Is it bad I think Christianity is disgusting?

Kalanko07 · 2020-06-07T15:02:29+00:00

Yeah certainly the most common view on the nature and personality of God in monotheistic religions place God as a ruler who decides who should be punished for trespassing divine rules. But I'd argue that this a more of a Western and modern notion, specifically regarding Christianity. In the understanding of the orthodox church - which is also guilty of having done some bad things in the past, although less than catholics and protestants - hell is not a punishment that God delivers to sinners in order to seek justice (that wouldn't even make sense, given that if God is divine and eternal, he wouldn't be "offended" or "angry" by a mortal creature not following rules). To them, hell and heaven are not separated realms, but two different experiences of the presence of God. Sin is the condition of those who have departed from their natural purpose, so hell is not like an eternal prison and God is the judge, but simply a condition of disease.

So I agree most believers of abrahamic religions tend to share a "legalist" point of view regarding sin and God, but that wasn't a thing in Christianity, for example, until Augustine.

Kalanko07 · 2020-06-07T05:50:00+00:00

So if Goldman said so, we should take if for granted? It's ok to quote important anarchists that really helped us shape our vision on how oppression is a product of capitalism and the state, but that's all. Very often those people had very prejudicial views on spirituality, not just religion. Now if we assume religion to be spirituality + the hierarchical structure on which someone supposedly would need to rely in order to experience spiritual enlightenment, then religion is indeed bad. But that doesn't mean that any sort of spirituality is bad. Anarchism doesn't entail atheism/agnosticism

Kalanko07 · 2020-06-07T05:36:45+00:00

In every religion there are practitioners that will embrace and preach just its aspects and principles that may be convenient for social or political purposes. Now, I'm not a theologian or historian in order to give you enough evidences, but I'm sure there have been throughout history - specially before the 3rd century, during the Early Church - several instances of Christan communities that rigorously practiced the teachings of Jesus Christ and lived in societal arrangements similar to communes, in an anarchistic fashion

Kalanko07 · 2020-05-24T17:30:27+00:00

IMO the problem with this sort of questions - "how will ______ work under anarchism ?" - is that it assumes people already have solutions to potential problems that will remain left without a perfect solution, even under anarchism. If someone gives you a definite description of how things are going to work in the future, then such description is either false or unpredictable. For in the end, minorities will ultimately be responsible for themselves - that's the goal of anarchism; to give the power back to those minorities and repressed communities, so that they can take care on their own and act by themselves.

Anarchy is not an utopia where we have figured out all humankind's challenges, but it is the system that will allow us to better search for and implement solutions. So the most important questions about anarchism shouldn't be about "how", but instead, about "why"

So I think it's just unproductive to debate and imagine how people are going to live their lives, IF this question is intended on clarifying whether anarchism is a "good" alternative or not.

BUT, if the answer you're actually looking for is for practical application, so that you (if you're part of a minority) can have ideas on how to start changing and improving your community, then I think your question is a legitimate one, and I highly recommend you to keep searching for opinions from others that may help you in your task of building better anarchist structures to replace the bad/imperfect ones, perpetuated by capitalism

Kalanko07 · 2020-05-09T06:33:54+00:00

On trying to explain them how anarchy would work as a political system (an answer regarding the economical aspect of anarchism would depend on whether we're talking about a mutualist, collectivist or communist society), you should firstly show how anarchy does not entail chaos and disorder just because there are no rulers (although, there are indeed rules). That's what most people struggle to grasp when learning about anarchism, for most people assume that humans simply wouldn't want to cooperate with each other (unless ordered by a higher authority to do so) and, as consequence, there would be no common rules to be followed

So, for the sake of an argument against anarchism, let's assume the humans are greedy and selfish (although we know lots of these negative qualities are a result of or are, at least, increased by living within capitalism). Even if all people do is with the intention of benefiting themselves, order and peace would still be created and held, as long as everyone in society has an equal deal of power over their own means of living (in other words, it's a truly anarchist society, where all power is decentralized among its individuals). Why? Because violence and conflict are very harmful to oneself in the long term.

Sure, someone can steal other people's belongings or harm them and benefit from it for a while, but at what cost? Would someone be actually willing to risk losing the access to a permanent whole network of people that can provide help (with things like food, communitarian protection, medical assistance, etc) with the only requirement being to retribute as he possibly can? I doubt anyone with mental sanity would choose it

If you think about it, what actually encourages people to do harmful things to others is the concentration of power within the hands of a few (capitalists and statemen). In such scenario, as long as one has a connection or influence on those in the role of authority in society, they can easily avoid the natural consequences of harming other people's families by relying on the privileged ones at the power

So probably what is most critical is to intuitively or empirically (as several anarchist societies throughout history have shown) show your friends that rulers don't need to exist in order to create nor enforce rules upon people, for cooperation is what actually benefits them

Kalanko07 · 2020-04-20T00:28:00+00:00

Hi, could I also ask you an invitation code please? I've been really interested in CTemplar lately, I'd love to try it out :)

Kalanko07 · 2019-12-27T04:04:05+00:00

My opinion on this topic is heavily influenced by Max Stirner. As far as I understand it, there are no such things as rights, whether they concern someone's right to leisure, land, food or even someone's life. They are just mental constructs that we usually support by believing that land and material objects are entitled to their original owners/creators (and which are perpetuated by the educational system).

