Comparing Rational vs Fundamentalist Moral Epistemologies
[note:
This blog
was inspired by
and functions as a continuation of:
the immediately prior conversation
recorded:
here.]
To clarify in advance,
I don't consider bad-logic to be a form of abuse
except when that is happening intentionally
as a means to gaslight others, invalidate others, dominate others, exploit others, or shelter one's self from accountability.
If someone is being abusive, in any way,
and then a recipient or witness happens to point it out, ...
that should usually conclude their end of it.
Now, if an abuser really doesn't realize they've behaved harmfully or unethically,
it's fine to ask
"What did I do that was wrong?"
And then if (ONLY IF) the accused can't yet understand how their actions are unethical or injurious,
it's fair to ask what makes their behaviors unethical or potentially harmful to others.
If, instead, they choose to go with "why should I care how my behaviors affect others?"
That just means they're a sociopath.
And the correct answer to that question is:
Consequences.
Because even sociopaths hate those.
==
Moving forward from there, ...
Hopefully, the accuser is able to articulate the problem.
A good example of AMPLE (more than sufficient) articulation would be:
It's unethical to gaslight people.
Why?
First, because it's inherently dishonest.
Also, it's an attempt to unfairly cause the targeted persons to lose reasonable confidence in their own own memories, values, etc..
It's a behavior partly designed so the perpetrator can evade accountability for their own crap.
It's also
an attempt to render the target more mentally malleable per lost confidence and gained-brain-fog (an effect that literally causes physical brain damage, over time);
- so that the perpetrator can later get away with even worse deviations from their social responsibilities, and greater domination over the minds of:
anyone who wasn't wise enough to promptly cut that person from their life if (abuser) makes a habit of it.
After that, it's up to the abuser to review, discover, own, and correct their behaviors.
HOWEVER, ...
What's happening here is even worse.
So let's discuss that next:
If the abuser
refuses to even begin to take that internal inventory, or to consider the nature of their own actions on the shared stage of social stage, ...
on the basis of:
"first,
the person accusing the abuser of any wrong-doing,
must sufficiently impress (abuser) with the ENTIRETY of how (accuser's) mind differentiates fact-from-fiction, starting from the absolute foundation of their mental machinery,
and then walking (abuser) through the entire structure,
and then
(accuser) must use that entirely articulated structure ...
to justify their own confidence in their own assessments (of what's real, what's valuable, etc).
And they must DO SO
to the abuser's personal satisfaction
(in this case: Jay Gee's).
Making matters worse,
(abuser) has taken:
a personal oath of loyalty
to automatically presuppose
he is
right and right-ous about everything that matters.
Even worse yet, ...
He is posturing disingenuously as someone who would fairly consider (accuser's) epistemology as adequate for the purpose of exposing critical flaws in (abuser's) own epistemology, attitudes, and behaviors,
as a necessary prequisit condition
to even begin to consider the logics or ethics of (abuser's) own attitude, reasonings, and behaviors;
even though (abuser) has (here) already redundantly pre-dismissed anything (accuser) has to say about it ...
as just (the accuser's) "opinions";
because:
literally everything anyone says about anything
is reducible (in the mind of the abuser)
to:
merely:
"baseless" and "opinion" ...
unless the (accuser's) entire perceptual paradigm is grounded in (abuser's) allegedly (but definitely not) true,
rational,
and ultimate
presuppositional epistemology.
---
THIS
is the true nature of the exchange I now find myself in.
So anything I could even possibly say
will automatically be a waste of time;
if my goal is to shift
the abuser's perceptual paradigm.
It is un-shift-able.
Thus, he has taken the stage as:
a Bad Faith Actor.
So if I bother further with any of this,
it needs to be for:
attainable and personally-sufficient motivations.
As it happens, I have some.
I will, thus, proceed.
My motivations:
To hone my skillset
of cutting through utter BULLSHIT;
so that I can maintain my own well-earned confidences
and lead-by-example
and also lead-by-education
for anyone
who might need some help confidently and fairly identifying any such abuses they may encounter in their own life.
---
So here we go:
-- --
"Your daddy can't be right. Because my Daddy is always right. So yours must be wrong".
[says the Christian to the Hindu; for example] They could even tell an orphan "... and you extra-can't be right. Because you don't even have any daddy who can validate your every thought and feeling."
They could even tell random kids at the park "I actually have TWO daddies.
I have the small-d daddy who put me inside my mommy's tummy.
But I also have a BIG D Daddy who is Magic, and Invisible, and lives in a giant floating golden castle in a special magical realm.".
