Calling all Fiends.

[DeWinter]

But, as I've said before in another thread, the ones who really fascinate (and annoy) me are the ones who insist on telling people that they shouldn't believe or that it's stupid or unscientific to. I'm all for intelligent debate but telling people that they shouldn't believe is no different to evangelists telling them that they should.

I would say the difference between, for example a prosletysing atheist and a religious believer is that you surrender no control over your thoughts, behaviour or finances to atheism. It's not like we all have to pay a levy to repair Richard Dawkins' roof when it leaks.

[stufarq]

I think we're just quibbling over definitions. What you call "people who, almost by definition, aren't really interested" are not what I would call agnostic. They're apathetic.

An agnostic makes the claim that questions of god-existence are fundamentally unknowable in a different way to other truth-claims. Treating one class of truth-claim differently to all others is privileging that class, pretty much by definition.

It's not definitions we're quibbling over, it's this non-existent "privilege" you keep referring to. It's only a privilege if someone actively accords it that status. I've already demonstarted that no-one (except you) is doing so. To those who believe the question is unanswerable, it's just the way things are. It's not a privilege that the question can't be investigated, it's just that they don't see how it can be. As for the rest of us, we can investigate it to our hearts' content and the agnostics can't stop us (not that they'd want to, being apathetic and all ). So the prvilege simply doesn't exist. God isn't exempt from investigation. Some people just think that investigation's impossible.

Hence both Locke and Jefferson, as well as most other important American Founders, recognized slavery as a moral evil and a violation of the natural law.

Point of order. Jefferson was one of the biggest slave owners of his time and freed only a handful. He was once bequeathed a large number of slaves on the understanding that he would free them. He didn't. He advocated the deportation of freed slaves to Africa so that America would remain a whites-only society because he believed black people to be inferior. He did very little politically to further the cause of emanciaption and was ver much behind contemporary abolitionists in that regard. Yes, he's believed to have fathered children with one of his slaves but a lot of slavers did that. Yes he sometimes said things to suggest that he was anti-slavery but his actions did nothing to bear that out.

It's not like we all have to pay a levy to repair Richard Dawkins' roof when it leaks.

For God's sake don't give the man ideas!

[sultan2075]

Hence both Locke and Jefferson, as well as most other important American Founders, recognized slavery as a moral evil and a violation of the natural law.

Point of order. Jefferson was one of the biggest slave owners of his time and freed only a handful. He was once bequeathed a large number of slaves on the understanding that he would free them. He didn't. He advocated the deportation of freed slaves to Africa so that America would remain a whites-only society because he believed black people to be inferior. He did very little politically to further the cause of emanciaption and was ver much behind contemporary abolitionists in that regard. Yes, he's believed to have fathered children with one of his slaves but a lot of slavers did that. Yes he sometimes said things to suggest that he was anti-slavery but his actions did nothing to bear that out.

That's a crude view of a rather complicated issue. Jefferson lived in a slave society. He found it to be an abhorrent practice, and he cited the existence of the transatlantic slave trade as justification for the American Revolution in the first draft of the Declaration (why drop it? Because the war won't be won without the aid of the South--specifically, South Carolina and Georgia objected to the language). He also found that slavery debased both master and slave. In 1784, he proposed an act for emancipation.

As for "deportation," Jefferson, in

"And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriae [love of country] of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the evanishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed."

I've highlighted the important point. Why would freed slaves want to stay in the country where they'd been enslaved?

Lincoln had a similar idea, as far as repatriation went, until it was pointed out to him (by Frederick Douglass, I think) that freed slaves were more American than anything else. Lincoln initially advocated providing financial, political and policy support for a new nation, founded by the former slaves

By the 1820's, Jefferson described the existence of slavery as a "wolf" that had been gotten by the ear: there are no good options, and the wolf can neither be held perpetually or let go. "Justice in one hand" and "self-preservation in the other." Emancipation would threaten lives, but the continued existence of slavery would debase both master and slave.

Jefferson--and many other Founders--temporized on the issue, in part because the had a faith in the inevitable extinction of the institution on the basis of the principles of the Founding (this is why John C. Calhoun and other Southern defenders of slavery prior to the Civil War explicitly repudiate the principles of the Declaration. They knew that the two were incompatible, as did Jefferson).

None of us are as consistent as we might like in our morality. Such consistency, in many cases, is not possible. Politics, at its best, moderates the demands of morality and the requirements of prudence.

edit: this is an interesting subject, and I will try to keep up with it going forward (if others want to do so), but I will be out of town for a few days (Thursday-Sunday), and I may not be able to reply in a timely manner.

