[Hong Wu]

I believe that in order for personality to emerge, one person's hunger or will must become subservient to or defeated by another will. If two people are trying to eat each other at once, that is to say that two people are arguing, neither one can be eaten. This is why people argue past each other, they are trying to subsume the will (or force a change in the personality) of the person they are arguing against. They are usually not trying to resolve a factual dispute. It is also why argument is pointless -- if someone is truly determined to win (which is to say, not lose) a non-factual argument, there is always something else they can quibble over if they are so willing.

One of the differences between a spiritual person and liberal or materialist person is this: the materialist will only make materialist arguments. As such, it is possible for a materialist to lose an argument before they would normally be willing to surrender. This can happen when they run out of materialist statements. Global warming is a good example of this; spiritual people never need to lose this argument because they can refer to God. In contrast, liberals can feel as if they are losing the argument because they grow exhausted while quibbling over the "science". I put science in quotes because in most global warming arguments, neither party is a climatologist so when they think they are arguing about science, they are usually arguing over who pulled a better looking graph off the internet. Rarely are they trying to determine facts because they are usually mutually unqualified to discuss such facts.

This phenomenon doesn't make the liberal or materialist a better person; when a materialist loses an argument before they were ready to acquiesce, usually the opposite happens. In order to continue arguing, a person who continues to resist must eventually appeal to something unassailable. For the materialist these unassailable things cannot be spiritual in nature. As such, the only sources of unassailable dialectic they have are either authority (generally the authority of "scientists" even though it's not their field), the authority of government or the apparent immutability of their own lusts. Those are the closest things to absolutes which they can countenance. Therefore, a mixture of authoritarianism and hedonism becomes the materialist's "God" instead of a religious understanding.

This is to say of course that everyone has a "God" in dialectic. A spiritual person's final point of argument is based upon whatever their God is: the Christian God (a conception of love), the Muslim God (a conception of submission), Buddha (a conception of the not-self, or community) and so-on. This applies to every religion or ideology, such as the aspects of Hinduism that are the Hindu Gods, or even to Radical Traditionalists and general spiritualists. Their maxim is that "transcendence is real" and that is fundamentally unassailable, therefore it occupies the dialectic space for them that God does for other people.

Finally, it is much easier for Muslims to resist being subsumed in argument than it is for other mainstream religions because unlike Christians or Buddhists, the Muslim is not called to love his enemy or even to respect his community when it fails to be Islamic. As such, it is possible with enough effort to deconstruct Christianity (just look at people who refuse to discuss biblical context) by saying it does not "love" enough. Buddhism can be deconstructed by saying it is not communal enough (eastern people tend to make economic prosperity arguments against Buddhist or Confucians concepts of community when they want to deconstruct it). It is also why Americans have a fascination with Buddhist ideas and why Christianity spreads through east Asia, these religions are not deconstructed as thoroughly in regions where they are a minority part of existing dialectics.

There is of course a point when these deconstructions fail. The economy does not always serve the deepest interests of the community (in case of the eastern "God", Confucianism/Buddhism). Similarly, the economy and lust do not always promote "love" (in case of the Christian "God"). Yet superficially they serve those things very well, thus do they become the "God" or end point for materialists within their dialectics.

NB: When people talk in spiritual terms, it is possible for them to be honest about what they want in ways that can rarely be achieved when talking in literal and material terms. For example, a person might want to "love" everyone (Christianity) but such a thing is not materially possible as the religion itself points out.

[Zamuel]

I believe that in order for personality to emerge, one person's hunger or will must become subservient to or defeated by another will. - They are usually not trying to resolve a factual dispute. - if someone is truly determined to win (which is to say, not lose) a non-factual argument, there is always something else they can quibble over if they are so willing.

I agree, argument is often pointless and simply a way of reinforcing ego. But it is also an opportunity to implant long term ideas that may take root and bear fruit.

One of the differences between a spiritual person and liberal or materialist person is this: the materialist will only make materialist arguments.

