Hierarchy
“A hierarchy (from Greek: ἱεραρχία, hierarkhia, ‘rule of a high priest’, from hierarkhes, ‘president of sacred rites’) is an arrangement of items (objects, names, values, categories, etc.) that are represented as being “above”, “below”, or “at the same level as” one another. A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or diagonally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one’s immediate superior or to one of one’s subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate alternative hierarchies. Hierarchical links can extend “vertically” upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path. All parts of the hierarchy that are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be “horizontally” linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again.” ref
Are YOU Like Me, an Anti-Authoritarian Thinker?
“I fear no thinker at all, I will take on anyone. I only fear untruths being pushed as truth.”
Godless because I think, Humanist because I feel, and Anarchist because shit needs to change. Godless was not a choice it was a realization born of intellectual honesty. I do not respect religion I respect people, I don’t believe in religions but I do believe in people. Blind hate is just as disgusting as blind faith. But faith seems to be quite found among the foolish but is an imprisoned tormented fool among the wise. Faith is like the Gloryhole of bad thinking and the Champion of unsupported beliefs. Thus it is required to renounce such mind bondage as is the likes of faith. I reject the notion that humans are born with the inclination for Religion. Rather, we are born with a superstitious Animism thinking mind until the age of about 7 years old and it is out of this child like daydreaming that Religion emerges with the help of people desiring to control.
Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?
I understand that there are truth seekers and non-truth seekers (because of disinterest, dogma “false sense of truth” and/or delusion). But I also realize there are two types of truth seekers: Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers.
Authoritarian Truth Seekers: to me use an Authoritarian Personality to understand, analyze, confirm truth, and limit what is thought of as truth.
Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude that is characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submissive to authority and possibly even one’s own authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one’s subordinates. It is an ideology which entails accepting authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of intellectual or human relations that includes authoritative, strict, or oppressive personality in truth acquisition and adherence to values or beliefs that are perceived as endorsed by followed leadership, authority of holy books, authority of gods, authority of beliefs held by someone who is favored or idolized, and authority of one’s own beliefs.
Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers: to me use an Anti-Authoritarian Personality to understand, analyze and confirm truth.
Anti-Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude that is characterized by a cognitive application of freethought known as “freethinking” and is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas. Anti-Authoritarian personality is an opposition to authoritarianism, favoring instead full equality and open thinking in the conduct of intellectual or human relations, including democratic, flexible, or accessible personality in truth acquisition and adherence to values or beliefs perceived as endorsed by critical thinking and right reason which entails opposing authority as the means of confirmation in truth attainment.
To me, Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers are the only real seekers of truth.
To value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation to truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding.
I posted Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers? on facebook and this is a sample of what transpired:
Challenger #1, I think this blog post presents a false dichotomy: either one seeks truth through Authoritarian or Anti-authoritarian means. I think most of us have sought truth through the authority of our teachers and textbooks as kids in school; as we’ve grown older we tend to rely less on those authorities, but in some cases, we still seek via Authoritarian means. For me, truth-seeking is a Bayesian process of weighing hypothesis against reality. However, there are many subjects which may impact ones Bayesian reasoning for which one does not have the time/energy to investigate so we rely on the knowledge of “experts” who have spent time and energy investigating those matters.
Damien Marie AtHope, Thanks for your thoughts, you address interesting ideas but the issue you are addressing sounds a bit different that I was trying to say is doing an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so to limit one’s thinking to an appeal to authority is thinking strategy as a logical fallacy.
Challenger #2, it’s only a fallacy of the authority to which one is appealing is Not an authority in the field in question. For instance, if one’s argument is that, “Well even Richard Dawkins says the Big Bang proves the universe had a finite beginning,” (I’m making up the quote), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because Dawkins is not an astrophysicist. However, if one quoted Krauss on this issue, it would not be fallacious. in a field for which I have no training, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to rely on experts and the consensus among experts.
