Philosophy That Loses Eye Contact Is An Avoidance Technique
I'd like all of you to at least skim this, even if your past experiences with me suggest you aren't going to agree with it. I think on this one, you just might.
This holiday season I heard "don't lose sight" a lot. An interesting phrase. I've been mulling it over for a month. It's common in discussions of values. I think that a lot of talk of "theism" and "atheism" is a blind alley. I am an atheist, no doubt about it. But I just don't think the nonexistence of the supernatural is the point of anything I really have been trying to get across. While I am not saying my actual point of view on atheism vs. theism has changed, I think that whole discussion is too often part of the problem. The problem is philosophy that loses eye contact.
Atheists can count the angels dancing on the head of a pin just as badly as theists can. You see where, when secularists are upset that a "higher" or "deeper" person is losing sight of the tangible reality of human relationships, we can easily get distracted onto attacking the "higher" and "deeper". But what's important is not that people are looking "higher" or "deeper", it's that they're neglecting what's right in front of their eyes. Don't lose sight of visible things. So far as I know, there isn't a philosophical "ism" name for that position.
I consider that walking by sight, not by faith, but hey, that's just me. Being more in touch with tangible human relationships than with heavenly abstractions is what I'm all about. We call that "atheism" or "secularism" or a dozen different versions of that, but you might not, and that's fine. Besides, that word is a distraction. What matters is that I make choices that those around me can live with, and that you make choices that I can live with. Agreement on the reasons for doing so are less important to a life well-lived.
A focus on abstractions is just a smokescreen to keep from having to engage the empathy part of your brain and really talk to the people in your life. This is why so many of the teachers and students I remember from fundamentalist Christianity were so emotionally stunted and clumsy in relating to people. Philosophy that loses eye-contact is an avoidance technique. The best way to switch off your empathy is to focus on ivory-tower abstractions and lose sight of human relationships. Look at every atrocity committed by any philosophical branch. Religious people point at the secular ones, non-religious people point at the religious ones, but notice the one thing they all have in common. It's "the state", "god", "society", rather than the suffering of their victims. Even Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were into pretentious manifestos.
How does it come about that someone softens up toward homosexuals? One of their loved ones comes out of the closet and they're not just an abstraction. How does it come about that a person can become cruel and destructive toward others, for a metaphysical position? Philosophy that loses eye contact. How do you become an abortion protester who hasn't even thought through what will happen if they get their way? Philosophy that loses eye contact. Some of them squeeze their eyes closed to recite their philosophies to themselves over and over in prayer. This alienates them from the reality in front of their eyes, and all too often, they lose sight as hard as they can. It happens in politics too.
My emphasis ought not to be on the metaphysics of the supernatural plane, or millions of years ago. When a religious person in a conflict tries to resolve it using such abstractions, I'll just say "Look me in the eyes. If I want to talk to God, I know where to find him-- I want to know what you think. This is an issue of discomfort between me, and you. You are trying to move it off of that discomfort, but it won't really resolve it. You are responsible for your position, not God. If I'm wrong, I accept responsibility for that. If you're wrong, no one is to blame but you."
Repeat "you" and "me" as often as necessary. Maintain their eye contact on you, if necessary using your index and middle finger in a V shape positioned in the eye-line. Bring them down to the visceral, human level of having to use actual conflict-resolution skills. To take responsibility for their own position. To say, "It's not about God; it's about a problem you and I have with each other's behaviors. It can only be resolved on that level."
Comments
rachelann1977 on Jan. 27, 2008 4:21 AM
Don't lose sight of visible things. So far as I know, there isn't a philosophical "ism" name for that position.
The closest ones I can think of are humanism or pragmatism; do those count?
matt-arnold on Jan. 27, 2008 4:44 AM
Probably not. I think that the lack of a label is part of the point. It's kind of a paradox; once you turn it into a philosophical "ism", pretty soon you're probably violating what it's about.
matt-arnold on (None)
matt-arnold on Jan. 27, 2008 4:49 AM
The last time was over here, we decided to call it "The Church Of Shut Up And Look".
atropis on Jan. 27, 2008 9:45 PM
good name.
zifferent on Jan. 27, 2008 1:43 PM
The best way to switch off your empathy is to focus on ivory-tower abstractions and lose sight of human relationships. Look at every atrocity committed by any philosophical branch. Religious people point at the secular ones, non-religious people point at the religious ones, but notice the one thing they all have in common. It's "the state", "god", "society", rather than the suffering of their victims. Even Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were into pretentious manifestos.
