I think this is absolutely the nub of the problem. What causes people to act in these particular ways is much better analysed as an ideology, and is better understood as hegemony in the Gramscian sense; as a covertly coercive social structure that is built out of elements of both w/c and ruling class culture, but is fundamentally skewed in the interests of the holders of capital. Gramsci also correctly identified the essential religiosity of the hegemonic culture, which is I think why I sense an air of reactionary politics about Phil's story.
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
I think this is absolutely the nub of the problem. What causes people to act in these particular ways is much better analysed as an ideology, and is better understood as hegemony in the Gramscian sense; as a covertly coercive social structure that is built out of elements of both w/c and ruling class culture, but is fundamentally skewed in the interests of the holders of capital. Gramsci also correctly identified the essential religiosity of the hegemonic culture, which is I think why I sense an air of reactionary politics about Phil's story.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
This is astonishing
I could waste hours reading even more of this crap than I have already wasted. Using any analysis of Human behaviour, human societies - especially connected to material possesion, power structures, etc is utter arse about tit shite
If I wanted to actually read some proof of Gods existance I would turn to Descartes and the Discourse on the Method and Meditations, or even Pascal - this on the other hand is some kind half informed student bar wank
Phil, you really are one smug ape, look at what you've started
PS if God - in the Xtian notion at least exists he has proved him/herself such an utter cunt, we ought to deny its existance anyway. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? That one ran for years.........
I can feel another thread coming on.....
I could waste hours reading even more of this crap than I have already wasted. Using any analysis of Human behaviour, human societies - especially connected to material possesion, power structures, etc is utter arse about tit shite
If I wanted to actually read some proof of Gods existance I would turn to Descartes and the Discourse on the Method and Meditations, or even Pascal - this on the other hand is some kind half informed student bar wank
Phil, you really are one smug ape, look at what you've started
PS if God - in the Xtian notion at least exists he has proved him/herself such an utter cunt, we ought to deny its existance anyway. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? That one ran for years.........
I can feel another thread coming on.....
ZWord said:
Exactly. Especially when the influence of financial value so meticulously parallels the set of charcteristics collectively labelled "Satan" in past ages. I do think, however, that the true nature of financial value as a spirit is being progressively revealed in the course of history--Butchersapron pointed to the recent recognition of "fictitious capital" as a good example. Of course, capital always *was* fictitious, but for obvious reasons this fact has been obscured for centuries. Now, though, people seem to be coming to the realization that the power which rules the world *does not exist,* according to the ontological criteria we have erected. And yet in indupitably *does* rule the world. This cannot be explained in empirical or materialist terms, since we are dealing with a phenomenon that is neither empirical nor material. Hence the continued, or resurrected, need for the metaphysical terminology with which past ages discussed its nature.
ZWord said:
Exactly again. And its not just law: the influence of money can increasingly be felt in every area of society and in every cranny of the human mind. The last twenty-five years, in particular, have seen a dramatic expansion in the power of money, both geographically and within individual societies. The imposition of exchange-value upon use-value--of representation upon essence--affects our politics, psychology, linguistics and entertainment. The rule of the image--"idolatry" in traditional terminology--is an identical process to the dominance of money, for money *is* an image.
ZWord said:
In fact, the Indians of the Caribbean and Mexico naturally and universally inferred, from the behavior of the Spaniards, that gold was the Spanish "god," and that the Conquistadors believed there was some mysterious spirit that lived in gold. They were right.
Funny how the superstitious beliefs of primitive peoples can be both good (the Aztecs and Incas) and bad (anyone's whose religion hasn't come through rational consideration of 'theological' propositions). Tell me Phil, did the central Americans come to this conclusion through a Hegelian-Marxist analysis of the labour theory of value?
Fruitloop said:
Gramsci was writing in 1920's Italy, where religion was indeed an instrument of ruling class hegemony. I would suggest that religion has long ceased to play that role anywhere in Europe. I also believe that it is obsolete to speak of a "ruling class." There are certainly individuals who are richer than others, but there is no longer a bourgeoisie that can be identified with the interests of capital. *Everyone* in the Western world, to varying degrees, benefits from capital, just as virtually everyone sells their labour for wages. We are all simultaneously bourgeois and proletarians, and the contradiction between capital and labour is manifested in our minds, not in class struggle.