Damien Marie AtHope, But even if I as an anti-authoritarianist were to accept an appeal to the scholarly articles on any scientific studies are valid only on the evidence and have nothing to do with the scientists or researchers. Just as if one wants to overturn any previous believed scientific theory it’s the evidence not in any way the person presenting it.
Challenger #1, Hmmm, I never got the impression that this post was about the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. However, when regarding the appeal to authority as a fallacy: if the authority in question has made statements of an opinionated matter then I have to agree with Damien. However, if the appeal is to something the authority claimed based on the evidence and the current body of knowledge then I don’t think that would be considered a fallacy.
New respondent, Very succinct explanation of what divides believers from non-believers, Damien.
An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.ref
Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: “One of the great commandments of science is, “Mistrust arguments from authority.” … Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.”ref
The Appeal to Authority Fallacy
Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided – it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy. John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument. Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the “respect” and “submission” of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion. Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke’s original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority. By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the “Fallacy of appealing to authority,” even while noting that “this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious.” In the Western rationalistic tradition and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy. More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the “Argument from Unqualified Authority” or the “Argument from Unreliable Authority”. However, these are still not the only recognized forms of appeal to authority. For example, a 2012 guidebook on philosophical logic describes appeals to authority not merely as arguments from unqualified or unreliable authority, but as arguments from authority in general. In addition to appeals lacking evidence of the authority’s reliability, the book states that arguments from authority are fallacious if there is a lack of “good evidence” that the authorities appealed to possess “adequate justification for their views.” And there are other recognized fallacious arguments from authority. Among them, the “Fallacies” entry by Bradley Dowden in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that “appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious […] when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf)” The “Fallacies” entry by Hans Hansen in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy similarly states that “when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them.” However, Hansen’s entry in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does not appear to share Dowden’s exception regarding “lone wolf” dissenting authorities.
Fallacious arguments from authority can also be the result of citing a non-authority as an authority. These arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. The appeal to poverty, for example, is the fallacy of thinking a conclusion is more likely to be correct because the one who holds or is presenting it is poor. When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a fallacious appeal to the common man. A common example of the fallacy is appealing to an authority in one subject to pontificate on another – for example, citing Albert Einstein as an authority on religion when his expertise was in physics. The attributed authority might not even welcome that authority, as with the “More Doctors Smoke Camels” ad campaign. However, it is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.
Notable examples
In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs. This seemingly established number created confirmation bias among researchers, and “most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter’s number, virtually always did so”. Painter’s “influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence”, to the point that “textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four”. Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified or discarded their data to agree with Painter’s count.
The Psychological basis
An integral part of the appeal to authority is the cognitive bias known as the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect. Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that “Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure”, with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present. Scholars have noted that the academic environment produces a nearly ideal situation for these processes to take hold, and they can affect entire academic disciplines, giving rise to groupthink. One paper about the philosophy of mathematics, for example, notes that, within mathematics, If…a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was…If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit. Ref
Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY)
I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism
Beliefs Deeply Matter
If people have incorrect information (errors in thinking or beliefs) they can’t navigate through the real world as it would be as useful as someone giving you a map for your town but it’s from 6 BCE, but what you need is a current updated map. The old map while accurate to the town is useless as the only thing that matches the town currently is its name almost everything is new and different see the old mat it no helps at all. But think about this what if we say that doesn’t matter? Does its real-world value change, no? What changed was your vacation that was altered and you must then know what is real so you can reach evidence-rich beliefs accurate to the current status in the hear and not. We become present and inquisitive about what it true mental maps for not just navigating the outer landscape needing an accurate belief map assisting in increased successful efforts. Likewise, our inner landscape needing an accurate belief map assisting in successful increased successful efforts. And what would happen if you had immaculate belief maps thus have a higher tendency for the unsuccessful attempt in one’s efforts? Now let’s look the magic in belief? OK, one could say, I believe in god, his reindeer, and his sleigh. I believe in the god that all the Santa stories say. I believe as I was told and do until this day. I believe without proof just like all the religious people today. Do you have such blind beliefs or do you do as sound reason would say? I like almost all other atheists, who are actively outspoken embody a Firebrand, not a militant. Here is why just read the definitions:
“Apetivist, suggested your YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLVQU-FGzbPBFsnfRm5b-hQ) to me, looking forward to seeing what you’re all about… Any suggestions for where to start?” -Questioner
My response, I would say check out my style, “Truth Navigation” Here are three blogs on that:
- Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
- Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
- Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette”
And, here is my blog on the word “Apetivist” Link
As for Videos Here are a few:
- I am a “Scientific Axiology” minded “Philosophic Axiologist Theorist”: Link
-
Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality: Link
-
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates: Link
- Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”: Link
-
Trying to Help Promote Knowledge: Philosophy and Science: Link
- Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette”: Link
- Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs: Link
- Pragmatic theory of truth, the Coherence theory of truth, and the Correspondence theory of truth: Link
- Let’s talk about practical philosophy: “My Hammer of Truth”: Link
- I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism: Link
- Outreach q & a about doing debates/discussions: Link
- Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth: Link
- Questions, Challenges, and Dialogue: Link
- Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher: Link
Be the one to care, be the difference.
