Nothing really predates classes. Classes existed since the first civilizations on Earth. You might be claiming it predates capitalism and that’s definitely true but the ruling/working class divide is much older than capitalism.
Having a belief system is different from having a religion. Organized religion likely came about out of the need to legitimize power structures (otherwise, why the hell would the populace, which outnumber the ruling class, not fight back against their injustices?)
You are right that the San seem to have a classless (or, as wikipedia describes it, egalitarian) society. So it works as a counter-example to my claim that “nothing predates classes”.
otherwise, why the hell would the populace, which outnumber the ruling class, not fight back against their injustices
I don’t really know, seems like something that “Political Sociology” treats. Experiments (like the popular Stanford prison experiment) were done on multiple frameworks, and suggest so many variables to explain division among people of same class. Restricting interpretation to religion (while there are so many belief systems) seems to me like oversimplification. Like We had secular states eventually, and it’s not like classes vanished, or authoritarian regimes stopped being.
In my personal opinion, the division is the most interesting aspect of why people fail to do anything about their (our actually) miserable state. Because when you know that doing a protest leads you to receive sexual violence (rape using electricity&pipes) from the prison guard (who is actually from the same class as you), and the people for whom you did protest will just denounce you for doing “chaos” in the “peaceful” country, it makes sense that you wouldn’t bother.
Here I’m thinking about the current Egyptian regime, which has a documented historical relationship with Soviet / Russian security methods (training, organization, approach of secret policing).
Why people are deceived by scholars of the palace? That would buffle me for eternity when The Prophet of Islam said:
“The most feared thing I fear for my Ummah — community — are the misguided leaders and corrupt scholars.”
“When knowledge is sought for other than Allah, it will be removed from the people until only the scholars of evil remain.”
(Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani — meaning: those who use knowledge for power or wealth.)
“The best jihad is a word of truth before a tyrannical ruler.”
(Sunan al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)
His grandson Also died refusing to accept the undemocratic rule of monarchy (in before there used to be a system of election after the Prophet’s death): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali#Uprising
ps: the Wikipedia article isn’t the best, but I just want to bring the revolutionary aspect of my religion to your attention.
Theology is a discipline, almost as old as mathematics. It predates classes to begin with.
BULLSHIT.
The theocrat was the original ‘high class’. The priests have been grifting the commons since day one. All knowing, all loving, all powerful god, WHO SOMEHOW NEEDS TEN PERCENT OF MY EARNINGS?
theology is a discipline of grift and deceiving the masses.
zakat is actually 2.5% of your hoarded (for a whole year) money that exceeds 87.48 grams of gold, given to the poor. Shouldn’t that actually be a means to elimination of class ?
Doesn’t sound particularly progressive. 87g of gold is like $10k and it’s a flat rate. Empirically there are plenty of Muslim billionaires anyway, so it ain’t working. Would be interesting to tot up billionaires per capita by religion but I don’t think it would be particularly meaningful because the US skews everything, and how “practicing” someone is of their religion is impossible to measure.
Just the normalizaton of this practice is good ngl.
If a billionaire donates 2.5% of his money out of their goodwill they get bunch of supporters and tax breaks and people forget allegation on how they raped someone and so on.
Meanwhile even kings, who could do whatever the fuck at the time, were expected donate at least 2.5% in 600s.
More progressive taxing can not only be justified in hindsight of modern capitalism, but can become commonplace and expected too.
Also unrelated but not a single king quit being royalty because they had to donate 2.5% of their ownings so that “taxing the billionaires would unmotivate people to start business” was absolute bs for a good 1400 years lmao.
They ask you, [O Muhammad], what they should spend. Say, “Whatever you spend of good is [to be] for parents and relatives and orphans and the needy and the traveler. And whatever you do of good - indeed, Allah is Knowing of it.” 1
just like christians and the good samaritan - they know it’s part of their core beliefs but… ¯_ (ツ)_/¯ they choose to keep giving money to anyone but the ones who truly need it.
why is it so hard for believers to actually hew to the values their beliefs are built around? so strange… it’s like, they believe in an all powerful deity but somehow think he won’t notice them ignoring the needy?
and it’s not all believers. goodness knows. but so many…
If you’re basing on Saudi Arabia or UAE, please notice that you’re basing on a country that is pro Israel, meaning literally invaded.