Careful with statements like that. Before long you'll have people tearing down universities and burning books.
The issue I have is pointing the finger at a larger group and then saying "them." and then pointing at some foul person and saying in effect, "see they're all like foul guy!" Anytime you *lose sight* of the individuals, start making lumpen groups of people and then start to label the group, bad things start to happen. The trouble is you use the same tactic in your diatribe, even though it's not necessary, because the basic thought about "eye contact* is sound, and taking it down to personal relations level is brilliant. Good stuff, preach on Brother Matt. ;P
loop-bell on Jan. 29, 2008 4:15 PM
But I can almost guarantee that a real Christianist would have a strong male-chauvinistic opinion on the issue [of abortion] that involves either jail or death penalty for the woman, and ironically nothing for the man.
The issue I have is pointing the finger at a larger group and then saying "them." and then pointing at some foul person and saying in effect, "see they're all like foul guy!"
Not to be rude, but to me these two statements seem quite contradictory. How can the "real Christian" be defined by the actions and ideas of those people who are out on the fringe of fanaticism and hold distinctly un-Christian ideas like chauvinism & support for the death penalty?
It's no more true than the idea that all Muslims are extremists and terrorists. Yes, there are people who hold these views and call themselves Muslim. Same as the people calling themselves Christians that you mention. But calling themselves a name, and actually following the teachings of that doctrine are two quite different things.
matt-arnold on Jan. 29, 2008 5:41 PM
He did not say "real Christian". He said "real Christianist". This is very different in the same way that "Islamist" is different from "Muslim". The "-ist" words mean that the person believes their faith should be used as governmental law over the land. Essentially, theocracy.
In addition, I really don't agree with you about what your holy book says. I am not willing to concede that you have a better grasp than anybody else does about supposedly "real" Christianity, if there is any such thing. In fact, I think the Bible-believers who raised me are essentially correct in much of their interpretation of scripture. Authentic Christianity follows the plain meaning of the words written by primitives thousands of years ago. What you have is modern Christianity, in which the Bible is twisted to accommodate modern civilized standards with very repugnant source material.
It's like a charming and benevolent balloon animal, made from human intestine.
loop-bell on Jan. 29, 2008 6:40 PM
> He did not say "real Christian". He said "real Christianist". This is very different in the same way that "Islamist" is different from "Muslim". The "-ist" words mean that the person believes their faith should be used as governmental law over the land. Essentially, theocracy.
Point taken. I haven't heard "Christianist" or "Islamist" as a synonym for "Christian theocrat" or "Islamist theocrat" before. Possibly that part of my brain that does the whole reading thing mistook it for a typo.
> In addition, I really don't agree with you about what your holy book says. [...trimmed...]
I think these two quotations make a nice summary of the heart of Christian doctrine:
[One of the Pharisees asked Jesus: ]"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." Matthew 22:36-40 NAB
[Jesus said: "] My children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will look for me, and as I told the Jews, 'Where I go you cannot come,' so now I say it to you. I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:33-35
I make no claim to be an expert on matters theological. Much of what I know comes from discussion with people around me who have much more claim on that title. But these quotations seem quite easily understood. If we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, then we are to be known by one outstanding quality -- our love.
Now, I am as aware as anyone else that scripture can be twisted to support nearly any argument. I think this should be fairly authoritative though -- Christians believe that the teachings of Christ define Christianity. And when Christ himself says this is the most important commandment, and that it is his new commandment to Christians, it ought to trump anything someone digs up from the Mosaic law.
matt-arnold on Jan. 29, 2008 10:03 PM
Loving God before loving real people is the problematic point. In fact, it's the whole point of this blog post. If you re-read it in that light, you might get what I mean.
But even if we get past that problem, you've fallen for a bait-and-switch tactic. The bait-and-switch is that they'll advertise one thing to you and then, after you've got some investment in that, they'll tell you what they really meant by it. In this case, "love". It sounds well and good. But you're in for a rude awakening. Jesus was very specific about what he thinks it means to love God, and what he thinks it means to love your neighbor. A lot of it was unhealthy. You can't cherry-pick from Jesus' teachings and still call yourself a Christian-- you then may as well call yourself a "loveist" if you do that.