-- And if that 5 year old was particularly precocious
and equally great at repeating the language used by their fundamentalist parents [but accidentally admit to more than they're supposed to] ... They could possibly add: "I "know" about him because of: Divine Rumors.
And because I subjectively felt like presupposing him. - Because I subjectively reasoned that as a good idea. He MADE my small-d daddy. My Big Daddy is the Ultimate Daddy. And HE validates me in a way that no small-d-daddy can.".
-- He could then say to any random kid he meets on the playground: "... and my Daddy said you should always listen to me
and
always listen to my special-Daddy-gang
and
do what we say,
and also
think what we tell you to think.
Why? Because Daddy told me to tell you what to think and how to live. -or else.
Unless you claim to have (but also IF you claim to have) an equally great Daddy to imagine validating YOUR guesses, reasonings, feelings, and AUTHORITY over everyone who disagrees with you ... then I'm afraid you automatically lose this competition of "who is right". -Even about what you should think, feel, and DO with your own life. - Even when it comes to your very identity.
My Religious "presupposition" is an IWIN button.
I just start mashing it, every time someone calls me out for my bullshit.
AM I
being abusive?
AM I
promoting others who are being abusive?
How can you JUSTIFY calling out abusive bullshit for what it is ... if you don't first presuppose that I'm actually being righteous?"
-- -- In other words, no one can ever call you out for your bullshit. Because in order to QUALIFY (in your subjective lens) as having a valid foundation to build such a case with ... that accuser would first have embrace YOUR foundation;
- which then pulls them into a paradigm where they'd no longer HAVE any such criticisms. This effectively renders you immune to all meaningful ethical or logical criticisms.
It's the perfect gimmick for any aspiring Narcissist;
or anyone who just wants all the PERKS of being a Narcissist ... by just pretending to be one.
So according to your religious narrative, I need to fall inline; or else your Daddy will hurt me very badly. And it'll be my own fault for being "evil".
-Except ...
it's a lot harder to humor an adult reasoning/speaking/behaving/relating those same ways. The only people who that resonates with are other Narcissists and their loyal emulators.
AND
an acceptance of one's own adult-autonomous responsibilities to keep trying anyways, in regards to: collection, sorting, and mentally assembling facts by: empirical senses and by: logical statistical analysis (as logically as we're individually able; a skillset that improves over time; for most humans) of: probabilities for: any given things to be regarded as factually "true", or possibly true, or probably true, or tentatively true, and/or as: socially healthy, societally healthy, or personally healthy. Why does anyone bother with all of that? For the sake of: functional practically; with the goal of: maximizing "carrot" and minimizing "stick" per: our individual and common feelings about: which is which. - With every fact of our ever-evolving vantage point(s) being regarded as: a good estimate of: whatever may be objectively real; but: treated/accepted as such only unless/until: sufficiently contrary evidence may later be discovered and subjectively assessed by the perceiver as: more likely than their previous assessments. Is this a flawless process, for anyone? Nope. It is a truly objective process, for anyone?
No. It's not that either.
It's messy.
It's contingent on perceptions which we should all regard as uncertain.
We will sometimes overestimate something's probability or value. Will will sometimes fairly estimate something ... but still end up wrong. But it's the best we can do with the minds and other circumstances we are limited by.
-- -- Thankfully, most Christians are as quick as I am
to SCOFF at "presuppositional apologetics"; -as the blatantly obvious,
disingenuous,
willfully obfuscating (waters-muddying), self-infantilized,
social-accountability-dodging,
social-authority-leveraging,
textbook clinical "Narcissist invalidation"-maneuver that it is.
[Links]
---
So there you have it.
How most people work through the endless struggle of parsing out what's real and what's valuable,
vs
how permanently-child-state Narcissists do it. [Video set to start at 35:34] I didn't set it to start from the beginning, Although, the entire stream is worth watching. Here, he cuts right to the heart of the matter. Although, I don't ever feel the anger that he talks about; just to clarify. But I used to. - Until I realized that religious-Narcissists are just running on automatic. Same as non-religious-Narcissists. It's not about me. It's not about anyone other than the apologist. They pull that crap on everyone. It's a loop they are permanently stuck in. True Narcissistic Personality can't be cured. Some emulators will never realize they're better off growing up. Some emulators will eventually outgrow it. In any case, ... Trying to rationalized predatory impulse as a logical or moral philosophy
is entirely post hoc. It's also an attempt to stay slippery. - Because being exposed sucks; but actually feeling personally accountable for failing to deal equitably with fellow humans seems like it might suck worst of all. #StaySpecial.
Comments
Post a Comment