@philokalia saidThis is essentially what I have been saying. You are not reading anyone's posts properly.
Even if the Hindu religions are not true, the Hindus within these religions try to follow a truth, which is far different than people following whatever they think is truth.
@philokalia saidYes, different groups, cultures, regions operate along their own lines and collective concepts of reality. You ought to follow the conversation.
Basically, he proposes the opposite of some globalized democratic ethic, and insists rather that each region should be fit to operate along its own guidelines and concept of the reality.
I am a mostly law-abiding agnostic atheist with my own moral compass, operating in a predominantly Muslim community, albeit partly in a Christian subgroup, in a country whose culture is attenuated by Hinduism and Buddhism, governed by a secular state.
My moral compass is just fine and has no doubt been affected by my experience and my observations.
It's kind of daft for KellyJay to think that he can project some sort of an external "true north" ~ that he just so happens to favour and subscribe to ~ onto the 260,000,000 unique and therefore diverse moral compasses of the people living where I live.
OK, you don't really get it... And I guess perhaps my argument is different from KJ's.
The important thing is that people subscribe to a concept of moral truth that is higher than themselves as an individual.
And this is even why Dugin would emphasize the importance of Hindu nations having their Hindu moral compass and not becoming some highly secularized, atomized, and progressive atheist nation.
When people are godless and systemless, following only their own compass, it creates a sort of moral anarchy. Of course, not in the big things because it is obvious to anyone that society cannot sustain itself with things like murder. But in the small things -- society does not come apart with some dramatic rift down the middle, but it comes apart at the seams as people see no purpose in meaningful social cohesion.
This is also what I often mean by the term 'managerial ethics.'
Real ethics cease to be relevant and only some figment of ethics remains -- managerial ethics. The ethics of a guy just trying to turn a profit and keep his employees from harassing each other into quitting; ethics for a short-term vision and for a short-term goal.
@philokalia saidWhat do you find wrong with KellyJay's argument? I'm not sure you've actually read it carefully enough to know. You certainly don't seem to know what I have been saying.
OK, you don't really get it... And I guess perhaps my argument is different from KJ's.
@philokalia saidThis opinion that they are subscribing to a "moral truth that is higher than themselves" is still something that results in subjectivity. Moral compasses are personal prisms that we develop individually as a result of interacting with our surroundings and absorbing information.
The important thing is that people subscribe to a concept of moral truth that is higher than themselves as an individual.
@fmf saidI actually was addressing you.
What do you find wrong with KellyJay's argument? I'm not sure you've actually read it carefully enough to know. You certainly don't seem to know what I have been saying.
Whatever disagreements K and I have are actually minimal.
With you, there's a massive disagreement.
@philokalia saidTranslation: some people believe things that you disagree with and disapprove of and you reckon they are right and they are wrong because you are, by your own subjective definition, godful.
When people are godless and systemless, following only their own compass, it creates a sort of moral anarchy.
@philokalia saidYou don't appear to know what I believe because you don't appear to be reading the posts, hence the confusion over whether you were supporting or disagreeing with KellyJay.
With you, there's a massive disagreement.
@fmf saidOh no, you are just trying to make this an argument about me.
Translation: some people believe things that you disagree with and disapprove of and you reckon they are right and they are wrong because you are, by your own subjective definition, godful.
I've already explained how this functions on a truly global scale by referencign Dugin's "Radical relativist" perspective.
I have zero problem with the fact that less than a sixth of people livign subscribe to my specific cosmology...
I am talking about atomization within society resulting in moral fraying and anarchy.
Please stick to the complex topic at hand and stop trying to make it into some petty pissing match you have with me.
@fmf saidThe difference between a person choosing to follow a different interpretation of a sacred text that is also mainstream more or less and choosing whatever they fancy as an individual are worlds apart, and thus I do not consider it probelmatic to my argument.
This opinion that they are subscribing to a "moral truth that is higher than themselves" is still something that results in subjectivity. Moral compasses are personal prisms that we develop individually as a result of interacting with our surroundings and absorbing information.
@fmf saidStick to the specific topic and try not to make this about your personal disagreements with my style.
You don't appear to know what I believe because you don't appear to be reading the posts, hence the confusion over whether you were supporting or disagreeing with KellyJay.
And I'll do the same.
@philokalia saidNations have traditions and culture and laws.
And this is even why Dugin would emphasize the importance of Hindu nations having their Hindu moral compass and not becoming some highly secularized, atomized, and progressive atheist nation.
Nations don't have moral compasses.
It is human beings who have moral compasses.
No two moral compasses on Earth can possibly be identical because no two people can possibly have the same synthesis of nature and nurture and narrative.
@philokalia saidAny discussion about moral compasses between you and me is inevitably going to be an argument about your moral compass and my moral compass. I am not going to discuss imposing either of our moral compasses on others.
Oh no, you are just trying to make this an argument about me.
@fmf saidSure, there wouldn't be a specific moral compass that is for every single Turk, and that would never have been the case.
Nations have traditions and culture and laws.
Nations don't have moral compasses.
It is human beings who have moral compasses.
No two moral compasses on Earth can possibly be identical because no two people can possibly have the same synthesis of nature and nurture and narrative.
But Turkey is made up of a Sunni majority, and there are the common concepts of what morality is within this group. The Turkish moral trajectory would be described as one that is largely governed by Sunni Islamic principles, and the Christian (and other) minorities there would ahve also internalized these norms.
What is important is that these norms exist and even that minorities within this society follow these norms.
Indeed, Turkish atheists can follow these norms well enough... but if everyone was an atheist, and these norms ceased to be relevant, it would cause a sort of moral anarchy that I was referring to above.
Now I have explained it twice.
I think you are trying to wriggle out of the argument by pretending that I am making an error here and should be adhering to some strict interpretation of what a "compass" is.
You are wriggling like a worm.