Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

a definition

Bill Dog (726542) writes | about 5 years ago

Quickies 18

Society: A group of people and their shared set of fictions that they've agreed unspokenly to pretend are real.

Society: A group of people and their shared set of fictions that they've agreed unspokenly to pretend are real.

cancel ×

18 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29383939)

Hmmmm, does that include their deities??

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 5 years ago | (#29384487)

It used to. Until one society decided to instead give up on morality and try tolerance instead. Jury's still out on whether or not that society will survive more than three centuries though.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29385085)

Maybe that's what we're supposed to learn. (Barack can't be our only "god" who, with a feeling of superiority, uses "teaching moments".) That ultimately any form of society other than theocracy is doomed to fail.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29385185)

Only three? More like 60 to 100 centuries. Morality was forsaken when the patriarchy took over.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 5 years ago | (#29390351)

Only three? More like 60 to 100 centuries. Morality was forsaken when the patriarchy took over.
 
No, the patriarchy by definition enforced morality- that's what FATHERS are supposed to do. I realize that many Americans have no experience with real fatherhood, and I suspect that's why they're addicted to individuality and private citizenship.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29392645)

No, the father's job is to provide food and shelter and security, and teach the male children likewise. The MOTHER is the rightful moral authority. The mother guides. The father seeks to impose, which when it comes to hunting and gathering, might be necessary for one's safety. But only the mother can dispense morality. And the matriarchy is much more pro life. Our downfall began when the males took over and subjugated the females.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 5 years ago | (#29392821)

No, the father's job is to provide food and shelter and security, and teach the male children likewise.
 
Morality, when imposed, provides security. A lack of morality is a lack of security. Tolerance of that which is immoral directly impacts security.
 
  The MOTHER is the rightful moral authority. The mother guides. The father seeks to impose, which when it comes to hunting and gathering, might be necessary for one's safety.
 
The problem with the mother is that she only guides- she does not impose right and wrong, and true morality is *always* black and white- that which is necessary for safety and security.
 
  But only the mother can dispense morality. And the matriarchy is much more pro life.
 
Then why, if the matriarchy is pro-life, did the first thing the feminists do when they got power, start allowing mothers to kill their children?
 
  Our downfall began when the males took over and subjugated the females.
 
Yeah, right. And feminists don't kill their children.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29393687)

Feminism is not a matriarchy. They just want to be one of the guys. More. They want to be above the guys. They are wannabe patriarchs. This how a particular environment can pervert one's instincts in the attempt to suppress them. Hardly compares to what I'm talking about.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29384759)

Clearly the implication in my definition is that the fictions are known to be.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29385233)

If it isn't a proven fact, then it's fiction, or at best a theory or hypothesis. Note, I'm not disagreeing with your original statement in the JE. I just wonder if it's all inclusive, or if your particular, personal shared set of fictions are exempt.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29385717)

In my previous comment:
s/the fictions are known to be/the fictions are known to be, by the people

That is, my JE definition refers to fictions that people know are fictions. (Hence the "pretending" part?) With the occasional exception of for example a politician being a total fake at being a believer (if only I could think of one right now ;) deity followers are not pretending to believe something's true and talking and acting like it is when they know it's really not.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29386395)

deity followers are not pretending to believe something's true and talking and acting like it is when they know it's really not.

Now see? That right there is a big fiction. In fact probably one of the bigger ones. I contend that quite the opposite is true. The deity is nothing more than Santa Clause for adults. And they act it out for their kids. And some pretend so they don't have to hear about it from their parents. And a hell of a lot of preachers don't believe in what they preach. Some more famously than others. Religious fiction runs rampant in almost all societies. You may think the leaders actually believe, but they don't. It's a business, based on pure fantasy. Only the most fanatical are singing to their gods while counting the money.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29388043)

You AC are a living example of the question of the ages: Which comes first, the atheism or the brain dysfunction. Because each one causes the other, so it's a chicken-and-egg eternal puzzler. I don't know how you got that way, but I'm *pretty sure* that if you actually think that I and fellow believers and the preachers in churches all across the country and world are all just secretly faking it, well, then there's no hope for you. In more ways than one.

Re:shared set of fictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29391529)

No, what you're doing is simply playing "follow the leader". You believe what you are told in order to appeal to their authority. It really boils down to you looking for a piece of that pie. There's no "chicken and egg" thing here. It's very simple. People are scared of things they don't understand, and those that do, under the guise of "education", will antagonize those fears by demanding strict obedience, or they will be "damned to hell". Very old trick. You make think you believe, but in reality, you're scared shitless of what's ahead. So of course you're going to cling to anything that has the remotest possibility of alleviating those fears, but helps not one whit in understanding. Religion makes you feel good... through fiction.

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

dedazo (737510) | about 5 years ago | (#29429489)

Truly religious people (those who are honest about their value system) don't operate on the assumption that their beliefs are fiction. They believe that the guy in the sky is real and that his influence on our reality can be successfully measured and quantified.

They are as convinced of that as much as a particle physicist is of the existence and measurable, observable behavior of a proton or electron.

That doesn't make it any better of course, nor does it make it any less fictional. But not all religious [nuts] are hypocritical like that.

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29433079)

It looks like this was meant as a response to the AC's assertion that believers are faking it?

As I see that you are not a believer ("nor does it make it any less fictional"), and as a religious [nut] myself, I would say that even this is not necessarily the case of believers:

that his influence on our reality can be successfully measured and quantified

Maybe some haven't thought about it much, but those of us who have, I think have concluded (and are strangely okay with) that, in effect and also by definition, that which is supernatural, where the prefix "super" means "outside of", cannot be measured or quantified by natural means.

If you think about it, any religion that could be "proved", wouldn't then require faith. And to me at least that's what makes a religion a religion -- something that requires just taking it on faith. Whether it is a religion about the supernatural (like Christianity) or the natural (like Darwinism).

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

dedazo (737510) | about 5 years ago | (#29443009)

If you think about it, any religion that could be "proved", wouldn't then require faith.

No, I understand that. It's a basic premise of religious belief. My mother is a devout catholic. I was raised as a catholic. I understand Christian theology better than most self-proclaimed atheists. As with technology, I intensely dislike people who attack things they haven't taken the time to understand.

Now... I do not agree with it, but I will gladly go to war to defend your right to exercise your beliefs in peace and tranquility :)

or the natural (like Darwinism).

I don't have to believe in evolutionary theory. It does not require faith, so it's not a religion. I can look at the existing evidence and decide if I agree with the scientific methodology that produces its basic theoretical basis. I can challenge it if I have a differing conjecture or even conflicting evidence. Last time I looked the Vatican did not allow for any of that.

Still, I do not think it's appropriate to apply the scientific method to religious beliefs. That's just a clever cop-out tactic cooked up by people who are hostile to religion. Just don't tell me 'Darwinism' is a religion and we'll be OK :)

Re:shared set of fictions (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29446483)

We're prolly going to want to just resolve to being okay with not being okay with this, and here's why: Darwinism is a religion due to the nature of "evidence". Maybe you think "evidence" is "stuff, that indicates something". It's not. "Evidence" is "stuff" + "an assigned meaning to said stuff". For example with the religion of Christianity, some would claim that things like the Bible and the number of believers and cataclysmic events and inexplicable curings and other physical manifestations are "evidence" that what Christianity teaches is true. Now you may say that that's not evidence at all. But it is all undeniably "stuff", it's just that you don't agree with the meaning(s) being assigned to it. Similarly with the religion of Darwinism. These are not of logical syllogisms, where you can objectively ascertain whether or not A leads to B, where one can "know" that this bone or that book means the truth of the teachings.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>