[MD] Plains Talk and Pragmatism

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
This theory claims that religion caters to those who have been deprived of certain emotional and psychological needs. ...I don't think the deprivation theory of religion explains everything but it pretty well describes the psychological motives of many, if not most, religious people.

John replied:
I agree dave.  I'd add the caveat, however, that it also describes the experience of a vast number of people.  Who doesn't need love, acceptance, certainty and a sense of meaning or purpose in their lives?  Point out those people to me, so I have an idea of your "control" group, anyway.


dmb says:

You're not getting the point. Let me give it to you in plain talk: Needy people can't think straight. True believers are not flexible thinkers. How is this simple and obvious point even debatable? 
Yes, of course, people need love and acceptance. Nobody thinks otherwise. The issue is whether or not it's appropriate to adopt philosophical positions in order to get love and acceptance. Those needs are supposed to be supplied by your friends, family and community. Can you CREATE meaning and purpose in your life or are you going to rely on tradition to tell you what your "purpose" is? Are you going to practice the art of living or are you going to paint by numbers? If you're willing to swallow the old ready-made answers because of the way they meet your basic emotional needs, then you're not really prepared to think freely. See, it's called the "deprivation theory" because we are talking about the thought style of people who have been deprived of these essential human needs. But philosophy is not supposed to meet these needs. These needs are supposed to be supplied by the people in your life, not a belief system. Philosophy is not your mommy and this discussion group is not here to serve your emotional needs. That's all I'm saying. Truth isn't about being loved or accepted, you know? It's about intellectual excellence, not social acceptance. 




dmb said:
...the radical empiricist insists that we ought not go beyond the experience to assert supernatural entities as the cause of such experience.


John replied:
 I'd say Absolute Idealism agrees there. 



dmb says:

Absolute Idealism is theism. The Absolute is its non-anthropomorphic God. Pirsig's description of the MOQ as atheistic and anti-theistic was directed at that particular version of God. I've tried to explain this several times already but you cannot or will not hear it. In fact, you just recently asked about the anti-theism right AFTER I answered it. That just kills me. And then you wonder why I'm not too interested in discussing it with you. 

John said:
... Some men value truth, dave.  And there's clearly an impelling force to hearing truth, even when it rocks your world, attacks your views and changes your agenda.  To those who pursue this ring of truth, pretty soon worlds, views and agendas don't mean nearly so much as this ring of truth.  These then, are philosophers.  And them I salute, everywhere.

dmb says:
That's right. And I am saying that some people can not be philosophers and can not pursue truth IF their basic human needs have NOT been fulfilled. Famously, people who have been deprived of these needs will look for love in all the wrong places. Strip joints, show business and the churches are dominated these people. This is a relatively solid and uncontroversial truth in developmental psychology. We have a hierarchy of needs (Maslow) that lines up pretty well with the MOQ's levels. But common sense also tells us that seeking social acceptance is very different from seeking intellectual acceptance. Or at least it should, John. But apparently you've got some fairly serious self-esteem issues you're trying to work that out rather than actually do any real philosophizing. It's always about John and never about the MOQ. You are simply too self-absorbed and too defensive to play this little game we call metaphysics.