The remarkable accept of random viewpoints.
Apparently, it is a widespread view that just
having a standpoint has a value in itself. Some politicians and other people
even think that without any further ado their political attitude can make up a
sufficient counterargument in a discussion, maybe even an argument that can
overthrow scientific arguments.
Some persons put forward statements such as “I
respect her for insisting on her viewpoints”. However, there is only something worthy
of respect if the speaker can advance sufficient arguments, as the next easy
thing in the world is just having a viewpoint. For it demands no special reflection
to choose an arbitrary point of view one just happens to like. Many people have
irrational viewpoints. There is nothing of value in this. Some people are sincerely
praised for their courage to stand up for their position. However, the easiest
thing is to maintain a position. For this demands nothing at all, only the
termination of self-criticism.[1]
What is demanded is the ability to argue for ones
viewpoints. Having arguments is the preposition for possessing a standpoint.
The less one reflects the easier it is to have a position.
It must be observed
that substantiating one’s viewpoints with something else one just has chosen to
think cannot make up any argumentation unless this is already well
founded. Having a serious viewpoint naturally demands an illuminated and valuable
argumentation.
Thus, the case is the opposite of how many people
understand it: The more one think about it, the more difficult it is to have a
standpoint. To summarize:
The next
easiest thing in the world is to have a standpoint, for that just consists in choosing
a standpoint that just suits oneself and to put a few words on it.
The very
easiest thing in the world is to “stand firm on one’s viewpoint” for that
demands nothing at all.
Statements such as “I have my opinion, and you
have yours” and “My views can be just as good as yours”, which really is heard now
and then, do not lead the society forwards. On the contrary, it leads to a
situation where the parts stand in each corner and cannot do anything else than
putting forward such statements. Only the sword remains.[2]
One of the silliest thing some may say in a
discussion at all, but which nevertheless is frequently heard, is “You must put
up with the fact that some people thinks something different than you do”.
For this criticism presupposes the just refuted
idea that the mere having an opinion about something is positive and respectable.
I addition, it is a defeat and an insult of the person that contrary to the
speaker does the only right thing that must be done in a debate, namely simply
to argue.
Demands
to argumentation.
Any valuable argumentation has as its most
fundamental demand that one can explain the meaning of the used expressions.
This is especially a problem to religious persons, for when they assert “I
believe in God” they put forward a sentence that contains two expressions that
have no semantic meanings.
It is naturally not a problem that the religious
us expressions such as “to believe” in the sense to suppose or to trust or
that they use the term “god” as a term for a character in a fiction. However,
it is typically not in this way that the religious persons use these
expressions.
Thus, if some religious person asks, “What is
your relation to god?” one must ask him what the expression “god” denotes.
However, they cannot explain this in any valid wat, e.g. per genus et differentiam.[3]
Such an explanation is made up by e.g. the
definition “A chair is a piece of furniture to sit on”. Here “chair” is genus,
the hypernym, or the wider term, which is further explained. This is done by
the differentiam, which is here the difference from the concept “chair”, namely
the supplementary description “to sit on”. The genus referred to naturally must
have a telling content, for otherwise it is empty. Therefore, expressions such
as something” or “being”, which just means something existing (i.e. that what
has to be defined exists), cannot be used here.
Typically, the religious persons reuse these
words without using them in these senses or in any specified sense at all, but only as expressions to which they attach some vague ideas.
These empty sign sequences just borrow an appearance of semantic meaning from
the original and factual words, such as “belief” and “salvation”.
If, quite counterfactually, the religious persons
could present an explanation of this
kind, they would hardly be content with the natural and easily understandable
explanation that hereby would arise.
Ironically enough, the only semantically
meaningful thing we can assert that the religious people believe in, and which
concern religion, is that they believe that the religious sentence has semantic
meaning.
Consequences
of the acceptance of meaningless expressions.
If one accepts the use of semantically
meaningless expressions in one’s own and congenial persons’ sentences, one
accept the idea that everything can be asserted and put forward without good
justifications and explanations, i.e. also appraisal of all sorts of misery too.
For by this one’s critical sense is invalidated.
However, what is it actually that is put forward
if it is semantically senseless? At best, only diffuse statements. Those who
advance them do that based on some diffuse ideas that consist in distortion of
clear ideas. What is worse is that those who accept them may think they can draw conclusions based on such
pseudo statements, and here we can be dealing with everything. Thus those who
advance such statements may also feel justified in asserting whatever and carry
out atrocities.
Some would object that among these statements,
there can also be recommendations to do this or that that is for the benefit
for people or humanity. However, these sentences are arbitrary, and thus we do
not know in advance which kind of statements we have to do with. Thus, it is
unlikely that we are dealing with pure reason without intermixed non-sense. In
any circumstances, they have to be justified.