The point of naming your position after the name of a person, instead of naming it after the core of what they taught, is that it's not about what they taught-- its about the cult of personality. That's why Jesus put God before your neighbor. Because he's God. The cult leader always comes first. The bait has been switched.
loop-bell on Jan. 31, 2008 11:05 PM
Sorry for a slow response -- I've had a midterm and a programming project which needed to take first priority.
> Loving God before loving real people is the problematic point. In fact, it's the whole point of this blog post. If you re-read it in that light, you might get what I mean.
Having re-read (at least once) I'll try to restate what I think you're trying to say. In general, there are two ways to think about something: abstract and concrete. Abstract thinking looks at ideals and generalizations. Concrete thinking looks at specific things that actually happen to real people. So the danger of too much abstraction is that you lose track of the concrete. Which can lead to actions with (bad/negative/etc) concrete results. Because a person only considered them in the abstract, while they can be justified/explained in the abstract, the concrete reality is the opposite.
If that's what you were trying to say, I agree. Abstraction is only useful as long as you can still consider what actually happens, and the abstract way of thinking gives you the same conclusion. I have not seen it as a huge issue in the past though.
> You can't cherry-pick from Jesus' teachings and still call yourself a Christian-- you then may as well call yourself a "loveist" if you do that.
[.ie] This problem is often called "Cafeteria Catholicism" when people discuss it, although that term also includes the idea of picking and choosing the Church teachings that you like.
> But even if we get past that problem, you've fallen for a bait-and-switch tactic. [...] Jesus was very specific about what he thinks it means to love God, and what he thinks it means to love your neighbor. A lot of it was unhealthy.
I'd really like to ask what teachings you find unhealthy. But that will likely lead either me contradicting that (a) it's not actually a teaching, or (b) it's not unhealthy. And I hate having to say "you're completely wrong & that's a load of crap" in the middle of a discussion. Bearing that in mind, I'll ask anyway, and do my best to explain and to understand you, without having to contradict you.
> That's why Jesus put God before your neighbor. Because he's God. The cult leader always comes first.
Not that this is what you vere saying, but this got me thinking along the lines of the opposite of The Moral Atheist (MA) -- the MA loves other people and in general lives a moral/good/blameless life. But the MA doesn't love God because MA denies that any such thing exists.
That's pretty simple. But the interesting side is the opposite -- the Amoral Theist (AT), who truly loves God but has no such love for other people. AT's life looks a lot like how the Atheist's life is demonized -- indifferent, callous, and generally nasty.
While I know the MA is a reality -- which makes good sense too, there's nothing about loving other people that depends on a love of God -- I can't conceive the idea of the opposite, the AT. It's simply not possible to have a genuine devotion to God, while at the same time carry around hatred & indifference for other people.
The hinging point here is the word "genuine". I have seen people who have deluded themselves into thinking what they are doing is good and is "God's will". Most of these people come from the very edges of what can even be called Christian, but their values give them away. When someone stands on the sidewalk and shouts that "God hates gays!" and "All of you are going to hell!" and tells the sinners walking by to turn away from their evil ways, it doesn't take an expert theologen to tell you that they do not act out of love, but out of hate. And hatred has no part in a genuine devotion.
On a completely unrelated note, is there a Michigan Lojbanist meeting anytime in the near future scheduled? I saw a Meet-O-Matic for January a while back, but never saw the results of it. (Rather too late for a January one anyhow.) I still have that book for you sitting on my shelf too.
atropis on Jan. 27, 2008 9:49 PM
one of my primary partners in crime is also very keen on physical applicability as a proving ground for relevance. i am inclined to agree that concreteness is a valuable testing ground.
the part that's thrilling, though, is when the inexplicable becomes concrete.
which, technically, is always, since naming things doesn't actually explain them.
atropis on Jan. 27, 2008 9:55 PM
actually, thinking about it, *all* of my primary partners in crime have a variation on that position. one just spends more time and explicitness talking about that as an across the board abstract approach than the others.
cathyr19355 on Jan. 29, 2008 1:35 AM
Your suggestion about how to handle fanatics is interesting. I'll have to try it sometime. If you try it, please let us all know how well it worked!
Anonymous on (None)
Leave a Comment