The difference isn't really so great, both have chosen to limit themselves and their perceptions. This similarity is actually much greater than the petty differences in the symbolic representations of reality.

As such, it is possible for a materialist to lose an argument before they would normally be willing to surrender. This can happen when they run out of materialist statements. Global warming is a good example of this; spiritual people never need to lose this argument because they can refer to God. In contrast, liberals can feel as if they are losing the argument because they grow exhausted while quibbling over the "science".

Your spiritual slip is showing. Conversely, the materialist just refers to nature and the spiritualist quibbles over interpretation.

Arguments are not "won or lost," debates are, but debates are won or lost on the basis of technique and it's application, not subject ... it's a craft or an art form, depending on which side of THAT argument you're on.

I'm just going to delete the rest of your rhetorical recitation.

Zam

[quetzalcoatl]

One of the differences between a spiritual person and liberal or materialist person is this: the materialist will only make materialist arguments. As such, it is possible for a materialist to lose an argument before they would normally be willing to surrender. This can happen when they run out of materialist statements. Global warming is a good example of this; spiritual people never need to lose this argument because they can refer to God. In contrast, liberals can feel as if they are losing the argument because they grow exhausted while quibbling over the "science". I put science in quotes because in most global warming arguments, neither party is a climatologist so when they think they are arguing about science, they are usually arguing over who pulled a better looking graph off the internet. Rarely are they trying to determine facts because they are usually mutually unqualified to discuss such facts.

The saving grace, at least as far as disputes over material phenomena are concerned, is that nature will decide the argument. So, if temps rise 2 deg C by 2100 and most coastal cities are abandoned, the global warming argument wins. If these conditions fail to materialize, then the skeptics win. What puzzles me though is your statement that 'spiritual people never need to lose this argument.' Why is a spiritual person invested in arguing against global warming in the first place?

[Hong Wu]

The saving grace, at least as far as disputes over material phenomena are concerned, is that nature will decide the argument. So, if temps rise 2 deg C by 2100 and most coastal cities are abandoned, the global warming argument wins. If these conditions fail to materialize, then the skeptics win. What puzzles me though is your statement that 'spiritual people never need to lose this argument.' Why is a spiritual person invested in arguing against global warming in the first place?

Good question. Surely you have noticed how often the argument plays out along these lines though. I think the argument is usually used as a proxy for "there is no God" or "spiritualism is less than scientism" etc. The fault for picking fights over it can be spread out fairly universally.

[mikema63]

You seem to be claiming that being able to appeal to some unknown higher entity is a good thing.

I think quetz is essentially right that reality itself is ultimately the only thing that can decide an argument. Which is essentially a form of empiricism.

Even religious arguments can ultimately only be proven correct through some experience or another, either personal or global.

[Hong Wu]

You seem to be claiming that being able to appeal to some unknown higher entity is a good thing.

I think quetz is essentially right that reality itself is ultimately the only thing that can decide an argument. Which is essentially a form of empiricism.

Even religious arguments can ultimately only be proven correct through some experience or another, either personal or global.

I just realized how ironic it is that atheists usually argue against an objective set of values. But a near-total abandonment of objectivity might bother them more than it does anyone else. Put another way, how is it that someone can be in favor of objective truth but against objective values if they believe that truth matters?

[mikema63]

Truth in what sense?

In an ultimate sense of absolute certainty I don't think anyone can know a truth. In a more qualified probabilistic sense, I think they can.

I see no inherent contradiction in believing I cannot have absolute certainty, and still believing things.

I also don't see a contradiction in believing the truth matters and believing that I can never be absolutely certain that my beliefs are true.

[Hong Wu]

Have fun trying to maintain the caveat that every position you hold is tenuous when people start pushing you.

[mikema63]

How do you mean? When have I ever made an appeal to any sort of absolute?

