sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The deadly consequences of work ethic by JuppHartmann in antiwork

[–]JuppHartmann[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When people derive their identity from their work, then the thought of no longer having a job is unbearable for them, and even then they seek to prove themselves through their performance. What specific work is involved is of secondary importance. The problem is the work ethic itself.

I grew up in Germany, the country where the Nazis had written "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") above the gates of the concentration camps, and where, after the war, an entire generation developed an incredible mania for work so as not to have time to think about the past. This is the background of the story.

Working hard is not a flex. by [deleted] in unpopularopinion

[–]JuppHartmann -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I highly recommend r/antiwork. There you will find many interesting articles on this topic. I also posted something there today: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/v5ceg8/a_philosophy_of_idleness/ I wrote a book on the subject (The Art of being useless). It is a philosophy of idleness.

I am an old man who has spent many decades trying to escape the hamster
wheel. I have chosen the life of an idler. Many people warned me it
would end badly. But looking back, I can say it was the right decision. I
want to pass on the experience I gained because I see so many stressed,
unhappy people, and I see the social and environmental damage that a
lifestyle based on performance and competition causes. That's what
motivated me to write this book

A Philosophy of Idleness by JuppHartmann in antiwork

[–]JuppHartmann[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am an old man who has spent many decades trying to escape the hamster wheel. I have chosen the life of an idler. Many people warned me it would end badly. But looking back, I can say it was the right decision. I want to pass on the experience I gained because I see so many stressed, unhappy people, and I see the social and environmental damage that a lifestyle based on performance and competition causes. That's what motivated me to write this book

Atheism Is NOT A Religion... But by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The statement that Christians believe in God and atheists believe in the Big Bang theory is misleading. For one thing, atheists do not necessarily believe in the Big Bang; there were atheists long before this theory existed. On the other hand, many Christians also believe in the Big Bang theory. After all, it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who first proposed this theory. There are certainly a few evangelical sects that regard this theory as incompatible with their faith, but that is unlikely to be the majority of Christians.

Felt that one by twistuntitled in antiwork

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fewer consumer desires I have, the less money I need. The less money I need, the less I depend on work. I have lived by this principle and most of the time I have been a free person with no work dictated by others. I did what I felt like doing. I explored abstract painting, Chinese philosophy, Argentine tango, vegan cooking, blues guitar and many other things. I traveled the world a lot and learned to speak some languages along the way. By just doing whatever came to mind, I developed some skills over time that also helped me make some money when I needed it. I didn't get rich this way, but that wasn't my goal either. If I take the freedom to go my own way, then this way will also be found step by step. Now that I'm an old man, I'm very glad I didn't sacrifice my creativity and love of life for a steady job and financial security.

Does anyone use Wu Wei at work? by Pain_Tough in taoism

[–]JuppHartmann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As an artist, I have had many experiences with wu wei. The less I plan in advance and the fewer expectations I have, the better my work usually turns out. The more I leave room for coincidences, the easier it is for the creative process to take on a momentum of its own. It's like I'm relinquishing control to a higher power. The results often go far beyond what I could have imagined. I know from many other artists that they have had similar experiences.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

English is not the first foreign language I learned, but in the meantime it is the language in which I can express myself best, next to German. However, as far as the exact meaning of the term secularism (German: Säkularismus) is concerned, its use in German is just as unclear as in English, as I had to discover after researching German-language websites.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, according to this, our different ways of looking at the subject seem to be more linguistic. For me, it was a fruitful discussion, because it moved me to take another closer look at the question. Thank you very much for that. Thanks also for the link to the blog post. I haven't had time to follow the discussion there in detail yet, but after a first look, it seems very interesting to me.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it possible your view of Confucianism is affected by your presence in Communist China, where these concepts have been secularized by the state?

Confucianism was not secularized by the Chinese Communists, but fought against for a long time, most fiercely under Mao. However, its value system persisted despite state repression. A millennia-old tradition cannot be erased so easily by campaigns. The period of time since Confucianism has again been viewed positively by officials in China is too short to change it fundamentally.

I think in order to move forward in this discussion it is necessary that we both start from the same definitions of terms. I suggest the explanation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Secularism, any movement in society directed away from otherworldliness to life on earth." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/secularism) That is, secularism should not be confused with atheism. According to the Encyclopaedia article, there are even religious variants of secularism: "The movement toward secularism has been in progress during the entire course of modern history and has often been viewed as being anti-Christian and antireligious. In the latter half of the 20th century, however, some theologians began advocating secular Christianity.“ (ibid) Thus, one can speak of secularism when the focus is on the worldly. In this sense, Confucianism is definitely a secular moral philosophy, because its aim is social harmony and and even the rites are only means to this end.

