Re: What if Joseph Smith was just an Alpha Ape in tune with Nature?
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:46 pm
Free Ranger, the more I read of you, the more I think you've been listening to too much Tom Leykis.
This is gonna be long winded response from your Friendly Neighborhood Viking, wink, wink. I am forming my thoughts through these discussions, so this helps me think things out.Gabriel wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 2:59 amYou sure are one long-winded Viking.Free Ranger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:40 pm
I read what you wrote a couple of times and each time it made me giggle. I see what you're trying to do. It reminds me of the time after college I tried substitute teaching for a brief stint; high school students love to goad the teacher into such ongoing interactions by asking the kind of questions you ask.
Gabriel, buddy, you seem to be taking this way too personal. It is just philosophizing on a computer screen. I have no idea why you are taking this so personally when I have not made it personal with you. But you are trying very hard to make it personal toward me. Again why the anger and hostility? If you won't answer that question then I probably will stop responding to you.
If you attempt to goad me further by referencing my Viking ancestry again, and my stature, implying "I'm not man enough to engage you further," or something like that (as you've already attempted); I would simply reply I have no interest in beating my chest against a computer screen. In a digital format true machismo, if that is what your after, will come across through intellectual discussion. That is going to be how I express my masculinity not a never-ending tit-for-tat of words which I would find childish on my part to engage in further.
I would much rather go out and "flex my muscles" in the weight room or the boxing ring or making money for my family. This is a recreational activity for me. I owe you nothing Gabrieal, not a single more ounce of my time if I don't feel like it. I engaged this public forum to possibly change my mind and stimulate thought for further reflection on my part. I'm not interested in acting macho with you like two rams butting heads, it's not making me money and not stimulating thought.
I find it interesting that you seem to be trying to poke holes in my contention that nature produces people like Joseph Smith, and so on atheism he was just a product of nature. In the process, in this thread I argued that Alpha Males are products of nature. I suspect you have a problem with saying Joseph Smith's "alphaness" was a product of nature. I would guess that you personally condemn such Alpha Behavior. Yet your responses toward me display alpha male aggressive traits. You seem to be wanting to to use verbal power plays to get the upper hand: using sarcasm, snarkiness and indirect insults. If you had come at it from a more polite and "Christian" (i.e. civil) demeanor, then your seeming concern for people with down syndrome would make more sense. To be clear, I never said anything about down syndrome. The fact that your own nature is driving you toward anger and hostility and attempting to one-up me is making my argument for me. What if I was autistic? If I was, would your behavior be appropriate?
Again you are taking things way too personal in your responses. I'm simply having a philosophical discussion. The theme of which is how can we as atheists and agnostics have moral outrage and moral indignation against Smith when he is a product of Nature; and your own behavior toward me Gabriel is a product of nature. How can you condemn Joseph Smith when you are revealing similar characteristic traits?
You also bring up the history of Vikings and pillaging. Are you aware that many Caucasian people today are the product of Viking raids and sex with Vikings?
I seem to have really got under your skin by asking you to live up to your own apparent claims that you are superior in knowledge to me on the subject, so you tell me the answer to your own question.
On Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:42 pm, I already answered your question:
Then on Sunday, Octb31, I followed up your refusal to answer my question by saying:
You have not answered my questions Gabriel; and in fact you have turned around and made my overall argument for me. You are seeking territory, rank and power. We are engaged in a stand-off, you asked me an irrelevant question (in my view) and I gave you a response. Asked and answered, Gabriel.
At this point I predict you're going to up the ante and make more snarky comments and attempt to insult me further. Your ego is clearly involved, and you're angry and hostile for no good reason. I have had the courage to express my thoughts and even divulge personal information and backed up my thoughts with arguments; you seem to be the one who is hiding. Hiding behind your anger and not answering my questions. I don't know anything about you.
Again, you are making my arguments for me. You won't answer my questions because I think you want to feel superior in knowledge, just like Joseph Smith sought to do (as we see in the King Follett Discourse as he tries to one-up the scholars of his day by claiming a superior knowledge of Hebrew).
Are you are afraid to answer your own question because it might reveal you are not superior in knowledge? Again, your communication in this thread makes my arguments for me to a large degree.
