Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnifica Humanitas

vatican.va

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#541

Post by [deleted] »

jfengel wrote: post #82
renox wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact I think atheists should make more effort to learn about the vast diversity of other faiths. It's very narrow to be atheist only about the Abrahamic deity. Your sentence doesn't really make sense, and there is a lot of deities.. > You end up incorporating a lot of Christian thought without realizing because it's so deeply ingrained that it seems like the only option. Depends on the country, some Northen euro…

There are a lot of deities, and they are far more diverse than you would expect if you're not exposed to them. Even the more atheist countries still seem Christian to Hindus, Confucians, animists, and thousands of other more obscure religions.

[deleted]

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#542

Post by tw04 »

vintagedave wrote: post #29
vintagedave wrote: post #10

> a uniformity that eliminated diversity and that chose homogenization over communion Unrelated to AI, but a wonderful support of the breadth of humanity in this anti-DEI time. > We must, then, avoid the “Babel syndrome,” namely the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including…

I fear I have committed the sin (I mean that word, here) of commenting before reading the entire article. Often it is the comments that set the tone of interpretation and communication more than the article itself, because people read the comments, not the article. To somewhat mitigate that, here are items that are striking me as I read more. (I hope you'll forgive that this still directs the comment in the direction…

> which can often require its own power - a conclusion I don't want to come to

Unfortunately we’re quick to forget that all of those words were put on paper after a time of violence, and ultimately they are a social contract between the many masses and the few “in power” that we agree to adhere to rules instead of committing violence to force behavior.

But ultimately there is only one logical conclusion to the game when parties stop playing by the rules and that’s violence, whether we want it or not. What i think you’ll find most often is the men who commit the most “crimes” against the social contract are the biggest cowards who have never faced violence or consequences and think they never will.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#543

Post by lobocinza »

hootz wrote: post #16

How many Catholics will put the encyclical to be summarized through an LLM?

I did but I will read it in full later. Summarizing the encyclical was a waste of time. Summarization is good for quickly probing the topic, tone and quality of a work. Here the topic is obvious, the Vatican tone is extremely consistent and encyclicals so far were all well written and thoughtful so there was nothing new to learn.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#544

Post by Manuel_D »

canibal wrote: post #523
Manuel_D wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposition to DEI is not opposition to diversity so much as it is opposition to discrimination. More than just discrimination, DEI often came in the form of a particularly dishonest and two faced approach to it. Unlike affirmative action - which in my experience tends to acknowledge that sometimes justice requires a measured and deliberate exception to equality - DEI often tried to simultaneously condemn the idea tha…

[flagged]

In case you couldn't infer from my username, I am Latin.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#545

Post by weitendorf »

bradrn wrote: post #6
theletterf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he quoted Tolkien, my heart stopped. This passage might provide you with a suggestion on how to live a virtuous life: "The twentieth-century Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien, in the words of a protagonist in one of his novels, described our responsibility in this way: “It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the e…

I am immediately reminded of my favourite quote from the Jewish book Pirkei Avot (‘Ethics of the Fathers’): > It is not your duty to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but neither are you at liberty to neglect it. [ https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.2.16?ven=english|Mishnah... ]

A formative moment for me was reading Richard Stallman's writing on the GNU website and seeing him quote [0] Rabbi Hillel [1]:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"

This inspired me to seek out more about Rabbinic Judaism and its theology more deeply, and I found the language and analogies concerning the idea of "repairing the world" (which you referenced, but which I think at first glance aren't necessarily something most people would identify as a specific core doctrinal theme) particularly inspiring [2]. To me it's frankly beautiful and something I recommend anybody interested in metaphysics or ethics/morality looking into; it also ties into the Kabbalah. IMO this aspect of Jewish theology deserves to be more widely known because it's something all of us can learn from.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#546

Post by Curosinono »

lobocinza wrote: post #498
Curosinono wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe. I accept things i don't know and i know what i know. There is no inherant issue with this. in contrary it makes me mentally stronger. I can choose on my own terms if/when i want to end my life. If i get very sick, i don't have to hope for a god or priests blessing to end my life, i will just do it. But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is no…

> I don't believe. You believe that you don't believe. > But religion is different: if you believe that homosexuality is wrong due to your religion, there is nothing i can argue about. Your priest told you this based on some book or story from 2000 years ago and you do not question this. This isn't the Church doctrine. The Church doesn't target homosexuals or even homosexuality in particular but ALL sexual practices…

No i do not believe. You don't change it just because you say that i believe in not believing.

