Pope Endorses Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Robbie]

You are most welcome.

[Sriram]

'Moving on' means what exactly?  Towards what?

Life is not a one way street that keeps going somewhere....liberal...super liberal...mega liberal...ultra liberal...hyper liberal etc.etc. Life is cyclical.  Things move back to what they were, with certain changes that enable better adaptation, reproduction and survival.

How the coming generations will think and what values they will hold cannot be assumed by just extrapolating what people think today.

[Aruntraveller]

'Moving on' means what exactly?  Towards what?

Life is not a one way street that keeps going somewhere....liberal...super liberal...mega liberal...ultra liberal...hyper liberal etc.etc. Life is cyclical.  Things move back to what they were, with certain changes that enable better adaptation, reproduction and survival.

How the coming generations will think and what values they will hold cannot be assumed by just extrapolating what people think today.

Which just sounds like an excuse to say the slave trade is ok because it's all cyclical.

[Roses]

Which just sounds like an excuse to say the slave trade is ok because it's all cyclical.

I was thinking along similar lines!

[ProfessorDavey]

'Moving on' means what exactly?  Towards what?

I think it was me who used that term in reply 42, so I'll respond.

'Moving on' means society moving from a particular position in terms of its views on certain issues to a different position. Towards what - well that isn't really relevant, merely suffice to say that by 'moving on' society holds different views than it did at a point in the past.

My point wasn't actually about whether that change is positive or negative, that is a subjective judgement (although in my view the changes over the past 50 years in terms of attitudes towards women, gay people and people who aren't white has been overwhelmingly positive although there remains much to do). My point is that if you consider the views of the RCC and broader UK society on major moral issues, including abortion, contraception, gay rights, women's rights etc etc. If 50 years ago the views of the RCC and broader society were not massively far apart, but broader society changes its views (moves on) but the RCC does not change its views then necessity the orthodox views of the RCC become increasing detached from the views of broader society (and indeed rank and file catholics who seem to have 'moved on' in a manner much closer to broader society than 'stayed put', as the RCC has done).

Surely that isn't a difficult concept to understand Sriram.

[Sriram]

Well....all I am saying is that just because something is a trend today or is regarded as the correct way to do things....it need not be so forever. It is not necessarily 'correct' in any absolute sense. Societies evolve and change. Right and wrong are relative. 

Whatever exits today will change inevitably sometime in the future.   

There are no infinite ways in which things can change in society. We have only certain choices....which keep going round and round, with some variations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well....all I am saying is that just because something is a trend today or is regarded as the correct way to do things....it need not be so forever. It is not necessarily 'correct' in any absolute sense. Societies evolve and change. Right and wrong are relative. 

Whatever exits today will change inevitably sometime in the future.   

There are no infinite ways in which things can change in society. We have only certain choices....which keep going round and round, with some variations.

I agree that things within societies constantly change and also that societies evolve and change and what societies perceives to be right or wrong is relative and also changes.

I'm not sure I agree that things go round and round, implying that at some point in the future we will come back to the situation that we have today again. And that society at some future point will reflect Tudor society. I don't think that is true, not least from the fact that today's society benefits from, and is informed by, knowledge of all earlier societal structures including the Tudor's - while Tudor society cannot be informed by societal structures that have existed more recently than Tudor times.

So I see no real evidence of things going round and round - there is constant change but I don't see that it ever returns to the situation of earlier times.

[Sriram]

For heavens sake....when I said that things go round and round I did not mean that past events will get repeated in the future.....and that one day we will be reliving world war 2 or anything of that kind.   

Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.

[ProfessorDavey]

....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.

I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.

Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.

Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.

There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.

I think Sriram maybe making a wider point than just the 'sacred; books and looking at whether we are that different as individuals and a species. I think his idea of cycles is simplistic, rather we can read Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas and find wisdom and a fellow feeling. I've noted before on here that I find Ecclesiates chimes a lot with my thoughts and feelings.

[ProfessorDavey]

There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.

Perhaps, although I doubt many people find that either provide 'solace' as Sriram suggests

But I'd go further and suggest their continuing relevance and importance is inherently cultural. We have retained a culture of 'the classics' over many centuries and indeed for a long time education was considered primarily to involve study of the classics, alongside christian scripture. Hence they have been retained. How many similarly important works of philosophy from other cultures are completely lost to us, although they may be just as good/important as the Iliad and the Odyssey had culture retained their importance.