I’m not differentiating between any of the nutbags’ devotion to their invisible friends.
pro, anti, militant, orthodox, it’s all bullshit and doesn’t need further investigation.
if people would stop listening to their invisible friends and actually care for one another as neighbors, 99% of the issues driving world conflict would evaporate and leave us to focus on the things that are real threats, like climate, AI, equality etc.
but no, jamal and isaac and billions of others are too fucking obsessed about what THEIR IMAGINARY FUCKING FRIENDS THINK SO THEY GO 'A MURDERIN.
they don’t even care what their own holy books said. what their own prophets said. religion can build cathedrals and mosques, gorgeous, but it can’t stop pitting one pile of ants against the others, and as far as I can tell, it’s never going to stop until the species grows the fuck up or destroys itself.
How exactly is it a science? A philosophical persuit? Most definitely and a very serious one at that. But a science? Not sure how the scientific method applies
ngl, I had to google to realize that English word “science” doesn’t encapsulate things like mathematics, law, literature…ect. I used a literal translation here, mah bad. I should’ve said discipline or study here. Thanks for pointing it.
haven’t you ever heard of christian science? it’s not science either, by scientific standards, but believers LOVE to muddy the waters and cast their FAITH as something tangible, provable, worthy of science.
It’s all a distraction, again, from actual science.
Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like “if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion”. After you’ve developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn’t tell us anything about reality.
idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems” to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
What does strong mean in this context? It’s a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn’t tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.
theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God
they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.
Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know
LOLOLOL
it’s repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it’s consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.
this really isn’t a discussion I’m interested in continuing.
In their 2017 paper (opens a new tab), published in Physical Review Letters, Turok and his co-authors approached Hartle and Hawking’s no-boundary proposal with new mathematical techniques that, in their view, make its predictions much more concrete than before. “We discovered that it just failed miserably,” Turok said. “It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.” The trio checked their math and queried their underlying assumptions before going public, but “unfortunately,” Turok said, “it just seemed to be inescapable that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was a disaster.”
both are bigotry actually. Theology is a discipline, almost as old as mathematics. It predates classes to begin with. EDIT: edited a word.
Nothing really predates classes. Classes existed since the first civilizations on Earth. You might be claiming it predates capitalism and that’s definitely true but the ruling/working class divide is much older than capitalism.
I tried to discuss with ChatGPT and he suggested:
Does this work as a counter example ?
Having a belief system is different from having a religion. Organized religion likely came about out of the need to legitimize power structures (otherwise, why the hell would the populace, which outnumber the ruling class, not fight back against their injustices?)
You are right that the San seem to have a classless (or, as wikipedia describes it, egalitarian) society. So it works as a counter-example to my claim that “nothing predates classes”.
I don’t really know, seems like something that “Political Sociology” treats. Experiments (like the popular Stanford prison experiment) were done on multiple frameworks, and suggest so many variables to explain division among people of same class. Restricting interpretation to religion (while there are so many belief systems) seems to me like oversimplification. Like We had secular states eventually, and it’s not like classes vanished, or authoritarian regimes stopped being.
In my personal opinion, the division is the most interesting aspect of why people fail to do anything about their (our actually) miserable state. Because when you know that doing a protest leads you to receive sexual violence (rape using electricity&pipes) from the prison guard (who is actually from the same class as you), and the people for whom you did protest will just denounce you for doing “chaos” in the “peaceful” country, it makes sense that you wouldn’t bother.
Here I’m thinking about the current Egyptian regime, which has a documented historical relationship with Soviet / Russian security methods (training, organization, approach of secret policing).
Why people are deceived by scholars of the palace? That would buffle me for eternity when The Prophet of Islam said:
(Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani — meaning: those who use knowledge for power or wealth.)
(Sunan al-Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)
His grandson Also died refusing to accept the undemocratic rule of monarchy (in before there used to be a system of election after the Prophet’s death): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali#Uprising
ps: the Wikipedia article isn’t the best, but I just want to bring the revolutionary aspect of my religion to your attention.
BULLSHIT.
The theocrat was the original ‘high class’. The priests have been grifting the commons since day one. All knowing, all loving, all powerful god, WHO SOMEHOW NEEDS TEN PERCENT OF MY EARNINGS?
theology is a discipline of grift and deceiving the masses.
zakat is actually 2.5% of your hoarded (for a whole year) money that exceeds 87.48 grams of gold, given to the poor. Shouldn’t that actually be a means to elimination of class ?