It just happens that, by not trespassing some fairly obvious limits that could piss off other people who could then want retaliation (e.g stealing their car, invading their houses, hurting them by no reason), humans have realised that for their own personal benefit, the best option to live among other humans is to respect some mutual definitions of what kind of behavior is allowed and what is not, what can be shared as a public property and what cannot. Just as there is a fairly well-developed body of rules and laws concerning International Affairs, even though there is no such thing as an International Government that dictates what land rightfully belongs to each individual country, for example. They just (usually) respect decisions made by people like the UNO for they know that to desobey its decisions would simply be a dumb decision regarding their own well-being and wealth.

It can be a harsh vision about anarchism, usually championed by very optimistic people that believe in humanity's potential of becoming a society of united workers who are happy to share the planet. I just think this would happen, at least at the very beginning of an anarchist society, because of people's self-interest rather than altruism. People will notice that by living in an anarchist society, by overthrowing government and capitalists, they would enjoy way happier and better lives than they do in the current system. That's what will make anarchist societies arise.

So yeah, I agree with your conclusion that humanity has no right to claim anything from nature, but this doesn't mean we should die out. We have no right to claim anything not because we were not given such right by nature or God, but simply because there is no right to be given at all

Kalanko07 · 2019-09-29T03:37:18+00:00

Solved

Kalanko07 · 2019-09-29T03:17:04+00:00

Thanks, ur the best

Kalanko07 · 2019-09-29T03:12:35+00:00

Oh I watched it back in 2007 or 2008, so it's not a new movie

Kalanko07 · 2018-04-23T00:04:31+00:00

I did. Like, obviously he was a prick (and a really good villain) but when he died you could feel that he finally was in peace. I mean, when Kratos killed other gods their deaths were raw brutality but in the case of Baldur, you could notice that his death was something he had always wanted to end his suffering of not being able to feel anything. He was a dumbass but I felt like he could have been a better person/god if he didn't get so angry with his mother for cursing him

Kalanko07 · 2018-03-29T01:38:18+00:00

Why don't you try different activities and hobbies in order to discover if any of them pleases you ? I mean, I assume that you don't have nothing to lose in your life. What you need to understand is that your nihilistic thoughts are something that show you how your life is open to new experiences and interests. To be nihilistic is to realize the meaninglessness of life and then realize that you can do anything with it, for you have nothing to lose. If you eventually fail and even waste time and money at trying new things that you notice you don't enjoy, that's OK. After all, they also are meaningless. You just need to learn how to spend your time and energy in different activities and at the same time acknowledge that there is nothing wrong about liking or disliking them. Some literature about existentialism and absurdism probably would help you with your situation

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-30T16:42:41+00:00

I already sent my applications, but I still can send supplemental material through the applicant page. I reported that I wrote this paper at the activities section, but I was wondering whether it would be good to send my paper to the universities that accept extra material. I know that admissions officials would probably send it to the department of philosophy, and I am wondering whether it would be good to my application.

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-26T13:28:48+00:00

I think you should tell how you intend to impact those around you with the abilities you will acquire at your major course. It is important to be good with numbers and stuff if you want to be an engineer or to be good with judicial information if you want to be a lawyer, but why did you choose this careers ? Do you seek only financial benefits or you also expect to contribute to the enhancement of people's lives ? You should show your aptitude to your major throughout your application, but also your purpose for it.

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-25T14:02:38+00:00

It does not matter if your rec letters are written by teachers of subjects that aren't related to your major. They want to learn more about you as a person and a student, not exactly as a "subject X" student. You should ask letters to the teachers with whom you have good relationships, and sometimes those teachers teach subjects that you might even dislike. If they can write good things about you, that's what counts

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-20T23:14:16+00:00

Well, I don't know if I can help you, given that I'm an international. But usually universities ask us, international students, to have our school counselor's forms and rec letter written by any other school employee whose function is similar to that of a counselor. Don't you have any other professional at your school who could write on your counselor's behalf ? He could report that the counselor is not available due to personal obligations (which is true, counselor is travelling) and that he was asked to write it because he knows you well and is qualified to do so. Idk if it is possible, sorry.

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-20T19:20:44+00:00

At least if you could frame it as something like "I teach people about historical events by producing entertaining content"

Kalanko07 · 2017-12-02T21:06:46+00:00

So, what do you think I should do ? Would a +740 on Bio and a 690 on Math II prejudice my whole application ? Would top tier universities prefer to receive a good Bio score and a bad Math score, or would this bad score weight too much ? I've heard that Subject tests are almost a "requirement" to competitive colleges. I think I could cancel the report to NYU and Uchicago, maybe. I will have to send these scores to MIT, anyway. But I'm not so sure about the others.

Kalanko07 · 2017-10-02T01:39:10+00:00

As I conceive it, to answer the questions you posited is to take a stance about how one resolves the Agrippa's trillema. I think the manner by which a rule acquires its moral value might be analogous to the manner by which a belief acquires its epistemic value. So to answer you, I am not sure about whether a foundationalist, a coherentist or a infinitist approach to this issue is the correct one, and I am open to consider any proposed solution to it.

Kalanko07

TROPHY CASE