I once demanded love or care first thinking that it was required before I could care or love. But now I want to be the one to give love and care freely as I see I am the one with the power to change the lives of others if only I try in care and love. I get it, we rise by helping each other.
Me politically:
Politically, I am somewhat hard to define but I will try so you can see. I am an eclectic Liberal with Leftist conceptions mainly involve or lean towards: Philosophical Anarchism, Educational Anarchism, Atheist Natural Rights Libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarcho-Naturism, Green Anarchism, Dialectical Naturalism, Anti-capitalism, Anarcho-collectivism, Progressive, Secularism, Socialist Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Municipalism, Radical Minarchism, Anarcho-Feminism, Queer anarchism, Left-wing market anarchism, Green anarchism, Naturist Anarchism, and Anarcho-Mutualism Political Philosophies with Axiology. To put it more simply I want the most freedom, liberty, compassion, well being and justice for individuals, groups, our shared humanity as well as other living things around us and our earth because we have to live here.
My Atheistic (socialist-anarchist) Humanism?
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as “anarchists”, advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations. However, anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is often considered a radical left-wing ideology and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism or participatory economics. At some point “the collectivist, communist, and liberal and individualist strands of thought from which anarchists drew their inspiration began to assume an increasingly distinctive quality, supporting the rise of a number of anarchist schools”. ref
- Self-ownership, Human Rights, and Societal Liberty or Freedoms
- Self-ownership/Body-ownership: Sexual Consent, Abortion, Genital Mutilation, Prostitution, Drugs, and the Right to Die
- The Need for Consent and the value of Body Ownership: Healthy Sex Talk with Kids
- Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality
- Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?
“We often lean by the freedom of shared knowledge and thus we rise by helping each other.”
I am many types/styles of anarchist:
*Educational Anarchism, Anarchism has had a special interest on the issue of education from the works of William Godwin and Max Stirner onwards. A wide diversity of issues related to education have gained the attention of anarchist theorists and activists. They have included the role of education in social control and socialization, the rights and liberties of youth and children within educational contexts, the inequalities encouraged by current educational systems, the influence of state and religious ideologies in the education of people, the division between social and manual work and its relationship with education, sex education and art education. Various alternatives to contemporary mainstream educational systems and their problems have been proposed by anarchists which have gone from alternative education systems and environments, self-education, advocacy of youth as well as children rights, and freethought activism. On “Equal Opportunity in Education” Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin denounced what he saw as the social inequalities caused by the current educational systems. He put this issue in this way “will it be feasible for the working masses to know complete emancipation as long as the education available to those masses continues to be inferior to that bestowed upon the bourgeois, or, in more general terms, as long as there exists any class, be it numerous or otherwise, which, by virtue of birth, is entitled to a superior education and a more complete instruction? Does not the question answer itself?…” He also denounced that “Consequently while some study others must labor so that they can produce what we need to live — not just producing for their own needs, but also for those men who devote themselves exclusively to intellectual pursuits. As a solution to this Bakunin proposed that “Our answer to that is a simple one: everyone must work and everyone must receive education…for work’s sake as much as for the sake of science, there must no longer be this division into workers and scholars and henceforth there must be only men. “Russian anarcho-communist theorist Peter Kropotkin suggested in “Brain Work and Manual Work” that “The masses of the workmen do not receive more scientific education than their grandfathers did; but they have been deprived of the education of even the small workshop, while their boys and girls are driven into a mine, or a factory, from the age of thirteen, and there they soon forget the little they may have learned at school. As to the scientists, they despise manual labour.” So for Kropotkin “We fully recognize the necessity of specialization of knowledge, but we maintain that specialization must follow general education, and that general education must be given in science and handicraft alike. To the division of society into brainworkers and manual workers we oppose the combination of both kinds of activities; and instead of `technical education,’ which means the maintenance of the present division between brain work and manual work, we advocate the éducation intégrale, or complete education, which means the