Such a state is of course completely
unacceptable, as it threat the peace locally and globally.
It has been concluded that is the basis of any
religion that it is assumed to be acceptable to advance and accept semantically
senseless sentences or sequences of signs. This means that when one accept the
most innocent Christianity or any other religion, one accept not just the basis of this religion, but also the basis of all possible insanity religions:
the acceptance of semantically meaningless sequence of signs, for this is
common to them all. These religions proliferate themselves like Hydra’s heads and
they can therefore not be fought down by war.
Only enlightenment and reason can get this disorder
to wither away
The
mandatory ethics of the religions.
It must be observed that religious ethical
statements certainly can have semantic meaning; however, they are just borrowed
feathers of the religions. For ethical statements must be justified on the
basis of an understanding of the case itself. Referring to commands is pitiable
and thoughtless. Moreover, like anything else, ethical commands cannot be concluded
from semantically senseless sentences.
These ethical statements just work as a sort of
promotion for the rest of the religion. It must likewise be observed that this
accept creeps in anywhere:
If an organisation with a name that refers to Christian
makeshift announces for its makeshift, this organisation promotes for religion
by connecting its name with the idea of the good thing it does: makeshift. With
the one hand, i.e. by its name, this organisation supports the common basis of
the religions, which is also the basis of the religions that creates the misery
it with the other hand collects money for mitigating.
In a similar way, a union with name The Crusaders
of Christianity will connect itself with good acts qua the choice of its name.
This means that if a person lets himself be photographed together with a happy
crowd of handicapped in the Crusaders’ rooms, then this person also promotes the
religion and its basis.
The
cultural and human catastrophe.
The faulty idea that it is legitimate and
sensible to put forward sentences that does not need to have semantic sense is
an erroneous and unlucky assumption. It is a cultural and human catastrophe,
mildly put. With this idea, a catastrophically great progress takes place from
sense to the deepest lack of sense.
This idea of acting on the basis of statements
that lack the most basic thing in being sense, namely semantic meaning, clears
the way for all sorts of wretched statements and acts that can be promoted by all conceivable felonious rulers.
This idea flouts argumentations and therefore one
can get the thought that those who chose to be religious are not interested in the
demand that their expressions must be words. For this choice, give them a false
alibi for being able to assert and do whatever.
However, those who can think and argue clearly
and realize the above conclusions ought to seek to hinder this wretchedness –
by means of a wisdom and mediation, which then hopefully will spread like wildfire.
Litteratur:
[Hegel 88] G.W.F.
Hegel: Phänomenologie des Geistes
Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH (Hamburg
Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH (
”Indem jener sich auf
das Gefühl, sein inwendiges Orakel, beruft, ist er gegen den, der nicht
übereinstimmt, fertig; er muß erklaren, daß er dem weiter nichts zu sagen habe,
der nicht dasselbe in sich finde und fühle; - mit andern Worten, er tritt die
Wurzel der Humanität mit Füßen. Denn die Natur dieser ist, auf die Übereinkunft
mit andern zu dringen, und ihre Existenz nur in der zu Stande gebrachten
Gemeinsamkeit der Bewußtsein. Das Widermenschliche, das Tierische besteht
darin, im Gefühle stehen zu bleiben und nur durch dieses sich mitteilen zu
können.”
[1] In a previous contribution, I have
written that “nothing is more easy than just to have a standpoint”.
[2] According to G.W.F. Hegel it is
anti-humanistic only to express ones feelings and not wanting to explain
oneself to those who does not to oneself. Hegel expresses this in ”Vorrede” to
Phänomenologie agree des Geistes in which he talk about what he calls “common
sense” and puts forward that:
When
a person just invoke his feeling, his inner oracle, he is through with the
person who does not agree with him. Hr can the only state that he does not have
further to say the person that does not feel or find the same thing in
himself. The person in question thus
tramples the rood of humanity under foot. For it is the nature of what is human
to reach an agreement wither other persons and this only exists in an obtained fellowship
of understanding. The inhuman the animal attitude consist in remaining standing
at the feeling and only express onseslf through this. (G.W.F. Hegel: Phänomenologie des Geistes,
Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH, Hamburg 1988, p. 51, my abbreviated version.)
This
can be justified by the fact that without communication we become isolated
beings. Lacking interest in explaining oneself is also lacking interest in
clarifying ones own viewpoints, in thinking them through one time more. History,
also has documented that such an attitude is dangerous to peace in the world,
namely if one wants to spread ones viewpoints without arguing.
[3] This is thoroughly discussed in the
section “Semantic critique of religious sequences of signs” in Treatise No 5, at
No comments:
Post a Comment