Everyone wants solutions to their problems and society's problems. The difficulty is that the very idea of "the solution" is itself problematic for theological, philosophical and practical reasons.
Excellent work, per usual. You seem to expand Sowell’s thesis that he laid out in his book Conflict of Visions. Between the constrained and unconstrained understanding of human nature. I appreciate how you weave in Christian theology along with Ellul’s commentary on technology to flesh out this understanding.
It would require a different mentality. Yes, problems have to be dealt with. But they will never be solved. Often the attempts at solution create problems of their own. And the act of making a concerted effort to solve the problem actually perpetuates the problems because the professionals tasked with solving the problem have an interest in keeping the problem around because they benefit personally from it perpetuating. Ditching the whole technical mindset focused on "solutions" would be a start. There is no easy answer for this because the technical society only permits one answer: a technical solution. Its hard to think outside of one's own situation.
In other words, we have created problems and by trying to fix made up problems we make everything worse. Makes sense.
Positivist philosophers call false problems “pseudoproblems” and consider them the main contribution of philosophy. Insults aside, most political and philosophical problems since the XVII century (sovereignty and foundationalism) are ultimately pseudoproblems.
Coincidentally, I made a podcast series on virtue, which is the antidote to sin. I also cover the Seven Deadly Sins in the first episode (who knew there were originally eight?!).
I agree with that I just wish there was more on hope as an epistemic foundation and sanctification through salvation as a means of our lives being bettered. We definitely have to work within sin but transformation is meaningful when we place our idols of created things, which become the vices depending on either how far they deviate from God or maybe how close they are to our ego, up towards God. I agree about the ontological nature of technology but I do think transformation by sanctification places our actions above their ontology (in contrast to some people wanting to enslave themselves to ai lol).
I'm not struggling with anything. What I said about hope as the foundation of epistemology is what Jacques Ellul said and both that and sanctifying are scriptural. I use a fideist epistemology and we're supposed to be salt of the earth, perfect and doing good works. I enjoyed both articles brother. Keep it up!
Thanks! I would not call judging others a sin. This would be a mistaken interpretation of Jesus' and Paul's exhortations against judging. We tend to interpret this as an exhortation against making any moral declarations in regards to a person's life or lifestyle. Rather, we should see the exhortations against judging others more along the lines that they arrest our own spiritual maturation. If we are always on the lookout for the sins of others, our attention is pointed away from ourselves and our own sins and flaws. We are urged to spend our efforts in examining ourselves and becoming Christ like. But this does not mean that we should not hold other believers accountable for immorality. Nor does it forbid us from making moral judgments of behaviours occurring within our society. Without judgment there is no morality. You can't think without making judgments. There is also a proper time, context and format for doing so. Ideally, it is done within a discipling relationship which is inherently hierarchical. But whatever the context, the goal should be restoration, not condemnation. Too many want to be busybodies. But there is a place for moral judgments and correction.
I agree with you. I often think of the Internet as "humanity writ large," a huge blend of all that's wrong with the world and some of what's right. You can't separate the right from the wrong (although some censors would love to try) and have a "good Internet" and "bad Internet" - it's just the Internet. Just so, you can't separate humanity into "bad humanity" and "good humanity" - it's just humanity. But I do think that humanity has the capacity for good, it's just that we can't not do evil.
Yes true description. Hence a deep understanding of how we work with our team and we may please ourselves with a very brief guide and approach for our next meeting to discuss whether we would need to know more challenges.
Excellent work, per usual. You seem to expand Sowell’s thesis that he laid out in his book Conflict of Visions. Between the constrained and unconstrained understanding of human nature. I appreciate how you weave in Christian theology along with Ellul’s commentary on technology to flesh out this understanding.
Thanks!
What I would say is that there is no need for a solution, there is a need for a different framework to deal with problems, different tools.
It would require a different mentality. Yes, problems have to be dealt with. But they will never be solved. Often the attempts at solution create problems of their own. And the act of making a concerted effort to solve the problem actually perpetuates the problems because the professionals tasked with solving the problem have an interest in keeping the problem around because they benefit personally from it perpetuating. Ditching the whole technical mindset focused on "solutions" would be a start. There is no easy answer for this because the technical society only permits one answer: a technical solution. Its hard to think outside of one's own situation.
In other words, we have created problems and by trying to fix made up problems we make everything worse. Makes sense.
Positivist philosophers call false problems “pseudoproblems” and consider them the main contribution of philosophy. Insults aside, most political and philosophical problems since the XVII century (sovereignty and foundationalism) are ultimately pseudoproblems.
There is something to that.
Coincidentally, I made a podcast series on virtue, which is the antidote to sin. I also cover the Seven Deadly Sins in the first episode (who knew there were originally eight?!).
https://marchingthroughtheshadowlands.substack.com/
Good stuff.
I agree with that I just wish there was more on hope as an epistemic foundation and sanctification through salvation as a means of our lives being bettered. We definitely have to work within sin but transformation is meaningful when we place our idols of created things, which become the vices depending on either how far they deviate from God or maybe how close they are to our ego, up towards God. I agree about the ontological nature of technology but I do think transformation by sanctification places our actions above their ontology (in contrast to some people wanting to enslave themselves to ai lol).
You might appreciate this piece and it might help you with some of what you are struggling with...
https://www.seekingthehiddenthing.com/p/breaking-the-habits-of-western-thinking
I'm not struggling with anything. What I said about hope as the foundation of epistemology is what Jacques Ellul said and both that and sanctifying are scriptural. I use a fideist epistemology and we're supposed to be salt of the earth, perfect and doing good works. I enjoyed both articles brother. Keep it up!
I read more closely and see what you are saying.
Thanks!
I’m saving this one too. Excellently presented!
Could you address my concern that an clear-eyed view of sin seems (at least in my personal experience) to lead to judgmental dismissal of others?
How do we avoid (or mitigate) the sin of judging others?
Thanks! I would not call judging others a sin. This would be a mistaken interpretation of Jesus' and Paul's exhortations against judging. We tend to interpret this as an exhortation against making any moral declarations in regards to a person's life or lifestyle. Rather, we should see the exhortations against judging others more along the lines that they arrest our own spiritual maturation. If we are always on the lookout for the sins of others, our attention is pointed away from ourselves and our own sins and flaws. We are urged to spend our efforts in examining ourselves and becoming Christ like. But this does not mean that we should not hold other believers accountable for immorality. Nor does it forbid us from making moral judgments of behaviours occurring within our society. Without judgment there is no morality. You can't think without making judgments. There is also a proper time, context and format for doing so. Ideally, it is done within a discipling relationship which is inherently hierarchical. But whatever the context, the goal should be restoration, not condemnation. Too many want to be busybodies. But there is a place for moral judgments and correction.
I agree with you. I often think of the Internet as "humanity writ large," a huge blend of all that's wrong with the world and some of what's right. You can't separate the right from the wrong (although some censors would love to try) and have a "good Internet" and "bad Internet" - it's just the Internet. Just so, you can't separate humanity into "bad humanity" and "good humanity" - it's just humanity. But I do think that humanity has the capacity for good, it's just that we can't not do evil.
Exactly. Well said.
I'm saving this one, it's very very good.
The others are good too.
I know what you mean. I appreciate the kind words.
Thanks!
Yes true description. Hence a deep understanding of how we work with our team and we may please ourselves with a very brief guide and approach for our next meeting to discuss whether we would need to know more challenges.