See, the people who need church as a crutch to heel with, are focused on healing, not what they think your problems are. Some dude at AA isn't going to tell me Pokemon is the devil, and vote for politicians to start making laws.
People need to not have full responsibility of their life because they don't actually have full control of it to begin with.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy. Sure, things happen to you outside of your control. But all of your responses, even down to how you feel, are well within your control. Using your example, at the end of the day, it's going to be necessary for that father to have the emotional stoicism necessary to accept that there may have been a couple things that he could have done different, but his primary objective now is to learn from the life of his son, and prepare so he can respond better when the next tragedy may befall him or his loved ones. He'll have to learn to move on, and no one can actually do that but him.
Which is something you see represented incredibly often in the Atheism/Leftist crowds, absurd anxiety over everything.
I think the emotional incontinence is intentional and part of a system of psychological abuse for a method of control. This is why the Left are fighting against stoicism generally. Fragility makes people controllable and dependent on those who will affirm or placate them. It's not an accident, it's an attack.
I see that as a failing of the Church itself
I entirely agree. Something seems to have failed in the church's core. There doesn't seem to be a proper Christian intelligentsia anymore. I think it should truly disturb all pious Christians that Jordan Peterson is probably doing more to build a Christian moral and ethical core for young people in a modern age than pretty much any religious scholars, preachers, and disciples in over 30-50 years. I don't really know that I've ever heard anyone in earlier times say, "I don't believe in God, but I absolutely subscribe to the Christian ethic." Or "I see myself as a Christian Atheist, because although I don't believe in God, I think the Christendom forms an excellent moral foundation." The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell. And sure, you can say that a Christian Atheist is as ridiculous as a Libertarian Socialist, but the point is that they are still accepting Christendom.
The closest I can even imagine someone doing anything like that, within the entire time I've been alive, is maybe Paul Harvey & Fred Rogers. And even then, their Christianity was confined to indirectly emphasizing Christian values, rather than attributing those ethical behaviors to Christendom, or doing any philosophical Christian Apologetics.
It feels to me like the Evangelicals seized Christendom, emphasized gifting, and then hoped the US government would solve all of the social failings of America; leaving the philosophical core of Christendom effectively barren. Which, horrifically, is still better than what happened in Europe. Ugh.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized. So its not something I wish to believe in. But most people are not capable of handling such a weight. They won't be able to handle the "shoulda"s and the anxiety of it will slow them for a long time. Religion, like most things, is geared towards the common man and his common faults, and an inability to deal with the randomness of life is one of the oldest of those.
For some, accepting that full weight will help them better. For others, they need to push off some parts for the sake of their ability to move forward. And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell
I think the concept is older than his influence, but the label itself you could trace near him. But much like the "altright" it has an existence far larger and more robust than whoever named it.
But I'm fine with that type of foundations. Much like the aforementioned anxiety of chaos, some people need the "God" portion to keep their ethics and morals while others just need a common culture which may have come from God originally but they can hold to it without the looming threat of Him.
Unfortunately, we have too little of either side. And that which we do are extremists who, while of agreeable beliefs, have little hope of taking root to change towards them.
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized.
Yeah, no signs of overlap from me. I'm not the entire opposite, but order naturally entrophies to chaos; and order is naturally emergent from chaos. To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
I don't think this example is what I mean. Accepting full weight of your actions, also involves recognizing the relative weight. "I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry, and from that you can think about how to alter your behavior. But that is the full weight. The 90 lbs of "that guy shouldn't have been drunk driving" is the other part. Don't simply offload your 1 lbs of responsibility on to him, but recognize what is and is not your burden. Then, effectively, bear that cross.
To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
"I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.
See, the people who need church as a crutch to heel with, are focused on healing, not what they think your problems are. Some dude at AA isn't going to tell me Pokemon is the devil, and vote for politicians to start making laws.
This here is something I totally disagree with from my philosophy. Sure, things happen to you outside of your control. But all of your responses, even down to how you feel, are well within your control. Using your example, at the end of the day, it's going to be necessary for that father to have the emotional stoicism necessary to accept that there may have been a couple things that he could have done different, but his primary objective now is to learn from the life of his son, and prepare so he can respond better when the next tragedy may befall him or his loved ones. He'll have to learn to move on, and no one can actually do that but him.
I think the emotional incontinence is intentional and part of a system of psychological abuse for a method of control. This is why the Left are fighting against stoicism generally. Fragility makes people controllable and dependent on those who will affirm or placate them. It's not an accident, it's an attack.
I entirely agree. Something seems to have failed in the church's core. There doesn't seem to be a proper Christian intelligentsia anymore. I think it should truly disturb all pious Christians that Jordan Peterson is probably doing more to build a Christian moral and ethical core for young people in a modern age than pretty much any religious scholars, preachers, and disciples in over 30-50 years. I don't really know that I've ever heard anyone in earlier times say, "I don't believe in God, but I absolutely subscribe to the Christian ethic." Or "I see myself as a Christian Atheist, because although I don't believe in God, I think the Christendom forms an excellent moral foundation." The only reason anyone's really saying that is because of him, as far as I can tell. And sure, you can say that a Christian Atheist is as ridiculous as a Libertarian Socialist, but the point is that they are still accepting Christendom.
The closest I can even imagine someone doing anything like that, within the entire time I've been alive, is maybe Paul Harvey & Fred Rogers. And even then, their Christianity was confined to indirectly emphasizing Christian values, rather than attributing those ethical behaviors to Christendom, or doing any philosophical Christian Apologetics.
It feels to me like the Evangelicals seized Christendom, emphasized gifting, and then hoped the US government would solve all of the social failings of America; leaving the philosophical core of Christendom effectively barren. Which, horrifically, is still better than what happened in Europe. Ugh.
See, I personally don't believe in chaos at all and think all things are order unrecognized. So its not something I wish to believe in. But most people are not capable of handling such a weight. They won't be able to handle the "shoulda"s and the anxiety of it will slow them for a long time. Religion, like most things, is geared towards the common man and his common faults, and an inability to deal with the randomness of life is one of the oldest of those.
For some, accepting that full weight will help them better. For others, they need to push off some parts for the sake of their ability to move forward. And as long as the parts they push off are reasonable (like "I shouldn't have let him outside") I see no issue with it if it makes them recover better.
I think the concept is older than his influence, but the label itself you could trace near him. But much like the "altright" it has an existence far larger and more robust than whoever named it.
But I'm fine with that type of foundations. Much like the aforementioned anxiety of chaos, some people need the "God" portion to keep their ethics and morals while others just need a common culture which may have come from God originally but they can hold to it without the looming threat of Him.
Unfortunately, we have too little of either side. And that which we do are extremists who, while of agreeable beliefs, have little hope of taking root to change towards them.
Yeah, no signs of overlap from me. I'm not the entire opposite, but order naturally entrophies to chaos; and order is naturally emergent from chaos. To reject chaos is to reject the very nature of decay, and to reject the source of order.
I don't think this example is what I mean. Accepting full weight of your actions, also involves recognizing the relative weight. "I shouldn't have let him outside" is a recognition of the 1 lbs of weight you carry, and from that you can think about how to alter your behavior. But that is the full weight. The 90 lbs of "that guy shouldn't have been drunk driving" is the other part. Don't simply offload your 1 lbs of responsibility on to him, but recognize what is and is not your burden. Then, effectively, bear that cross.
Chaos is simply order unrecognized by a lesser mind. If we had the technology or distance we could order all things, but we do not and likely will never have such. This doesn't mean they aren't ordered, it means we don't know the order. Sets containing all sets may contain themselves, and if they don't those that aren't contained are a set onto themselves. By literally naming it and having a concept of it, we have ordered it and it ceases to be actual chaos.
Its not rejecting decay, its believing that you can understand that decay with enough knowledge.
But that weight is not one to carry to begin with as the consequences and problems from literally never letting him outside are far more immediate and likely, compared to the relatively small risk that was inherent to letting him go outside. You shouldn't even let that have weight upon you because it was an absurd thought not based in reality to do so. It should be nobodies weight because its worthless to think.
And the reason I believe in that isn't because I think its the perfect solution, but that its necessary for some people to live. The types who if you even let the tiniest thoughts like that creep in, it will dominate their mind. They need an external loci of control to maintain their stability.
This is fundamentally not true of the universe. I know, I've had this argument before with physicists who were Determinists. It shouldn't surprise anyone here that scientists who are looking for the last and final equation, think that they can effectively find a way to perfectly order the universe. Einstein was one of them, and it was one of the primary reasons why he rejected Quantum Mechanics. He refused to accept random chance ("God does not play dice"), and insisted that Quantum Mechanics was just the result of probabilities from hidden variables. Long story short, we can mathematically pre-suppose hidden variables using statistical analysis, rather than Quantum Mechanics, and low and behold, Quantum Mechanics isn't a cover for hidden variables, it's a completely different set of different rules that involves random chance.
I think our impasse is going to be semantic, because mathematical and scientific chaos is not defined as "lack of any possible analysis". It means that a 'chaotic system' is one where the results are utterly unpredictable (within some range), because the smallest and nearly irrelevant changes in input make it so that no calculation is guaranteed to get you a consistent or predictive result. This is often demonstrated with the double-pendulum experiment. The equations for calculating how a double pendulum will move are well known and well established. It is not possible to predict how the pendulum will move because the system is so fundamentally unstable that it's not possible to do that calculation with any accuracy.
And because I've had this discussion, I know where the next retort is going to be: "That's still an ordered system, you would just need to make better calculations with less error. You could predict it if you knew all the initial conditions of the pendulum, with 100% accuracy." But that's still not true either, and that is because the universe literally prevents us from being able to get to that level of "resolution". It's the same problem expressed in different ways, depending on the field: it's Goodell's Incompleteness Theorem in Mathematics, it's the Halting Problem in Computer Science, it's the Knowledge Problem in Economics, it's the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. The level of detail and specificity of knowledge about the system that you are seeking is physically impossible because you are either no longer capable of using the measuring tools you have, you are effecting the system by measuring it, or you are asking a question that does match reality because you no longer understand the system at this resolution.
The fundamental point is that you can't have any logical system that solves a chaotic equation to get a predictable result. Determinism can't solve randomness. And randomness does exist.
But that's still a misunderstanding of "weight" as we are putting it. Never letting someone go outside isn't taking proper responsibility, it's just an immature risk avoidance behavior. It's as you say, it would do far more damage. That is ignoring your responsibility to allow your child to live their lives, and ignoring your responsibility to bear the weight of the risk of life. No different from a boy claiming he will never love again because his highschool sweet heart Janey Rotten-crotch ditched him.
I disagree. I believe they only need that external loci because of their own internal weakness. For whatever reason, they haven't developed or matured enough to not need it, and so it becomes (as we mentioned earlier) a crutch. But it should be a goal to stop using that crutch in order to finally be healed.