Doesn’t sound particularly progressive. 87g of gold is like $10k and it’s a flat rate. Empirically there are plenty of Muslim billionaires anyway, so it ain’t working. Would be interesting to tot up billionaires per capita by religion but I don’t think it would be particularly meaningful because the US skews everything, and how “practicing” someone is of their religion is impossible to measure.
Just the normalizaton of this practice is good ngl.
If a billionaire donates 2.5% of his money out of their goodwill they get bunch of supporters and tax breaks and people forget allegation on how they raped someone and so on.
Meanwhile even kings, who could do whatever the fuck at the time, were expected donate at least 2.5% in 600s.
More progressive taxing can not only be justified in hindsight of modern capitalism, but can become commonplace and expected too.
Also unrelated but not a single king quit being royalty because they had to donate 2.5% of their ownings so that “taxing the billionaires would unmotivate people to start business” was absolute bs for a good 1400 years lmao.
Under an Islamic rule, the Muslim is forced to do this donation. And Muslim billionaires are not all of a sudden all pious because they have this label. Islamic law doesn’t eliminate the need to study politics and sociology you know. Many Muslim scholars, claimed that it could in fact end the poverty in the Islamic world if really all obliged muslims paid their zakat (which is a requirement for Islam, not like a side quest, and should be enforced legally), among them Dr. Abd Al-Rahman bin Hamood Al-Sumait a humanitarian. This might appeal to you?: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jun/22/zakat-requires-muslims-to-donate-25-of-their-wealth-could-this-end-poverty
“Doesn’t eliminate the need to study sociology”. Well, quite.
give money to the poor any day. giving it to a church, temple, mosque etc., is just ignoring the truly needy.
I know right?
just like christians and the good samaritan - they know it’s part of their core beliefs but… ¯_ (ツ)_/¯ they choose to keep giving money to anyone but the ones who truly need it.
why is it so hard for believers to actually hew to the values their beliefs are built around? so strange… it’s like, they believe in an all powerful deity but somehow think he won’t notice them ignoring the needy?
and it’s not all believers. goodness knows. but so many…
Are you using “Tu Quoque” here? basing on a “Hasty Generalization” I assume ?
If you’re basing on Saudi Arabia or UAE, please notice that you’re basing on a country that is pro Israel, meaning literally invaded.
I’m not differentiating between any of the nutbags’ devotion to their invisible friends.
pro, anti, militant, orthodox, it’s all bullshit and doesn’t need further investigation.
if people would stop listening to their invisible friends and actually care for one another as neighbors, 99% of the issues driving world conflict would evaporate and leave us to focus on the things that are real threats, like climate, AI, equality etc.
but no, jamal and isaac and billions of others are too fucking obsessed about what THEIR IMAGINARY FUCKING FRIENDS THINK SO THEY GO 'A MURDERIN.
they don’t even care what their own holy books said. what their own prophets said. religion can build cathedrals and mosques, gorgeous, but it can’t stop pitting one pile of ants against the others, and as far as I can tell, it’s never going to stop until the species grows the fuck up or destroys itself.
You know, you’re clearly spreading hate with this comment, there is nothing I can answer, this comment is straight up dogma.
Huh seems like you need that to be the truth 🤷♂️
How exactly is it a science? A philosophical persuit? Most definitely and a very serious one at that. But a science? Not sure how the scientific method applies
ngl, I had to google to realize that English word “science” doesn’t encapsulate things like mathematics, law, literature…ect. I used a literal translation here, mah bad. I should’ve said discipline or study here. Thanks for pointing it.
Unfortunately, this happens in English alot. Well have five words to discuss a concept, but all slightly differently and they’re not interchangeable
haven’t you ever heard of christian science? it’s not science either, by scientific standards, but believers LOVE to muddy the waters and cast their FAITH as something tangible, provable, worthy of science.
It’s all a distraction, again, from actual science.
yes, theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
If you refute logic/reason cuz you only like science that you experiment on, then you’re too caught in the material buddy. Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know ? Please don’t tell me you refute it too.
I notice that the word I know in my language kalam is a little different from theology, but theology is the closest translation I have.
Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like “if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion”. After you’ve developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn’t tell us anything about reality.
idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems” to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
Yes, few inputs. Not none.
What does strong mean in this context? It’s a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn’t tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.
hmm, idk, okay.
they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.
LOLOLOL
it’s repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it’s consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.
this really isn’t a discussion I’m interested in continuing.
I feel like I know who you’re quoting, and I remember encountering: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
to quote the part that appeals to me: