Sarvottama
@premavardhanam
Followers
695
Following
8K
Media
1K
Statuses
8K
aniravacanīyaṁ premasvarūpam |
Joined April 2022
...
Hereditary peers to be removed from Lords as bill passes
0
0
0
Ok perhaps this was excessively harsh
While DBH's critics are often quite a bit stupider than him, I do have nothing but distain for the brand of bloodless "faith" he and his ilk offer. Many of his critics might be idiots, but at least they're idiots with beating hearts. And having a heart is far more important.
1
0
5
What exactly is this supposed to prove? Plenty of other people *have* been indisputably murdered for being gay. If his murder had nothing to do with his sexuality then people can just... slot someone else in to use as a symbol
he was murdered in a meth deal gone bad by one of his own fecal exchange buddies but the case was rewritten into “homophobic rednecks kill innocent gay boy” to push anti-hate crime legislation. the entire foundation of social liberalism is built on fictional stories like this
1
0
2
While the sentiment behind the quote is certainly admirable, one cannot but help thinking of Saint Augustine's rather... belaboured interpretation of 1 Peter 3, to put it charitably
2
0
5
If I was Proclus in the Percy Jackson-verse I'd be mad as hell. Wrote all that about henads and stuff and the whole time Zeus is just Some Guy
2
1
11
Obviously women are socialised into exhibiting far more exensive grooming habits and as a result the average woman does look far better than the average man, so it does make sense somewhat, but that doesn't explain the level of sheer incomprehension they occaisonally exhibit.
1
0
4
A lot of straight men sometimes seem like they don't realise they *have* sexualities in the sense of enduring affective orientations towards the opposite sex. They think their attraction to women is the result of some objective arbitration of the aesthetic merits of each sex lol
1
0
5
Why is it that straight men tend to have uniquely bad theory of mind about sexualities that diverge from their own? They're obviously not incapable of perceiving that attractive men exist.
2
2
12
This might be a bit of a radical suggestion but both a given individual and their opponents can have profoundly uninformed views on a subject in different ways
Maybe don't admit that his critics are stupid? It's tantamount to admitting you don't understand him. Like, you can't say he misunderstands Hinduism when his critics don't understand it either (and, frankly, probably even less).
1
0
1
I ratiod the original post?
Ah yes, the central figure of Hinduism, Mohandas Gandhi
0
0
3
While DBH's critics are often quite a bit stupider than him, I do have nothing but distain for the brand of bloodless "faith" he and his ilk offer. Many of his critics might be idiots, but at least they're idiots with beating hearts. And having a heart is far more important.
5
0
15
Ah yes, the central figure of Hinduism, Mohandas Gandhi
60
713
18K
You might say that that's just insulating the argument from counterexamples, but that ignores the fact we have quite strong independent indications that this particular class of examples is not as epistemically valuable as it may first appear.
0
0
0
Such an assertion would only become inconsistent if buttressed by a quite strong assertion of introspective transparency, which manages to fly in the faces of both cognitive science and common sense simultaneously. "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."
1
0
1
So, earnestly asserting a belief in infernalism is not really a counterexample, because the possibility of an individual earnestly asserting a belief in infernalism isn't actually inconsistent with the contention he is making. What he is denying is its epistemic value.
1
0
2
That isn't really relevant to that quote. The contention DBH is making is that the processes constituting belief formation are often introspectively opaque and therefore that first-person statements cannot necessarily be taken as definitive with regards to them.
No, actually. David Bentley Hart, being a non-Christian, is wrong. I am an “infernalist”, and I firmly believe that hell is real, eternal, and people go there.
1
0
2
I love these posts because they present a cold mathematical fact then try to soften the heavy blow with some non-sequitur pop psychology. No, the real meaning is that no matter how much agency you exercise, everyone older than early 20s is already basically a walking corpse.
When you’re 5 years old, a year is 20% of your life. And when you’re 50 years old, a year is 2% of your life. This is an explanation given why time speeds up as you age. It's called Janet's law. It states you’ve experienced roughly half of your perceived by life by 20 years old.
55
48
1K
"Oh, when shall my eyes by graced by the sight of the face of the Lord, before whose beauty all the words of the sages falter, who the sages search for again in vain, yet who is manifest afore the sight of the damsels of Vraja, and who steals the minds of every soul alive?"
1
0
10