[Hong Wu]

I think it's hard to stay unmoved on a moral issue in a debate if you won't claim some kind of absolute foundation for it. You end up being forced to say that you are just doing what you want because it's what you want, an attitude that few people will tolerate.

[mikema63]

It's an unpopular point of view sure, but it's popularity isn't particularly important.

I would put it more that I have foundational assumptions, such as reality existing with some semblance to how I experience it.

[quetzalcoatl]

I just realized how ironic it is that atheists usually argue against an objective set of values. But a near-total abandonment of objectivity might bother them more than it does anyone else. Put another way, how is it that someone can be in favor of objective truth but against objective values if they believe that truth matters?

The position of materialists is a much more modest one, as I understand it. Basically it is only saying that statements made about material phenomena must be verified using empirical methods. The argument that values are subjective is a completely separate philosophical argument. I believe most scientists would probably reject the post modern view that truth is only a construct of language, for instance.

Philosophically, atheists are all over the map, just as religious believers are.

[Godstud]

This says it well:

[Zamuel]

I would put it more that I have foundational assumptions, such as reality existing with some semblance to how I experience it.

And that's an excellent summation. Reality isn't an absolute, it's founded on consensual perception. As such it's flexible and adaptive. Heinlein's -Stanger In A Strange Land- illustrates how it functions in a cognitive sense. Using the books protagonist as an example, it demonstrates the difference between viewpoints outside and inside consensual reality. It aptly displays, in human terms, how reality resolves those differences and artfully suggests that Human consensus is not necessarily the ONLY reality.

I think it's demonstration of the variations that can and do exist within our reality is relevant to the argument in this thread's title that "Liberals" in some way "Worship" Authority and Lust ... That statement is an example of how argument is used to manipulate consensus. Fortunately, Humans strain their perceptions through a fine mesh of experience, and manipulations rarely advance to accepted realities.

Best wishes to all my PoFo Water-brothers in the New Year.

Zam

[fuser]

This says it well:

Nonsense. There are more than 30 million gods in Hinduism alone.

[Godstud]

I think he was just making a point

[fuser]

I know Godstud, I was just trying to be a smartass by being nitpicky.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe that in order for personality to emerge, one person's hunger or will must become subservient to or defeated by another will. If two people are trying to eat each other at once, that is to say that two people are arguing, neither one can be eaten. This is why people argue past each other, they are trying to subsume the will (or force a change in the personality) of the person they are arguing against. They are usually not trying to resolve a factual dispute. It is also why argument is pointless -- if someone is truly determined to win (which is to say, not lose) a non-factual argument, there is always something else they can quibble over if they are so willing.

I have no idea why you think that personality can only come about through domination.

As for why people get into arguments, there are as many motives as there are arguments. It makes no sense to assume that the only reason people argue is to dominate the will of the other.

Argument may be pointless, but it also may be useful. Newton and Liebniz (Leibnez?) probably both sharpened their understanding of calculus on each other's criticisms.

One of the differences between a spiritual person and liberal or materialist person is this: the materialist will only make materialist arguments. As such, it is possible for a materialist to lose an argument before they would normally be willing to surrender. This can happen when they run out of materialist statements. Global warming is a good example of this; spiritual people never need to lose this argument because they can refer to God. In contrast, liberals can feel as if they are losing the argument because they grow exhausted while quibbling over the "science". I put science in quotes because in most global warming arguments, neither party is a climatologist so when they think they are arguing about science, they are usually arguing over who pulled a better looking graph off the internet. Rarely are they trying to determine facts because they are usually mutually unqualified to discuss such facts.

There are so many things wrong with this paragraph.

1. A person can be spiritual, liberal, and materialist.
2. People do not make materialist arguments because they themselves are materialists. They do it because such arguments are empirically verifiable. It is a methodological viewpoint and not a philosophical one.
3. People who use materialism as a methodological tool are not restricted to materialist arguments. They can use also use logic. Geometric proofs are an example of this.
4. Global warming deniers never refer to God.