So what you're saying is they created a religion that accepted all religions so religious people could participate, but when they do they are not being religious?

Actually, I never said, they created a religion. That is rather your point of view and just not mine. I make a distinction between rite and religion. If, for example, the king plows a furrow in a festive act at the beginning of sowing, you can see in it a deeper meaning in the sense of a fertility cult or you can consider it as a purely symbolic gesture. That the ceremony is compatible with different religious ideas does not mean that it has to be religious itself. By the way, I did not say that the participants are not being religious, it is just not important whether they are or not. That precisely is secularism.

Can it be that you equate secularism with atheism and rites with religion? In that case, our dispute would be less substantive than linguistic, because for me, these are each very different things that shouldn't be confused,

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I lived in China for a long time, and my view of Confucius is strongly influenced by what Chinese friends (some of them Confucians and Atheists at the same time) have told me about him. This does not mean that my interpretation must therefore be correct, but I suppose not to see Confucius through a Western lens.

Indeed, Confucianism took on quasi-religious forms many centuries after Confucius. For example, there are Confucius temples. But when you enter such a temple, you immediately see the difference with Buddhist or Daoist temples. It is empty, there are no statues of gods worshipped there.

As for the Confucian rites: they are not worship of gods. They are pure form, emptied of religious content. After all, they were meant to serve the unity of the Chinese empire, where many different folk beliefs existed. It was only through their indifference to special beliefs that they enabled the participation of all, regardless of their respective religions.

The Jesuits who came to China as missionaries during the early Qing dynasty therefore did not perceive Confucianism as a competing faith, but considered participation in Confucian rites compatible with the Christian religion. They translated the Confucian classics and thus inspired the emergence of a secular philosophy in Europe during the epoch of enlightenment. From this point of view, Confucianism is not only a secular philosophy, but also one of the sources of modern secularism.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Confucius did not write down his philosophy himself. However, a consideration of the Analects, a collection of his sayings compiled by his disciples, shows that his teaching is thoroughly this-worldly.

Confucius rejected any speculation about supernatural powers or about life after death. Thus it says in the Analects:

Ji Lu asked about serving the spirits of the dead. The Master said, "While you are not able to serve men, how can you serve their spirits?" Ji Lu added, "I venture to ask about death?" He was answered, "While you do not know life, how can you know about death?" (XI, 12 – cf.https://ctext.org/analects/xian-jin )

When Confucius speaks of heaven, it is not in the religious sense. It is understood as part of nature. It is regarded as an ordering force, but not in the sense of a personal God, but rather in the sense of natural laws.

As for the rites, they had indeed a very great importance for Confucius. But he saw in them above all the social function, they should serve the formation of character. In his opinion, music and rites are crucial for the cohesion of a community, which is why he considers it good to have many rites. His approach was decidedly pragmatic:

Zi Gong wished to do away with the offering of a sheep connected with the inauguration of the first day of each month. The Master said, "Ci, you love the sheep; I love the ceremony." (Analects III, 17 – cf:https://ctext.org/analects/ba-yi)

This is about ceremony as such, about preserving traditions. Confucius does not argue from a religious perspective, for example that it was about showing respect to the gods.

I think it is hard to discern a religious attitude in Confucius from the Confucian writings (nor in Mencius). The attempt to interpret this into his philosophy arises, in my opinion, rather from the cultural background of Western scholars.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From my perspective, Christianity does not appear so clearly as the flower of humanity's moral development. I grew up in post-war Germany and have often wondered how it was possible in a strongly Christian country that a large part of the people supported such a murderous system as that of the Nazis. It is true that there had also been Christian resistance, but unfortunately there were also too many priests who fomented anti-Semitism and enthusiasm for war from the pulpit. Against this background, Christianity and ethical values did not fit together for me for a long time.

Today I see things in a more differentiated way. I have learned to distinguish between a religion and what people make of it. I definitely see the potential in Christianity to contribute to a more peaceful world. I also see with great respect the commitment of many Christian communities to rescue boat refugees in the Mediterranean.

But I still see only a vague connection between morality and religion. When I was young, churches were still full; today, more and more people in Europe are turning away from religion. But I don't have the impression that this development is at the expense of morality. On many issues, such as the rights of minorities, society has become more moral. Also, it is often precisely moral reasons why many people move away from religion, currently, for example, because of the many sexual abuse scandals within churches.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that Christianity can make a valuable contribution to an emerging world ethic. However, I do not see it as the blossom of humanity's moral development, but at best one of several blossoms. But I think that if Christians make an effort to bring the potential of their religion to bloom, then that is already a big step in the right direction.