disappearance of that pernicious distinction.” In an essay entitled “The child and its enemies” Lithuanian-American anarcha-feminist Emma Goldman manifested that “The child shows its individual tendencies in its plays, in its questions, in its association with people and things. But it has to struggle with everlasting external interference in its world of thought and emotion. It must not express itself in harmony with its nature, with its growing personality. It must become a thing, an object. Its questions are met with narrow, conventional, ridiculous replies, mostly based on falsehoods; and, when, with large, wondering, innocent eyes, it wishes to behold the wonders of the world, those about it quickly lock the windows and doors, and keep the delicate human plant in a hothouse atmosphere, where it can neither breathe nor grow freely.” Goldman in the essay entitled “The Social Importance of the Modern School” saw that “the school of today, no matter whether public, private, or parochial…is for the child what the prison is for the convict and the barracks for the soldier — a place where everything is being used to break the will of the child, and then to pound, knead, and shape it into a being utterly foreign to itself.” In this way “it will be necessary to realize that education of children is not synonymous with herdlike drilling and training. If education should really mean anything at all, it must insist upon the free growth and development of the innate forces and tendencies of the child. In this way alone can we hope for the free individual and eventually also for a free community, which shall make interference and coercion of human growth impossible.” Goldman in her essay on the Modern School also dealt with the issue of Sex education. She denounced that “educators also know the evil and sinister results of ignorance in sex matters. Yet, they have neither understanding nor humanity enough to break down the wall which puritanism has built around sex…If in childhood both man and woman were taught a beautiful comradeship, it would neutralize the oversexed condition of both and would help woman’s emancipation much more than all the laws upon the statute books and her right to vote.” ref
*Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary form of anarchism most commonly associated with Mikhail Bakunin, Johann Most and the anti-authoritarian section of the First International (1864–1876). Unlike mutualists, collectivist anarchists oppose all private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating that ownership be collectivized. This was to be initiated by small cohesive elite group through acts of violence, or “propaganda by the deed“, which would inspire the workers to revolt and forcibly collectivize the means of production. Workers would be compensated for their work on the basis of the amount of time they contributed to production, rather than goods being distributed “according to need” as in anarcho-communism. Although the collectivist anarchists advocated compensation for labor, some held out the possibility of a post-revolutionary transition to a communist system of distribution according to need. Collective anarchism arose contemporaneously with Marxism, but it opposed the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat despite Marxism striving for a collectivist stateless society. Some collectivist anarchists do not oppose the use of currency. Some support workers being paid based on the amount of time they contributed to production. These salaries would be used to purchase commodities in a communal market. This contrasts with anarcho-communism where wages would be abolished and where individuals would take freely from a storehouse of goods “to each according to his need”. Many modern-day collectivist anarchists hold their form of anarchism as a permanent society rather than a carryover to anarcho-communism or a gift economy. Some collectivist anarchists such as proponents of participatory economics believe in remuneration and a form of credit but do not believe in money or markets. Although collectivist anarchism shares many similarities with anarchist communism, there are also many key differences between them. For example, collectivist anarchists believe that the economy and most or all property should be collectively owned by society while anarchist communists, by contrast, believe that the concept of ownership should be rejected by society and replaced with the concept of usage. Also, collectivist anarchists often favor using a form of currency to compensate workers according to the amount of time spent contributing to society and production while anarcho-communists believe that currency and wages should be abolished altogether and goods should be distributed “to each according to his or her need”. ref