Also how many people today have any idea what is in the Iliad and the Odyssey, let alone have actually read them.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps, although I doubt many people find that either provide 'solace' as Sriram suggests

But I'd go further and suggest their continuing relevance and importance is inherently cultural. We have retained a culture of 'the classics' over many centuries and indeed for a long time education was considered primarily to involve study of the classics, alongside christian scripture. Hence they have been retained. How many similarly important works of philosophy from other cultures are completely lost to us, although they may be just as good/important as the Iliad and the Odyssey had culture retained their importance.

Also how many people today have any idea what is in the Iliad and the Odyssey, let alone have actually read them.

I expanded the point with the rest of my post. So what you have created here is a strawman.

[ProfessorDavey]

I expanded the point with the rest of my post. So what you have created here is a strawman.

I don't think it is a straw man and the points I've made also apply to your expanded argument - I will respond directly to them.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it is a straw man and the points I've made also apply to your expanded argument - I will respond directly to them.

No, they don't since I wan't arguing against things being 'cultural'.

[ProfessorDavey]

There isn't a lot of Greek pantheists about but I would suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey are still relevant.

I think Sriram maybe making a wider point than just the 'sacred; books and looking at whether we are that different as individuals and a species. I think his idea of cycles is simplistic, rather we can read Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas and find wisdom and a fellow feeling. I've noted before on here that I find Ecclesiates chimes a lot with my thoughts and feelings.

I think my arguments still apply to your expanded point.

There are cultural reasons why we, as a society, have retained Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas in our pantheon of 'important' texts, yet have lost many others from similar times that might have been considered just at important had they been retained. So what comes to us is inherently a product of our culture.

But in addition - how many people today have actually read Confucius, Aristotle, the Bible or the Vedas? I'd suggest very few and fewer still would have more than a passing knowledge of what they contained. So in most cases how the 'knowledge' of those texts comes to us is not directly at all, but translated into societal and cultural norms which align with, and have have their origins in, those texts, albeit with many generations of layering on top. Probably the nearest most people get to the actual text is the occasional well know sayings that have become embedded in colloquialism.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, they don't since I wan't arguing against things being 'cultural'.

Were you arguing in favour of their being 'cultural'? In which case I agree. If you were simply not arguing against things being 'cultural', but not arguing that they are - a kind of neutrality, then I'd take issue because I don't think anything we retain today comes to us except through the prism of current and former culture and society.

[Nearly Sane]

I think my arguments still apply to your expanded point.

There are cultural reasons why we, as a society, have retained Confucius or Aristotle or the Bible or the Vedas in our pantheon of 'important' texts, yet have lost many others from similar times that might have been considered just at important had they been retained. So what comes to us is inherently a product of our culture.

But in addition - how many people today have actually read Confucius, Aristotle, the Bible or the Vedas? I'd suggest very few and fewer still would have more than a passing knowledge of what they contained. So in most cases how the 'knowledge' of those texts comes to us is not directly at all, but translated into societal and cultural norms which align with, and have have their origins in, those texts, albeit with many generations of layering on top. Probably the nearest most people get to the actual text is the occasional well know sayings that have become embedded in colloquialism.

You've just repeated the straw man. I'm not arguing that there are not 'cultural' reasons about why something is read - though I do think you make 'cultural' sound as if it is removed from society and people as some kind of outside influence.

The point is that it is still possible to read any of the above and find relevance, wisdom, and fellow feeling. Too often you see terns like 'bronze age goatherders' flung about, mainly incorrectly,  as if to distance us now as being some homo superior.

[Nearly Sane]

Were you arguing in favour of their being 'cultural'? In which case I agree. If you were simply not arguing against things being 'cultural', but not arguing that they are - a kind of neutrality, then I'd take issue because I don't think anything we retain today comes to us except through the prism of current and former culture and society.

Things are obviously 'cultural' but I think that tells you nothing about whether you can find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts. Indeed it's surely that people find such things that creates the culture?

[ProfessorDavey]

Things are obviously 'cultural' but I think that tells you nothing about whether you can find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts.

I'm not saying that you can't find wisdom etc in ancient text - indeed in a couple of weeks I will be nodding to Aristotle as I introduce my ethics students to the concept of Virtue Ethics.

But the reality is that most people do not find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts because they have never read them. The closest they will come is the manner in which those ancient texts has been through the wheels of culture and society and is 'spat out' as a kind of cultural and societal back drop, mood music if you like. So the texts may, indeed, have wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling but it comes to us (in most cases) not directly, but second, 3rd or n-th hand.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not saying that you can't find wisdom etc in ancient text - indeed in a couple of weeks I will be nodding to Aristotle as I introduce my ethics students to the concept of Virtue Ethics.