Alex B said:
They didn't need to: this conclusion was *obvious* to them. Put yourself in their position. These weird foriegners arrive, and they spend all their time and effort in acquiring this yellow metal. What are they up to? Why are they so fascinated with this stuff that they will do *anything*--kill, die, whatever--to attain it? Quite obviously, they worship it. Right?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
GarfieldLeChat said:
your response phil...
According to the (seriously conservative) WB estimates, in 2001 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day. In the meantime, the world's richest 200 people doubled their net worth between 1994 and 1998 to more than $1 trillion. The world's top three billionaires alone possess more assets than the combined GNP of all the least developed countries, and their combined population of 600 million people. Your version of 'we're all middle-class now' is as fantastical as its predecessors.
It's my view that even though organised religion is thankfully on the wane in England (allthough not noticeably so in the U.S.), contemporary hegemonic culture still bears strong traces of its religious origins even here. Instead of papal funerals we have princess fucking di, instead of heretic burnings we've got the Ian Huntley trial, the Bolger killers etc. I could develop this in more detail (and may do so) but work beckons.
In Bloom said:
omnipotent doesn't mean he controls everything rather that he could if he wanted.
(not that I believe in god mind)
and why is free will a silly idea. It sure seems like I can choose what I'm going to do. I guess in a deterministic universe with no god, free will wouldn't exist?
but I don't accept that the universe is deterministic.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
angry bob said:
so if he doesn't controll everything then that would be .... 1 guess...
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
angry bob said:
i dont' accept there's some spook in the sky designed and designnated to deviorce us from ourselves and to made to subjigate us...
which sounds like the rantings of a nutter here....
But, by definition, if God is omnipotent, it would be impossible to act against his will. Furthermore, since the xtian God is supposed to be omniscient, he knew exactly what the consequences of each interaction between every single particle from the begninning, hence he set things up in a particular way which he knew would result in the world we see today. OmniGod and free will don't work very well together.angry bob said:
1) Define free will.
2) People don't just make decisions because they feel like it, every choice we make is made for a reason, we evaluate each choice based upon our personality, which is shaped by our genetics and our life experience, two things which we have no control over.
Hard fucking luck
In Bloom said:
But, if God is omnipotent, he is able to bestow free will upon us, without relinquishing his omnipotence. If he is unable to do so, he is not omnipotent.
There is only a contradiction if we consider God to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Omniscient = all knowing, Omnibenevolent = all good).
Edited to add: Sorry, forgot what thread I was on for a minute. What I have just said is self-evident and anyone who disagrees clearly doesn't understand the question. If you'd just stop hounding me for a second, I could explain why.
In Bloom said:
hmmm ... the xtian god made man in his own image which I don't think was supposed to be read as 'look like him' but rather have some sort of ... I dunno ... let's call it soul.
and it is presumably the xtian contention that it is this soul which gives us free will?
I have my reasoning. Check page 65 to see what this is. But reasoning will never get us all the way there. For every argument there is a counter argument. This is infinity after all so there will always be another thought to be had about something. I think it also comes down to the balance of the universe. Besides if reasoning was really going to prove anything theologically. Surely it would have done so after more than a 1000 yrs of rational thought. (Or even 66 pages.) I would certainly hold it true that reasoning can enhance an already strong faith. I will however leave the last word to Immanuel Kant who I believe said. "Faith begins where reasoning ends."phildwyer said:
Fruitloop said:
The gulf between rich and poor is indeed growing, but that is not a *logical* contradiction. The logical contradiction is between capital and labour, and these two forces were for centuries incarnated in two social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But this isn't necesarily a matter of wealth: it is perfectly possible for a proletarian to be richer than a bourgeois. A proletarian is one who sells his labour-power for wages; a bourgeois is one who lives off the interest from investments. Today, the vast majority of people in the West are *both.*
- Status
Similar threads