*Philosophical Anarchism is the view that the State lacks moral legitimacy, that there is no individual obligation or duty to obey the State and, conversely, that the State has no right to command individuals. However, it does not actively advocate revolution to eliminate the State but calls for a gradual change to free the individual from the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state. Philosophical Anarchists may accept the existence of a minimal state as an unfortunate “necessary evil” (usually considered temporary), but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy. The English philosopher William Godwin (1756 – 1836) is usually credited with founding Philosophical Anarchism and is often called the father of modern Anarchism. Rather than throwing bombs or taking up arms to bring down the state, philosophical anarchists “have worked for a gradual change to free the individual from what they thought were the oppressive laws and social constraints of the modern state and allow all individuals to become self-determining and value-creating”. They may oppose the immediate elimination of the state by violent means out of concern that it would be left unsecured against the establishment of a more harmful and oppressive state. ref, ref
*Mutualist Anarchism is concerned with reciprocity, free association, voluntary contract, federation and credit, and currency reform. Many mutualists believe a market without government intervention drives prices down to labor-costs, eliminating profit, rent, and interest according to the labor theory of value. Firms would be forced to compete over workers just as workers compete over firms, raising wages. Some see mutualism as between individualist and collectivist anarchism. In What Is Property?, Proudhon develops a concept of “liberty”, equivalent to “anarchy”, which is the dialectical “synthesis of communism and property”. Greene, influenced by Pierre Leroux, sought mutualism in the synthesis of three philosophies—communism, capitalism, and socialism. Later individualist anarchists used the term mutualism, but retained little emphasis on synthesis while social anarchists such as the authors of An Anarchist FAQ claim mutualism as a subset of their philosophical tradition. Mutualism began in 18th-century English and French labor movements, then took an anarchist form associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in France and others in the United States. This influenced individualist anarchists in the United States such as Benjamin Tucker and William B. Greene. Josiah Warren proposed similar ideas in 1833 after participating in a failed Owenite experiment. In the 1840s and 1850s, Charles A. Dana and William B. Greene introduced Proudhon’s works to the United States. Greene adapted Proudhon’s mutualism to American conditions and introduced it to Benjamin R. Tucker. ref
*Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism or anarcho-socialism) is an umbrella term used to identify a broad category of anarchism independent of individualist anarchism. Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize personal autonomy and the rational nature of human beings, social anarchism sees “individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid”. Social anarchism is used to specifically describe anarchist tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism includes (but is not limited to) collectivist anarchism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology. ref
*Green anarchism (or eco-anarchism) is a school of thought within anarchism which puts an emphasis on environmental issues. An important early influence was the thought of the American anarchist Henry David Thoreau and his book Walden as well as Leo Tolstoy and Elisee Reclus. In the late 19th century there emerged anarcho-naturism as the fusion of anarchism and naturist philosophies within individualist anarchist circles in France, Spain and Portugal. Important contemporary currents are anarcho-primitivism and social ecology. Notable contemporary writers espousing green anarchism include Murray Bookchin, Daniel Chodorkoff, anthropologist Brian Morris and people around Institute for Social Ecology; and those critical of technology such as Layla AbdelRahim, Derrick Jensen, George Draffan, and John Zerzan; and others such as Alan Carter. Social ecologists also considered a kind of socialist anarchist, often criticize the main currents of anarchism for their focus and debates about politics and economics instead of a focus on eco-system (human and environmental). This theory promotes libertarian municipalism and green technology. ref
*Anarcho-naturism (also anarchist naturism and naturist anarchism) appeared in the late 19th century as the union of anarchist and naturist philosophies. Mainly it had importance within individualist anarchist circles in Spain, France, Portugal, and Cuba. Anarcho-naturism advocated vegetarianism, free love, nudism, hiking and an ecological worldview within anarchist groups and outside them. Anarcho-naturism promoted an ecological worldview, small ecovillages and most prominently nudism as a way to avoid the artificiality of the industrial mass society of modernity. Naturist individualist anarchists saw the individual in his biological, physical and psychological aspects and tried to eliminate social determinations. ref (Sex, the one thing that gets people all hot and bothered, whether it’s with passion and lust or anger and disgust. People have all kinds of preferences, hangups, judgments, and opinions about sex from age, to gender, to amount at one time, to amount over time, to doing it before a relationship, to doing it with others when partnered in a relationship, to kinds such as hedonism, poly, swingers, FWB, fetish or BDSM, etc. But this is all just that opinion and preference. If one disagrees with any of the above sex that is not the reality requirements one can impose on others, to me, because if all parties are of legal age 18 and are willing as well as able to give consent it is ok.)