[markfiend]

I think we're just quibbling over definitions. What you call "people who, almost by definition, aren't really interested" are not what I would call agnostic. They're apathetic.

An agnostic makes the claim that questions of god-existence are fundamentally unknowable in a different way to other truth-claims. Treating one class of truth-claim differently to all others is privileging that class, pretty much by definition.

It's not definitions we're quibbling over, it's this non-existent "privilege" you keep referring to. It's only a privilege if someone actively accords it that status.

The agnostic gives god-claims a special status, which is what I mean by privilege. How can I make my meaning clearer? Rather than using the word "privilege", which is obviously a sticking point, how about this:

"Here are most kinds of questions, which we can investigate and come to answer," says the agnostic, "and here are questions of god-existence, which we say are unanswerable".

Treating questions of god-existence differently from other kinds of questions means that, in my opinion, the agnostic is giving too much credit to this particular class of question. I would like agnostics to defend this assertion, this claim that god-questions are unknowable in a way that other claims are not.

On the other hand, if I have constructed a straw-man version of an agnostic, tell me how I misrepresent agnosticism.

I've already demonstarted that no-one (except you) is doing so. To those who believe the question is unanswerable, it's just the way things are. It's not a privilege that the question can't be investigated, it's just that they don't see how it can be. As for the rest of us, we can investigate it to our hearts' content and the agnostics can't stop us (not that they'd want to, being apathetic and all ). So the prvilege simply doesn't exist. God isn't exempt from investigation. Some people just think that investigation's impossible.

I'm not saying that the agnostics are trying to prevent anyone else from investigating. That would be ridiculous. And to be clear: I don't think agnostics are apathetic. Apathetic people don't know and don't really care one way or another. Agnostics make the positive claim... well, I've said it up there.

[stufarq]

The agnostic gives god-claims a special status, which is what I mean by privilege. How can I make my meaning clearer? Rather than using the word "privilege", which is obviously a sticking point, how about this:

"Here are most kinds of questions, which we can investigate and come to answer," says the agnostic, "and here are questions of god-existence, which we say are unanswerable".

Treating questions of god-existence differently from other kinds of questions means that, in my opinion, the agnostic is giving too much credit to this particular class of question. I would like agnostics to defend this assertion, this claim that god-questions are unknowable in a way that other claims are not.

The agnostic doesn't know how to investigate the question and doesn't think that anyone else does either. How can I make that any clearer?

"I have no idea how you would go about either proving or disproving the existence of any gods," sayeth the agnostic "because no matter how many alternative explanations you come up with, it's always possible to say 'Yes but God was responsible' or 'Yes but it can be explained withiut the need for God.'"

Agnostics aren't giving the question too much credit, they're just saying that they don't see a way forward. But if you can show them how to investigate it then I'm sure they'd be interested. They'd like you to defend the assertion that god-questions are emprirically solvable. And until someone can do that, they've got the rest of us over a barrel. Personally I think that theoretically it would be possible to come up with convincing evidence of a god although I doubt if you can ever absolutely disprove one. But I've no idea how you'd go about it. Even if a god came and worked miracles before our eyes we'd find some plausible explanation.

[stufarq]

None of us are as consistent as we might like in our morality. Such consistency, in many cases, is not possible. Politics, at its best, moderates the demands of morality and the requirements of prudence.

It's not what he said, it's what he did. Or rather didn't. But yes, Jefferson did advocate freeing them eventually. After the age of 45. When they'd have recouped their master's investment.

Why would freed slaves want to stay in the country where they'd been enslaved?

America's full of the descendants of freed slaves. Very few of them freed by Thomas Jefferson. But let's ask one of them: David Walker.

That is to say, to fix a plan to get those of the coloured people, who are said to be free, away from among those of our brethren whom they unjustly hold in bondage, so that they may be enabled to keep them the more secure in ignorance and wretchedness, to support them and their children, and consequently they would have the more obedient slaves. For if the free are allowed to stay among the slaves, they will have intercourse together, and, of course, the free will learn the slaves bad habits, by teaching them that they are MEN, as well as other people, and certainly ought and must be FREE.

And Jefferson's dream of feeed slaves having a country of their own wasn't entirely altruistic:

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

Like many, he feared a slave revolt.

Let's look at Jefferson's opinion of black people. (It's too long to quote in its entirety so I've picked out some of the highlights. The whole passage can be found here http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 15s28.html

The first difference which strikes us is that of colour... And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? ...Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oran-ootan for the black women over those of his own species... They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. ...They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour...Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. ...But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. ...The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. ...I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. ...This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question "What further is to be done with them?" join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.