But the reality is that most people do not find wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling in ancient texts because they have never read them. The closest they will come is the manner in which those ancient texts has been through the wheels of culture and society and is 'spat out' as a kind of cultural and societal back drop, mood music if you like. So the texts may, indeed, have wisdom, relevance and fellow feeling but it comes to us (in most cases) not directly, but second, 3rd or n-th hand.

So when you are challenging Sriram's statement:

'Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'

What you are challenging is that most people on earth won't have read those books but you agree with what I italicised?

[ProfessorDavey]

So when you are challenging Sriram's statement:

'Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'

What you are challenging is that most people on earth won't have read those books but you agree with what I italicised?

If you read my reply to Sriram you will see that I had edited down his post to emphasise the part I was responding to, which was this bit:

'....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'

[Nearly Sane]

If you read my reply to Sriram you will see that I had edited down his post to emphasise the part I was responding to, which was this bit:

'....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.'

So what issue do you have with ;which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today'?

[ProfessorDavey]

So what issue do you have with ;which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today'?

Did you actually read my response - perhaps I should repeat it:

'I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.

Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.'

I was taking issue with the implication of Sriram's post (as I saw it) that the pantheon of ancient texts remain relevant today and that countless people routinely read those texts and gain inspiration and solace.

Firstly because very few people have understanding of ancient texts beyond the one (or an handful) that are embedded in their cultural upbringing. And there will be countless ancient texts completely lost to society, that could have been considered just as relevant had they not been lost, whether accidentally or through cultural/societal design.

So Sriram's implication (as I saw it) that around the world people are reading all sorts of ancient texts directly and gaining inspiration/solace I don't believe is true. Even most religious people often have scant knowledge of what is in the ancient texts relating to their own religion, and knowledge of ancient texts beyond their religion is often close to non-existent.

[Nearly Sane]

Did you actually read my response - perhaps I should repeat it:

'I'd suggest this is largely cultural rather than those books being fundamentally relevant to people today in an objective manner. Why do I say this - well because the book that people find 'relevant' tends to be the one that they were brought up to consider important. Very few people brought up as Hindu find the Koran or the Torah relevant and important for example - indeed I would go as far as to say that very few people from one religion have more than a passing knowledge of what is written in the sacred texts of another religion.

Secondly, there are countless ancient texts (or oral equivalent) considered at one point or another to be sacred or important - yet of those a tiny handful are the ones you consider to be providing 'solace to most people on earth'. And those that do only remain relevant because the religion they are associated with has embedded their relevance in its cultural DNA and created customs and ceremonies specifically aimed at ensuring that the next generation find them relevant.'

I was taking issue with the implication of Sriram's post (as I saw it) that the pantheon of ancient texts remain relevant today and that countless people routinely read those texts and gain inspiration and solace.

Firstly because very few people have understanding of ancient texts beyond the one (or an handful) that are embedded in their cultural upbringing. And there will be countless ancient texts completely lost to society, that could have been considered just as relevant had they not been lost, whether accidentally or through cultural/societal design.

So Sriram's implication (as I saw it) that around the world people are reading all sorts of ancient texts directly and gaining inspiration/solace I don't believe is true. Even most religious people often have scant knowledge of what is in the ancient texts relating to their own religion, and knowledge of ancient texts beyond their religion is often close to non-existent.

Yes, i did read it and also read it in the context of the thread where Sriram has been arguing that there is not really any difference between us as individuals and as a species in what is important now, and 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago and what was written by people then 

Again you seem to see 'cultural' as  somehow outside of what society is and that seems wrong. Culture makes us and wr make culture. There is no separation. So when you talk about people only knowing in the main their own 'culture', that's a truism.


EtA If Sriram's statement had said 'many people' rather than 'most people', would you have agreed with it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

What Sriram said was:

Values, hopes and aspirations don't change radically. They remain broadly the same....which is why ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago are relevant even today and why they still inspire and provide solace to most people on earth.

Two thoughts here:

First, the claim is too broadly drawn. Many of these “ancient books and stories written thousands of years ago” contain a lot of crap too (endorsing slavery for example) so the claim needs the pre-fix “some parts of…”.

Second, even if some parts of these stories are “relevant” (ie, appropriate to the current time etc) that leaves open the question of whether they’re necessary. If an ancient text says “murder is wrong” then fine, but no-one needs to go to that text to know that. Rather the point should I’d have thought be whether these texts can teach us things we don’t know already, perhaps by making arguments that bear scrutiny contrary to the Zeitgeist. Maybe some do but the case for that needs to be made and not just asserted.