*Anarcha-feminism (occasionally called anarcho-feminism) is a form of anarchism that synthesizes radical feminism and anarchism that views patriarchy (male domination over women) as a fundamental manifestation of involuntary hierarchy which anarchists often oppose. Anarcha-feminism was inspired in the late 19th century by the writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticize and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Anarcha-feminists are especially critical of marriage. For instance, the feminist anarchist Emma Goldman has argued that marriage is a purely economic arrangement and that “[woman] pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life”. Anarcha-feminists also often criticize the views of some of the traditional anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin who have believed that patriarchy is only a minor problem and is dependent only on the existence of the state and capitalism and will disappear soon after such institutions are abolished. Anarcha-feminists by contrast view patriarchy as a fundamental problem in society and believe that the feminist struggle against sexism and patriarchy is an essential component of the anarchist struggle against the state and capitalism. As Susan Brown puts it, “as anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power, it is inherently feminist.” ref
*Queer anarchism is a form of socialism which suggests anarchism as a solution to the issues faced by the LGBT community, mainly heteronormativity, homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia. Anarcho-queer arose during the late 20th century based on the work of Michel Foucault The History of Sexuality. ref
*Left-wing market anarchism is associated with scholars such as Kevin Carson, Roderick T. Long, Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Sheldon Richman, Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Gary Chartier, who stress the value of radically free markets, termed “freed markets” to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled with statist and capitalist privileges. Referred to as left-wing market anarchists or market-oriented left-libertarians, proponents of this approach strongly affirm the classical liberal ideas of self-ownership and free markets, while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas support strongly anti-corporatist, anti-hierarchical, pro-labor positions in economics; anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding such cultural issues as gender, sexuality, and race. This strand of left-libertarianism tends to be rooted either in the mutualist economics conceptualized by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, American individualist anarchism. Gary Chartier has joined Kevin Carson, Charles Johnson and others (echoing the language of Benjamin Tucker and Thomas Hodgskin) in maintaining that because of its heritage and its emancipatory goals and potential, radical market anarchism should be seen – by its proponents and by others – as part of the socialist tradition and that market anarchists can and should call themselves “socialists”. ref
I am a socialist (relatively with a mutualist-collectivist persuasion) anarchist. I hope you don’t wrongly think I am anti-society. No, I just oppose the abusive hierarchal governments and one over many rules removing our rights then only giving them back in small peaces and demanding we thank and praise them, some almost as if gods but I am not so fooled, as to me much of what we have now is similar such as fire departments and all other reasonable services we as a community pay for in taxes. I am not against reasonable taxes for desirable social services.We are not the scars that made us or the abuse that enslaved us, we are not the shame that drained us, we are not the intolerance that trained us, we are not the fear that betrayed us or the dark narratives that started our lives of pain. We are who we choose to be now! We are the author of our future. It will be as full of hope, light, and love as we help it have. Like how a hard seed can turn into a tree, I too must move past the pain inside of me to welcome my new life with open arms and an open heart ready not to just receive but give love freely.
We rise by helping each other…
- Atheist Anarchists Discussion
- Interview with Anarchist and Firebrand Atheist Courtney Connatser
- What Inspires My Anarcho-Humanism?
