21–25 of 25 posts
I don't follow how society's not a reliable source of values, which I agree in principle, but Abraham (that we only know of thanks to spotty written records post-fact) is.
I had pizza with the author once. This makes sense: >Well-grounded values, which is to say values that actually serve and accelerate life rather than deplete it, come from only one source: hard engagement with reality, where you can form an experience-building feedback loop of trial, error, and vitality. and this: >Our most important low-hanging fruit is to recognize the problem: most of the values we learn from the…
> some kind of reliable revelation as to the deeper wishes of the higher powers, as Abraham had So God talked to Abraham? God exists?
And if you don't, well, then you have no known content for the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. For that matter, you have no known content for anything else in Abraham's life.
Choosing to believe that Abraham existed but God doesn't and didn't is... not supportable by the only text we have.
I'm skeptical of this style of writing. If I'd have the power/were a mod... I would remove it even if it doesn't break any rules. Allegedly, all of the author's friends are dead, and this is a widespread problem. This happenes everywhere, society is at fault. - What we hear is baseless (there are no links provided). It's pretty far from my experience as a human (however, I am not US based). The tone of the text is ve…
I'm skeptical about the discussion of Abraham. Appeal to Abraham is appeal to authority.
Why?
Because the red flags I discuss happen early. Way before Abraham is mentioned. What I describe is a tool I use to decide whether the author is projecting a reality or observing/reporting on it.
I stopped reading without encountering any mention of Abraham. However I hope the tools I mention are still of value. I say this because it seems they helped me abandon an article that could have gotten me to Abraham...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That explains a lot! The article was pretty insightful up until the point where it mentioned Abraham. Far right figures can be very incisive about some of the issues facing modern society, the problem is that their solution is very often to revert to traditional norms.
>the problem is that their solution is very often to revert to traditional norms. Perhaps so, but TFA rejects that solution, stressing the importance of acquiring one's own values through experience. Traditional wisdom can be helpful in a "prior work" sense, but is no substitute for trying things and learning from them.
Firstly, the author advocates not just personal experience but also following the examples of "great singular men of history". This is the classic traditionalist right-wing narrative whereby we need super-hero saviours past and present to show us plebs the way.
Secondly, the author doesn't just say to find your own values, but explicitly lauds a specific set of values:
> multiplication of biological kin, sovereign control of living space, eternal fame, rewards to friends and punishments to enemies, a universal benevolent impact, and harmony with the plans and laws of God and nature
These are traditionalist right-wing norms. Arguably they are pretty damaging in the modern world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some kind of reliable revelation as to the deeper wishes of the higher powers, as Abraham had So God talked to Abraham? God exists?
If you believe the account in Genesis, yes on both fronts. And if you don't, well, then you have no known content for the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. For that matter, you have no known content for anything else in Abraham's life. Choosing to believe that Abraham existed but God doesn't and didn't is... not supportable by the only text we have.
That answer can be given to ANY question and it is as true there as in your case. In other words it is a tautology. It provides no new information.