Jefferson considered himself a paternalistic slave master, looking after the ignorant, smelly black people because they they needed white mens' protection and guidance. He saw them as free in some vague, ill-defined future - but free far away from the people who had enslaved them lest they take their revenge.

[DeWinter]

Jefferson considered himself a paternalistic slave master, looking after the ignorant, smelly black people because they they needed white mens' protection and guidance. He saw them as free in some vague, ill-defined future - but free far away from the people who had enslaved them lest they take their revenge.

Didn't we run a massive colonial empire based on exactly that premise, the "White Man's Burden"?

[markfiend]

stufarq I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[stufarq]

stufarq I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Was thinking the same. I think I know exactly what you mean and I think you know exactly what I mean. We just see it entirely differently. Of course, I shall continue to think that I'm right and you're horribly, horribly wrong but publicly I'll be a gentleman and say that we both have valid viewpoints.

[EvilBastard]

Jefferson considered himself a paternalistic slave master, looking after the ignorant, smelly black people because they they needed white mens' protection and guidance. He saw them as free in some vague, ill-defined future - but free far away from the people who had enslaved them lest they take their revenge.

Didn't we run a massive colonial empire based on exactly that premise, the "White Man's Burden"?

What's this "we", white man?

[markfiend]

stufarq I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Was thinking the same. I think I know exactly what you mean and I think you know exactly what I mean. We just see it entirely differently. Of course, I shall continue to think that I'm right and you're horribly, horribly wrong but publicly I'll be a gentleman and say that we both have valid viewpoints.

Exactly

[stufarq]

stufarq I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Was thinking the same. I think I know exactly what you mean and I think you know exactly what I mean. We just see it entirely differently. Of course, I shall continue to think that I'm right and you're horribly, horribly wrong but publicly I'll be a gentleman and say that we both have valid viewpoints.

Exactly

Sorry, missed a bit:

We both have valid viewpoints. Except you.

Better.

[circle]

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

[stufarq]

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

4 & 6 don't seem very evil. He's obviously mellowed in his old age.

[markfiend]

Satanism is just a Christian heresy.

Worship Cthulhu. Why settle for the lesser evil?

[DeWinter]

"I write this down, although my nerves are shattered by sights of shocking blasphemous tentacular obscenities under a gibbous moon whilst tittering squamous imps echo hellishly in the dim-lit caverns of Elder Lands and Un-nameable Gods. Now, having reached the end of the liquid Nepenthe that alone grants me surcease from their damnable hellish mockery, I shall tell my tale before reaching for the revolver that is my only deliverance from crawling, cosmic Elder madness.."
I think that's pretty much the beginning of every Lovecraft story..

[markfiend]

If you wrote that from memory, I will be very impressed

[DeWinter]

If you wrote that from memory, I will be very impressed

That was every Lovecraft cliche me and the Scandinavian could think of in five minutes!:P I forgot to put anything about angles or polyhedrons being "shockingly suggestive" though!

[stufarq]

I've just checked and that is verbatim the first paragraph of The Creeping Horror.

[DeWinter]

I've just checked and that is verbatim the first paragraph of The Creeping Horror.

I was thinking of calling it "The Ominous Octagon of Leng". Pad it out, stick some quite extraordinary racism in there and frustrate everyone who bothers reading through it by finally describing the big beastie as "un describable"! Lovecraft was great at the build up, but crap at delivering, bless 'im..

[markfiend]

probably fair, but I still can't read At the Mountains of Madness without it giving me nightmares.

[DeWinter]

probably fair, but I still can't read At the Mountains of Madness without it giving me nightmares.

It's very good. I go for Clarke Ashton Smith more myself, Lovecraft with a bit of Robert E Howard thrown in. For general creepiness in that style of fiction I think "The King in Yellow" deserves an honorable mention.

[markfiend]

For general creepiness in that style of fiction I think "The King in Yellow" deserves an honorable mention.

Oh yes. Brrrrrr

[stufarq]

It is a strange thing about Lovecraft, isn't it? In many ways he was a terrible, terrible writer and yet I can remember breaking onto a cold sweat reading some of his stories. And the way At the Mountains of Madness keeps convincing you by telling you that you're getting the real account of something you thought you were already familiar with is genius. Or madness.

It's years since I've read any (although I may have to reread them now) but I don't remember the racism.

[DeWinter]

Re-read "He" and "The Horror of Red Hook" for the last bit.

Tying it loosely back to the point of the thread, Lovecraft categorised himself himself as an atheist, and his horror stories reflect that. No God, no meaning to life, and man just a speck in the universe at the mercy of beings completely unfathomable, truly alien, with no discernible motives or recognisable emotions. I think that's what makes his stories so chilling.