- I am an Anarchist and Strive to Fight Injustice
- Anarcho-Humanism
- Anarchy Atheism
- I am a “Real Anarchist” not an “Anarcho-Capitalist”
- A Different Kind of Atheist: Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist
- Black women of Courage: Elizabeth Jennings, Claudette Colvin, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King.
Some people think you are trapped in your behavior.
Take for instance I strive to be kind now even think I do a good job, generally. However, I was not always this way. I was extremely abused as a child (mainly before 13 years old by my father), and it made me suffer from mental health issues I can still battle today. I, once was quite different from how you view me today, this is after 20 years of on and off counseling services. Kindness used to be against my nature as a high functioning sociopath (some likely genetic most helped by my suffering abuse), but through reason and care, I am changed into something more than me, not a victim of my nature, I am better than merely my nature. I am a thinking rule breaker, I am a deep question risk taker, I am a mental freedom firestarter, and I am a mental riot maker. I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies.
You think my Atheism is crazy? Ok yes, I am a disturbed person, I am very disturbed in fact. How can any champion of the ethics of belief do anything else than wishing to destroy lies as if they when themselves an expression of evil? I am also very disturbed at the hate and harm so often championed by theists of all kinds.
And in reaction to all this I wish to be a disturbing person to people that are acting in a manner which is disturbing in a negative way like calling for the hate or harm of those who don’t believe, a hate of those who don’t fit your gender criteria, the hate and harm for women, the hate and harm for LGBTQI people, ect. Etc. ETc. ETC.
Managing the aspects of respect or limit of respect of persons?
I believe it is not an all or nothing issue to respect of persons even if their beliefs are disrespected. The aspects of respect of persons should at a minimum involve recognition and can involve acknowledgment without needing to involve endorsement but it can involve this too.
Respect of recognition: recognizing that another person exists with dignity and human rights.
Respect of acknowledgment: acknowledging another person has self-ownership thus a right to form feelings, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs even though this may not be used to stop others from likewise holding differing views or feelings as they too own themselves.
Respect of endorsement: endorsing another person’s feelings, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs as valid. This too is not an all or nothing thing one can endorse or accept one, any amount or all of another person’s feelings, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs as valid or to a lesser amount of respect of endorsement could involve assuring another person that their feelings, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are just as important as yours even if you differ.
Limit of respect of thinking: comes into play in how people’s thinking can be unjust, unethical, abusive, or a disrespect of recognition of dignity and human rights which tends to deserve condemnation and contempt.
Limit of respect of behavior: comes into play in how people behave in ways can be unjust, unethical, abusive, or display a disrespect of recognition of dignity and human rights which deserves condemnation and contempt.
- Natural Morality?
- Dignity = respect?
- Dignity Being Theory: Turning a Troll?
- Axiology, Morality and the Dignity Being: “Human Entity”
- Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings.
- Empathy and Human Dignity?
- Axiological Dignity: “Value Consciousness vs Value-Blindness”
- Axiological Dignity Being Theory
- Relativistic Nihilist Challenger?
- Utilizing Dignity?
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as
strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.
My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:
*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)
*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)
Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.
Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”
I strive to attack thinking and not people but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this helps mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.
However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so too is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word to things that create impacts so big they were life-altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.
*Axiological Dignity Being Theory*
An “Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” – Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. And the reason why we should care is because we are Dignity Beings.
“Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict
— Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings. —
I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies. Kindness beats prayers every time, even if you think prayer works, you know kindness works. Think otherwise, do both without telling people and see which one they notice. Aspire to master the heavens but don’t forget about the ones in need still here on earth. You can be kind and never love but you cannot love and never be kind. Therefore, it is this generosity of humanity, we need the most of. So, if you can be kind, as in the end some of the best we can be to others is to exchange kindness. For too long now we have allowed the dark shadow of hate to cloud our minds, while we wait in silence as if pondering if there is a need to commiserate. For too long little has been done and we too often have been part of this dark clouded shame of hate. Simply, so many humans now but sadly one is still left asking, where is the humanity?