This phenomenon doesn't make the liberal or materialist a better person; when a materialist loses an argument before they were ready to acquiesce, usually the opposite happens. In order to continue arguing, a person who continues to resist must eventually appeal to something unassailable. For the materialist these unassailable things cannot be spiritual in nature. As such, the only sources of unassailable dialectic they have are either authority (generally the authority of "scientists" even though it's not their field), the authority of government or the apparent immutability of their own lusts. Those are the closest things to absolutes which they can countenance. Therefore, a mixture of authoritarianism and hedonism becomes the materialist's "God" instead of a religious understanding.

1. Authority is not unassailable. In fact, liberals and materialists are very clear on historical examples of authorities being overthrown.
2. Where did this lust thing come from?
3. If a materialist were to argue with a spiritual person and the spiritual person brought up god as an argument, the materialist would not bother continuing to argue. This is because the materialist will have decided that they have won, and they will think this because they believe that God is not an actual argument.

This is to say of course that everyone has a "God" in dialectic. A spiritual person's final point of argument is based upon whatever their God is: the Christian God (a conception of love), the Muslim God (a conception of submission), Buddha (a conception of the not-self, or community) and so-on. This applies to every religion or ideology, such as the aspects of Hinduism that are the Hindu Gods, or even to Radical Traditionalists and general spiritualists. Their maxim is that "transcendence is real" and that is fundamentally unassailable, therefore it occupies the dialectic space for them that God does for other people.

Yes, if you stretch the term "god" to mean "unverifiable basic assumptions" then yes. Most people who discuss god like to use more specific terms.

Finally, it is much easier for Muslims to resist being subsumed in argument than it is for other mainstream religions because unlike Christians or Buddhists, the Muslim is not called to love his enemy or even to respect his community when it fails to be Islamic. As such, it is possible with enough effort to deconstruct Christianity (just look at people who refuse to discuss biblical context) by saying it does not "love" enough. Buddhism can be deconstructed by saying it is not communal enough (eastern people tend to make economic prosperity arguments against Buddhist or Confucians concepts of community when they want to deconstruct it). It is also why Americans have a fascination with Buddhist ideas and why Christianity spreads through east Asia, these religions are not deconstructed as thoroughly in regions where they are a minority part of existing dialectics.

This has nothing to do with your topic, and it seems like a bunch of weird generalisations with no basis in fact.

There is of course a point when these deconstructions fail. The economy does not always serve the deepest interests of the community (in case of the eastern "God", Confucianism/Buddhism). Similarly, the economy and lust do not always promote "love" (in case of the Christian "God"). Yet superficially they serve those things very well, thus do they become the "God" or end point for materialists within their dialectics.

So, materialists worship the economy and lust because they superficially serve the Christian notion of love? No. That makes no sense. At all.

NB: When people talk in spiritual terms, it is possible for them to be honest about what they want in ways that can rarely be achieved when talking in literal and material terms. For example, a person might want to "love" everyone (Christianity) but such a thing is not materially possible as the religion itself points out.

Yes, this point seems to make the most sense: that religion provides a language and a context for idealism about the community.

[Hong Wu]

I would add that when pressed on the lack of a replacement for religion, a materialist debater’s usual answer is that a person has to find their own unique meaning in life. Perhaps it never occurs to them that finding religion was an instance of someone finding their own meaning. Everyone engages in their own spiritual explorations and sometimes they realize that their conclusions match those of another religion. Rather then continuing down that path and possibly re-inventing the wheel (an activity that can interfere with other obligations or goals) or becoming materialists/nihilists, they may find that they are comfortable with an existing religion and decide to follow it.

[Zamuel]

I would add that when pressed on the lack of a replacement for religion, a materialist debater’s usual answer is that a person has to find their own unique meaning

- How To Win A Spiritual Argument-
By Hong Wu :

Make up an imaginary opponent and specify his answers for him ... duh!

Zam