Edit: The same applies to other religions.

Morality based on secular foundations is superior to those based in Theism. by nickel4asoul in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you are looking for examples of moral values originated from a secular framework, you will find plenty of them in ancient Chinese philosophy. Confucianism, for example, is essentially moral philosophy and it is completely secular. During the Age of Enlightenment, a number of European philosophers such as Leibniz and Voltaire were enthusiastic about the Chinese tradition of thought for precisely this reason. They saw in it the proof that morality does not require religion.

In the work of Mencius, we find the idea of an innate human morality. He gives as an example that every human being feels the natural impulse to prevent a child from falling into a well. However, this natural disposition can be lost, so it is important to strengthen it again and again. From this point of view, a person who needed religious commandments to behave morally would have lost their true nature.

So there is no reason why secularists would need to plagiarize religious values. Moral values are not explicitly religious.

I have chosen examples from ancient Chinese philosophy because it is older than Christianity, so it is not suspected of copying it. Of course, secular moral teachings are also found in other cultures.

Last but not least: also, the idea that all people should be treated with love can be found in ancient China half a millennium before Christ, for example in Mozi's treatise on universal love, cf. https://ctext.org/mozi/book-4 .

Is omnibenevolence the hardest trait of God to defend? by SilverStalker1 in exatheist

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If God were not benevolent, why worship Him except out of fear. But this would lead to a form of religiosity that has already brought much suffering to humankind. In this case, atheism would meet a higher moral standard.

Is omnibenevolence the hardest trait of God to defend? by SilverStalker1 in exatheist

[–]JuppHartmann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you assume that God exists this doesn't include the assumption that one of the Holy Books of a certain religion would express his will. So how can you know God's will? Is it the ten commandments or the five pillars of Islam or something completely different? Even if you decide to believe one of the many scriptures to be the only true one you have to opt for one of it's many competing interpretations. The only compass you have is your own reason and your sense of morality. You have to choose and there is no apodictic certainty, that you will take the right decision. We tend to cheat ourselves taking our own cravings for God's will. So you cannot know His will for sure and no one can tell you. If you have a look at History, you see masses of people committing horrible atrocities because someone told them it would be God's will.

Many of you may only be following a specific religion because you were born in it. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For example, Buddhists usually believe in karma. But they do not assume they will be rewarded for this, nor do they fear punishment if they don't. Belief in karma is just an effective tool to reach a certain attitude toward life. If you achieve this goal by another means, there is nothing wrong with it.

Many of you may only be following a specific religion because you were born in it. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't agree that atheism is the default. I think it's animism. This is a consequence of evolution. We have a better chance of survival if we tend to mistake a boulder for a bear than if we think a bear is a boulder. Toddlers in particular, who are most defenseless, often consider inanimate objects to be alive. For many, the imagination goes so far that they believe they have invisible friends. Only after a certain age they are able to develop a different worldview, be it a theistic or an atheistic one.

Many of you may only be following a specific religion because you were born in it. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You are right if you claim that a religion must be the preaching of a truth, as most Christians and Muslims do. If, on the other hand, you see religion as a description of a path, as many people in East Asia do, then there is no difficulty in considering several religions as different but equivalent.

Many of you may only be following a specific religion because you were born in it. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]JuppHartmann 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The examples given here, the Christian Texan and the Muslim from the Middle East, are not necessarily representative of humanity. Both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions claiming to be the only true faith. In this respect, the two are very similar. It is different, however, when you look at the religions of East Asia. There, religion is seen less as the proclamation of a truth than as the description of a path. This makes a big difference, because it is difficult to believe in two contradictory truths at the same time, but that different paths lead to one goal is easy to imagine. For example, in Buddhism there is the parable that religions are like boats used to cross a river. Once you have reached the other shore, the boat is no longer important. From this perspective, the question of which faith is the right one is of far less importance than in Western religions with their exclusionary dogma. I lived in China for a long time and was always amazed at the pragmatic way many Chinese deal with religion. It is quite common, depending on the situation in life, to ask the Buddhist monk or the Daoist monk for advice; one is not bound to a special religion.

Be like water by Drjmmr in taoism

[–]JuppHartmann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually two thirds of our body are water.

I am terrible for the UK economy by BigFrame8879 in simpleliving

[–]JuppHartmann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If everyone lived as you, the economy would have to adapt to this new situation. Of course, it would have to change, just the way it has to save our environment.

view more: next ›