The Screwing of the Average Man
What's the most radical book you've read?
51–57 of 57 posts
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power of various forms who might prefer to mediate that authority. Others are less thrilled of the threat of eternal concequences for their actions. I like the salvation by grace bit.
> The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power
Weird because you can have a direct relationship with God is a very popular outspoken opinion among those in power and also something most Americans are taught at a young age, seems strange to call one of the most popular religious opinions "radical".
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. Just because we can imagine an "outside-in" view, it doesn't mean we have it. If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it. Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. u…
> But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the ev…
You should then be able to show that objective reality exists without recourse to subjective experience.
I’m all ears :-)
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the ev…
You should then be able to show that objective reality exists without recourse to subjective experience. I’m all ears :-)
Huh? It is almost as if you have not read/understood what i had implied w.r.t. Modern Science in my comments above. I had even specifically mentioned "Physical Laws", "Evolution" etc. Notwithstanding the fact that it is our "Consciousness" which "perceives Reality" through "Subjective Experiences" we have managed to remove a whole lot of subjectivity (biases, emotions etc.) through the application of rigorous Scientific Methods to understand a "Objective Reality". All of your Physical Sciences/Technology is proof of that.
Some readings;
1) Objectivity in Science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
2) Subjectivity and Objectivity in Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(...
PS: In the Samkhya/Yoga school of Hindu philosophy there is a neat assertion which goes - Objective Reality exists because it is common to others besides oneself.
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#55Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid A unique synthesis of aesthetics and mathematics that completely formed my worldview. Perhaps slightly dated, because it was written very early in the computer revolution. Had it been written today, the Artificial Intelligence chapters would be very different.
> that completely formed my worldview. How?
I was afraid somebody would ask that question. I don't have a simple answer to that question. As best as I can explain it, GEB provides an intentional stance that makes it much easier to exist in a chaotic world that we know little about.
The lynchpin around which that stance revolves is Goedel's proof that classical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete. In short, that there are true things we can never prove to be true, and false things that we can never prove to be false, and an entire category of statements that are neither true nor false.
Coming to terms with the provable fact that knowledge is incomplete is enormously liberating. Once you do, the consequences spiral outward.
Examples, some of which GEB deals with explicitly, some of which falls out relatively easily:
- We can't know everything.
- Sometimes "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.
- Sometimes "the premise upon which your question is based is flawed" is a perfectly valid answer.
- All knowledge about objective reality requires (at a minimum) use of some form of Bayesian/probabilistic reasoning.
- Finite rules-based ethical and legal systems are (almost definitely) incomplete. Deeply distrust anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.
At the broader end of the domino chain of consequences, there are things like this:
- There are no rules for what is beautiful.
- Falling in love is a dreadful way to select a mate. But do it anyway. You won't regret it.
- Hard materialism is not incompatible with experiencing awe and wonder.
- We live in a chaotic universe that doesn't care about us at all. There are ways to deal with that.
- Embrace chaos.
- That consciousness is an emergent property of a complex universe is a perfectly valid alternate explanation to "Gods did it".
- Having a materialistic worldview does not preclude having a rich inner life.
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power of various forms who might prefer to mediate that authority. Others are less thrilled of the threat of eternal concequences for their actions. I like the salvation by grace bit.
> The suggestion that one can have a direct relationship with God tends to annoy those in power Weird because you can have a direct relationship with God is a very popular outspoken opinion among those in power and also something most Americans are taught at a young age, seems strange to call one of the most popular religious opinions "radical".
History is full of examples, IE the Protestant Reformation, when the Catholic church was insisting that the only way to know God was through a priest, and reformers, who insisted that one could know God without a human authority intervening.
Re: What's the most radical book you've read?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have. It's not the only suggestion that is considered controversial or radical but one that I thought made for a clear answer. What the main messages are is a different question which has been a topic of debate for a while now.
Bible has tons of messaging about literally obeying authorities unless special circumstances. It does not promotes annoyance toward those in power nor treats it as a virtue.
That's true but let me ask you, why then was Christ crucified? The Bible says to obey all authorities except in spiritual matters over which it (the Bible) claims they have no authority.