Why Ought We Care?
Because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity. When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity.
We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to a person’s “human rights” is an attack to the value and worth of a dignity being. Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seeking connection. what will you do, here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity. A violation of one’s dignity (Which it the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world) as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being its done to.
I am a mutualistic thinker and to me, we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings, not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings. Stopping lying about who we are, as your made-up magic about reality which is forced causing a problem event (misunderstanding of axiological valuations) to the natural wonder of reality. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. To make another dignity being feel pain is to do an attack to their dignity as well as your own. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain.
One of the reasons I am good at understanding caring is much of my childhood lacked it. One of the reasons I am good at understanding kindness is I have had little in my life. One of the reasons I am good at understanding hope is I felt little of it most of my life. I don’t just blindly theorize such things, I have lived the lack of them. This upfront view has shown me a lot, demonstrating in living color of my own experiences just how important they are and why I must further their support, firstly in my actions rather than just some call for action of others alone. When I was younger I felt proud when I harmed those I did not like now I find it deserving even if doing it was seen as the only choice as I now see us for who we are valuable beings of dignity. I am not as worried about how I break the box you believe I need to fit as I am worried about the possibility of your confining hopes of hindering me with your limits, these life traps you have decided about and for me are as owning character attacks to my dignity’s needs which can be generalized as acceptance, understanding, and support. As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are intact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally. What I am saying don’t judge by the outside see the worth and human value they have as a dignity being. Why is it easier to see what is wrong then what is right? Why do I struggle in speaking what my heart loves as thorough and as passionate as what I dislike or hate? When you say “an act of mercy” the thing that is being appealed to or for is the proposal of or for the human quality of dignity. May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms kindness.
May my life be an expression of love to the world. Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition. Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. I am anthropocentric (from Greek means “human being center”) as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination.
But how do the facts play out? So, you don’t have any difference in the value of life? Therefore, a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? Do you fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. If you think humans and animals are of equal value, are you obviously for stronger punishment for all animals to the level of humans? If so we need tougher laws against all animals including divorce and spousal or child support and we will jail any animal parent (deadbeat animal) who does not adequately as we have been avoiding this for too long and thankfully now that in the future the ideas about animals being equal we had to create a new animal police force and animal court system, not to mention are new animal jails as we will not accept such open child abuse and disregard for responsibilities? As we don’t want to treat animals as that would be unjust to some humans, but how does this even make sense?
To me, it doesn’t make sense as humans a different from all other animals even though some are similar in some ways. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honored or honoring others as well as help self-helping and other-helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are a social animals we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus, dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting.
So, when we exchange inexperience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding, and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity: is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life.
But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me, dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. Dignity is often shredded similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants.
“Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity, and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry, not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.
Being mean is easy. I wish to do what can be hard; kindness.
Being mean is easy it takes nothing but a loss of control, which I am still too often prone to falling into. That said I would like to strive to be kind even it is is not extended to me as I don’t want to just follow my weakness. I wish to champion my straight, as I wish to more than just not losing control I wish to be the one in control exhibiting if I can live up to it an example of bravery. This bravery is not out of bravado but the flushing of negative in a heart set free, to me the fact that I strive a young life of profound unkindness almost ruined me forever. I want to be more than the pain that made me or the abuse and unkindness that all but unsaved me. I could be the nothing or the everything if I choose, what was done it out of my control but what I do is not just in my control, it is as if I have all my life been lost if an attitude of attack but now with axiology, humanism and rationalism on a quest like gilded Knights of long ago to parure a beloved treasure.
I see now, as one who was to often as a child not shown kindness, that life’s journey is made wealthy by the added a human behavioral health resource treasure, a wellspring of renewing, which is found in kindness. I wish to be so strong I have no fear of looking weak and instead show others what a life now bent on helping can really be, when I am brave in my kindness. Anyone can be kind to the kind even a madman but to be sure-footed to travel and be the better person is a gift I give to myself as I am going to do my best to make the world I would be proud to tell others about.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”
I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.
To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.
My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?
Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com