21–30 of 201 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
This isn’t close to true. Look at the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
> The moment memes switched over from religion to politics as primary content seems to have been the French Revolution, I can't think of a time before that when people killed each other over political ideals.
Uh. What?
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
This has been a thing since at least the Roman empire? Pretty sure that the Athens-Sparta wars were also at least in part over ideological differences. Probably much earlier too, but I'm not a historian and can't recall any from the top of my head.
Btw, to say that the French revolution was primarily over political ideals and not (say) a power struggle between competing elites or a public revolt over economic circumstances seems like a huge oversimplification of a conflict that took over a decade.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
> It goes hand in hand with wars for religious conversion, which also weren't a thing before Christ. This isn’t close to true. Look at the timeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war > The moment memes switched over from religion to politics as primary content seems to have been the French Revolution, I can't think of a time before that when people killed each other over political ideals. Uh. What?
I'm not sure if it's true, but I see what they mean. A distinction between killing over power, and killing over ideas. I can see the attraction of the idea that killing over ideas is a modern phenomenon, although it's probably not entirely true (in either direction -- most wars over ideas are perhaps really about power anyway... but is couching it as a war over ideas a modern phenomenon? Probably still not entirely, but there might be something to it...)
The big challenge: How to get 2 opposing, self-righteous groups to a place they can talk and learn the fallacies each holds of the other.
Their issues stem from emotional disturbance, not some high-minded difference in ideals.
Self-righteousness that seeks to subjugate others is a disease.
Only someone with deep emotional problems would choose to vehemently proselytize some notion vs. simply going for a picnic and enjoying the sun.
The big challenge: How to get 2 opposing, self-righteous groups to a place they can talk and learn the fallacies each holds of the other.
I'm not sure that's the right question. It assumes both parties only hold the views they do out of ignorance or "fallacies" whatever that means here. That's not necessarily the case at all, often groups oppose each other out of a clear-eyed understanding of the incompatibility of their values. More understanding won't resolve that conflict.
Edit: typo "find" -> "rings"
I thought about this subject quite a bit and there's really no way around conflicts. You just have to have them and try to win them. The party that is the furthest away from reality will lose eventually. Warning: the _realistic_ party will win, not the right party, the good party, the moral party, etc. You also need to accept this.
Or you can put on the pacifist hat and basically accept you're going to lose every time. History is full of conflicts and only conflicts changed the world. Be them military, artistic, ideological, philosophical or whatever. If you can't survive the contact with the opposing side think what reality will do to you.
Quoted post unavailable.
While I do agree that this seem to be very correlated with the montoheistic religions (wrote about exactly that here):
> Monotheism makes it really hard to consider the arguments of the other side because it doles out the addictive sweet nectar of moral superiority
https://piszek.com/2022/01/10/monotheism/
I don't agree with your conclusion that this is something you have to fight. We can do exactly what they did before the spread of montheism - live in the world where it is perfectly normal to have multiple points of view or even value frameworks. Rome thrived in that setting.
The choice between us vs them is itself an illusion. You don't have to subscribe to the entire package, but then you don't get access to that righteousness Fix
Quoted post unavailable.
The Wars of the Roses (England, 1455-1487) was primarily political rather than religious. It was caused by a succession crisis, rival political units and changes in the structure of feudalism.
The numerous wars in Rome between rival emperors had very little to do with religion.