrigue me, such as what is the cognitive development at each stage of human development, how widespread is it, and how diversely expressed?
An an example of what I've thought more about than the Bronze Age, though somewhat related is the development of Abrahamic religions and precursors from the bronze Age collapse onwards. I am fond of the kind of frame that links the metaphors/symbols/archetypes that appear over history to fundamental shifts in cognitiion as a process of cognitive-cultural adaptation, or levelling up.
This kind of view (eg Petersonian religious big history thinking) might frame Christianity as a major stage of development beyond previous religious ideas such as Zoroastrianism and Judaism. My knowledge of religion is limited, and haven't yet traversed JPs religious series, but I understand that the claim can be made that ideas of forgiveness and salvation from sin become more central in Christianity, alongside a radical shift in perspective, whereby God is instantiated as the more personal God-in-Christ.
Jung points to this sort of idea in his Answers to Job. I may not be remembering it right, but hopefully a sketch in its direction is that God, in his demonstration of absolute tyranny through Satan shows that He lacks, temporarily, omniscience in all things in that he lacks access to the personal. In contrast Job, as a human, can see in his own suffering the injustice, and perhaps failure of empathy, of God. When God's omniscience at a larger scale reestablishes, this prompts God to incorporate himself in human form through Jesus Christ.
Now there are presumably innumerable examples across all religions of symbols that point to useful adaptive behaviour in humans. But can a case be made for a kind of integral theory hierarchy, and thus a need for all religions to adapt, or more controversially and argument that Christianity reflecting a more cognitively adapted human, and Old Testament the less evolved.
Or is it better to think that standards of cooperation that evolved in hunter-gatherer tribes are set early, and understandings around symbols that serve flourishing somewhat timeless, such that most religions have access to them in differing degrees and emphases.
Or, finally, do they each capture something unique, and thus we should seek wisdom through their plurality, essentially operating in a secular mode?
Another perspective on this type of transformation in God that Peterson discusses is the idea that the one thing an omnipotent being such as God would lack, would be limitation. And so the answer to Evil, and the resulting Incarnation in Christ, is a way to provide god with what he lacked - limitation.
This formulation is, of course, a paradox. But to paraphrase Jung, true wisdom always comes from a place of paradox.
ETA: To answer your question, I find the pluralistic idea that all religions are created equal to be almost childishly false. Unless you buy into the idea that there is no true good or evil, that everything is essentially the same morally (a very Eastern, Buddhist, cyclical religious view, I'll add) then it's clear some religions are better than others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link