I'm going to presume you are an atheist, as that was the audience I was primarily addressing in the start of this thread. I pointed out that, on atheism it is difficult to have moral outrage against Joseph Smith as a product of nature.
You seem to make moral judgements against Joseph Smith for having alpha male traits and yet you yourself are exhibiting similar alpha male traits: being aggressive, one upping me, insulting me, goading me, and manipulating me into further interaction. While I have done nothing to instigate this and have said nothing to you personally. Are you aware of this behavior of yours?
I would venture to say that you would argue that Joseph Smith was a big jerk who was aggressive and manipulative with people, and insulted people, etc., and that was wrong, right Gabriel? Do you get where I'm going with this? You're acting like the person I presume you have condemned with moral outrage, while you yourself (with your own nature) are acting similar?
For example, you bring up the Happiness Letter, mocking my ancestry saying, "Your mighty forbears did not waste their time writing extravagant 'Happiness Letters' ..." In the Happiness Letter, Joseph Smith is being an aggressive male seeking sex and trying to goad Nancy into the response he wants, and manipulates her in his writings. And your behavior is likewise an aggressive male seeking superiority over another male and trying to goad him into a response and using manipulative tactics to do so. Yet, you probably have great moral indignation against Joseph Smith when he displayed the same or a similar nature and behavior as you are displaying?
Can you see the irony in that?
You seem to delight in mocking my Viking ancestry and my physical stature while verbally coming off someone beating his chest over and behind a computer screen. I have no idea what your ancestral lineage is, and I doubt you would tell me. But I would point out to you that many people on this board may have Scandinavian ancestry, so you are mocking them as well.
The irony is that the Vikings did in fact do a lot of raiding and pillaging that there's a good chance you Gabriel, have some Scandinavian DNA in you as well. Your welcome. Have you sequenced your DNA, as I have? I doubt you will tell me. If you do have any Scandinavian DNA in you, which you probably do, maybe a very low percentage I would guess since you are so ready to mock Scandinavians, then perhaps you would be condemning your own ancestry. Who knows?
At this point, if you keep asking the same question over and over again I'm going to find that rather immature. Asked and answered Gabriel. At this point I'm not going to answer your same question I already answered repeatedly.
I don't like your attitude, Gabriel. It makes no sense to me. I consider it irrational. I have not directed anything at you personally and have just been reacting to your attempted personal attacks. This board was not a personal letter to you. I never once brought up people with Down Syndrome. I'm actually confused by your behavior.
During my brief stint as a substitute teacher, I did for a brief time after college, I would sometimes refer to the classroom rules whenever a student was acting unruly and irrational. And if need be I would send the student to the office. So may I remind you:
You seem to be mocking my Scandinavian ancestry. Should I consider that a personal attack against my family members?
Again, asked and answered Gabriel. You're continuing on is a distraction to what I want which is a philosophical discussion. I have answered your question repeatedly. Why are you continuing to basically kind of harass me (like a flea you can't scratch off)? May I remind you of
And in case you try to mock me for bringing up "the rules," I would argue that maintaining rules is a masculine exercise. Without order there is chaos. Just spend some time in the military and you will see this. I would also guess that you condemn Joseph Smith for not following societal rules of proper conduct.
So let's move on shall we.
Let me see if I can condense your thesis in this forum (and correct me if I'm wrong). It seems that you are arguing that from a purely naturalistic, atheist worldview, one cannot condemn Joseph Smith; however one is perfectly free to admire him.
Not sure if you are being sincere there, but close. I would say I am arguing that from a purely naturalistic, atheist worldview, one can criticize Joseph Smith on modern-Christian morality, but on atheism it becomes more difficult. To "condemn" Smith, the atheist would need to criticize just about every highly masculine man that accomplished "great" things, as the drives that lead effective men to create or build amazing things, comes with traits that most men, the typical man, the "holy/good man" (the Nice Guy) does not have or does not express. Take any "great man" of history, that many men do admire for their accomplishments, and you will find much to criticize in their personal life. Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind. I like how Bill Burr puts it about Arnold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3g64swMf1M Note, that Burr is joking but sill makes a good point about great men and their greatness is not erased by their mistakes.