There is also a clear definition for it:

"Believing is the mental act of accepting something as true, real, or correct, often without requiring absolute, physical proof."

I'm absolutly fine saying that I don't know something. I do not know a god exist, or multiply etc. But honestly that question comes down to me more like "Does randomess exist".

Yes its absoutly a religios thing that homosexuality is bad. You call it yourself 'sinful relationship'. Its not a sin just because church doesn't like it. Also plenty of religions are responsible for making it a sin outside of religion.

And yes if the church condonse all sexual practices, it does include homosexuality and makes it a church doctrine.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#547

Post by buildsjets »

komali2 wrote: post #320
Pay08 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What specific horrible evils do you mean? The 1956 student massacres in Hungary, where my grandma was almost killed. The Holodomor, the various "Russianization" campaigns, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, The Great Leap Forward, etc.

It sounds like Communism, Capitalism, and Fascism are all very bad, then. Maybe we can try something else? Do you have any ideas?

No gods, No masters.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#548

Post by atq2119 »

switchbak wrote: post #468
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it wrong? Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized in Kafka's time, but also since then are becoming ever increasingly more so, so it makes sense to speak of it continuing to happen and get worse. It is not binary.

"Individuals were absolutely getting dehumanized ... since then are becoming ever increasingly more so" - do you mind backing this up? I and everyone I know has it a whole lot easier than a couple generations prior. I don't know a single person working the fields, doing dangerous work in a factory, working a coal mine, etc. Of course, I am fortunate enough to be in this position. Power is continuing to squeeze people…

You may be talking past each other. You're talking mostly about quality of life. That is different from being (de)humanized.

Dehumanizing is treating other humans as not, or not fully, human. For example, the term "human resources" is dehumanizing because it puts humans on the same level as other resources. If you're treating humans like you'd treat, I don't know, lithium or the ocean, you're dehumanizing them.

The more humans are treated as numbers on spreadsheets and other forms of computation, the more humans are dehumanized.

So both can be true: we're more dehumanized than in 1900, but while that does impact quality of life negatively, the overall quality of life may still be better than back then.

The question should be whether and how we can have both: overall quality of life without being dehumanized.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#549

Post by the_real_cher »

sham1 wrote: post #380
the_real_cher wrote: post #81

Why does the onus fall on the engineer for creating a better tool and not on the people who use that tool in evil ways? We've been having the same argument since the dawn of mankind. AI is the new AR.

I'd say that the onus falls on the engineer insofar as they need to ask the questions of "why are we making the new better tool", "according to what criteria is it better", and "do we need the better tool". And at least for me, that onus falls on the engineer instead of falling on the user because it's the engineer who is creating the tool, not the user, and if the engineer chose differently, the tool wouldn't be out…

No one can predict the future.

Putting the blame on the engineers is a distraction from the real people at fault...the business people and the politicians.

Re: Magnifica Humanitas

#550

Post by Manuel_D »

mullingitover wrote: post #508
idiotsecant wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully that to a ton of people it no longer means 'people who are different are made valuable by that difference'- it's been demonized into essentially meaning 'give black people and women jobs they don't deserve'. It's a prime example of propaganda through language pollution. For whatever reason HN has been slowly goose ste…

> We should just stop using the term DEI. It has been demonized in the common parlance so successfully Whatever term you pick to describe a concerted effort to overcome the tendency to bigotry, they'll just hijack that, too. There's a whole industry built around this, and the media is so receptive to the right-wing that they'll openly describe how they'll do it[1], will execute the plans in public, and the mainstream…

DEI wasn't demonized because it tried to fight bigotry. It demonized itself because it routinely became a dishonest two-faced movement that public denied to be discriminatory, but then privately implemented policies that explicitly discriminated on the basis of sex and gender.

When your leaders publicly condemn the idea that your company is discriminating on the basis of sex, but then privately institutes a system of reserving headcount for women, that'll make most people real cynical about DEI.

Post reply on HN