I might start a new thread to discuss whether or not Smith can be considered a "great man" from an amoral "Gentile" perspective. If I do I will go into more detail on my philosophical theory. But for now I will just leave you with Bill Burr.
Feel free, on atheism, to criticize and not like Smith, that is fine and consistent on atheism, but to "condemn" Smith whole cloth with an All or Nothing, Black and White, Negative Filter, is binary and is supernatural religious thinking. It smells to me of a theistic Christian worldview; as in thinking in terms of metaphysical Good or Evil, All Holy or All Devilish, it is binary. To condemn per the dictionary: "Full Definition of condemn ...1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil ...." Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn
I spent ten years as a critic of Smith and condemning me as an atheist, I had a blog and webpage at one point doing nothing but pointing out his errors and disking him and feeling moral outrage. But then I read Nietzsche and other modern atheists that are moral relativists. Since then I can see now that I was still operating from the Christian moral system, and such condemning gave me a sense of "moral superiority." Since then I have developed a more nuanced view of Smith, as a complex individual. There are many things about Smith I don't like and will criticize and do not endorse, but I can say the same thing about Arnold and Thomas Jefferson and just about any man today or of history that was powerful and effective and accomplished amazing things. I mean who can deny Arnold's effect on the world, I think he motivated millions to get in shape and was part of what spawned gym culture I have been a part of my whole life. Yet we can also criticize Arnold as Burr does.
I spent a few years condemning the men in my life (that are relatives), through a highly moralizing Christian point of view. Since then, I have stepped back and now see these men in my family and extended family are admiral in many ways. Yes they made/make mistakes, but whether or not it was their fitness, or becoming boxing and kickboxing champions, or gun shooting champions, or elite salesmen, or becoming rich and giving lots of money to charity, these relatives of mine I now see as complex and they have inspired me to step up and accomplish greater things in my own life.
I simply distinguish between a man's admiral Aristotelian/Nietzschean virtues and his problematic "vices." His vices do not erase his virtues. As Nietzsche says in TSZ, On the Pale Criminal (Parkes' translation), of a person who committed a crime: "'Enemy’ shall you say, but not ‘evil doer’; ‘sick man’ shall you say, but not ‘knave’ [an unscrupulous man]; ‘fool’ shall you say, but not ‘sinner’. ..." To condemn implies Smith was an "evil" man, a "sinner," a man without Christian scruples (i.e. a Christian conscience, not doing the metaphysical "right" thing). On atheism, this does not make sense; as with atheism there is no such thing as metaphysical evil, no actual scruples floating in the air we can catch and are metaphysically triggered by offending an actual deity that dictates the holy Right and devilish Wrong.
One can surmise from the section on the pale criminal, that if the criminal therein had not been taken over of the metaphorical “dogs in his cellar” (that he did not turn into singing birds), and if he had a “strong reason” and thought in practical terms of the consequences of his actions, he would have chose otherwise through the inner wisdom of his body. Likewise, Smith simply lacked wisdom at times and gave in to his primal instincts too much and allowed his ego at times to flare up too much. Yet it was those same primal drives and big ego that allowed him to fight against the sectarians of his day that said his brother Alvin was being tormented in hell forever, and made him able to unite his family around his new religion (Dan Vogel's theory), and generate an egalitarian humanistic religion that has done a lot of good in the world (with yes much "bad" as well depending on your perceptions). Same as we can say about Thomas Jefferson and the USA, and many other powerful men of history.
All philosophy is autobiographical, so for me a more nuanced view of Smith frees me up from any residual pent up anger and resentment (at how Mormonism impacted me personally), and this release of such tension, and resentment, empowers my consciousness and makes me feel better, more powerful. Rather than a chronic reductionist, deconstructing, debunking, and condemning stance, a reversal of my former TBM self that tended to "white wash" and defend Smith and all things LDS at all costs, I now seek to find value in the psychical "energy" of Smith's life and mythic work. How it can uplift and inspire? What lessons can it provide? Can it empower from a mythic humanistic perspective? And with this view of Smith as complex, I am not as reactionary and angry when Mormon friends and relatives bring up Mormonism. Instead of going off for thirty minutes on how the Book of Mormon is not history, if someone makes a point by bringing up Nephi, I can now smile and take their point with stoic grace.