I thought that the talk was very interesting. I thought he made some really good points.

I think that his thesis about replacing religion with culture is a good starting point, but needs to be clarified. And I thought that he did an ok job about the clarifying.

What I think though, he missed but probably thought of is that one of the biggest downfalls to religion has been the utter lack of dialogue/criticism.

So, when he talks about the power of institutions and of the sermon, what troubled me is that the goal of institutions is to survive. And throughout human history survival of many institutions has been about crushing dissenters. Maybe we have gotten past that, and institutions can handle internal dissent and institutions must adapt or be destroyed/replaced.

The sermon thing is more about a lack of dialogue. So while sermons are good, possibly debates are better.

Possibly.

The last thing he talked about at the very end was "politeness." The one thing that bugs me about this is that there is a difference between politeness, rudeness, and GOOD comedic ridicule.

We ALWAYS need good comedic ridicule. This is where criticism of ourselves/others is often more easily accepted. Being able to joke and laugh at our own foibles as humans has definitely progressed civilization because the POINT is to show where our institutions', cultures', and human frailties' harm us. And through jokes it's often easier to accept change.

So anyone who says, "Let's stop the ridicule." I'll just disagree with right then and there. Sure, there's a difference between just being outright rude to someone and making a joke. But to authoritarian institutions/ideas they'll ALWAYS play the "you're ridiculing our beliefs" card even when you make extremely funny and effective jokes. Because it is true that you do need at least a little rudeness or ridicule to make an effective joke.

Example:
http://youtu.be/Tapt3XHJO8E

Replacing religion with a culture that uses art, not as art, but to "guide" people (aka, propaganda) is replacing one institution that uses propaganda to manipulate people's lives with another.

No, things like art should not be used to push one person's, or one group of peoples ideas of how the rest of us should be "guided". Art that guides people should be left behind as a bad idea in history. Leave the "Triumph of the Will" behind and create a world that is based on open discussions of ideas and not propagandized art or culture. Keep in mind that I see a distinction between someone expressing their ideas through art vs. a deliberate attempt to use art, not as art, but as a tool to push society in one direction or another (guide).

Let us, the people create what culture we want, and let art reflect that culture, and not push somebodies idea of what culture should be.

As far as "politeness" the USA was not founded using polite means, no protest that uses civil disobedience can claim they are polite. Civil change, more often than people would like to admit, is brought about by people being rude.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2012 11:06PM by MJ.

All culture creates art. If atheist artist create art they should feel free to use the medium to express those beliefs. If an atheist community wants to support or commision art that exemplifies and celebrates their beliefs, I say they have just as much right as Mormons or Catholics or any religion to do so. If some people view that art as propaganda or offensive thats tough. I don't see them being concerned that people might view their religious art as propaganda or trying to tell people how to live. We need a counter balance. We need art and music and literature to communicate secular rational values and hero stories as much as any other human belief system.

MJ I understand where you are coming from. No one should be telling artist what art they should make, but by the same token they should not be discouraged from creating art the celebrates the rational and scientific achievements of humanity over fear hatered and intolerance.

We need art and science to help create a secular identity that people who share that world view can identify with and use as symbols of their values and who they are.

helemon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All culture creates art.

That is correct, it is CULTURE that should create art, not art being forced to creating a culture.

>
>
> MJ I understand where you are coming from. No one
> should be telling artist what art they should
> make, but by the same token they should not be
> discouraged from creating art the celebrates the
> rational and scientific achievements of humanity
> over fear hatered and intolerance.

And where have I ever said they should be discouraged from creating art that celebrates anything? I have said no such thing, to imply that I have would be a lie. I have repeatedly said stuff like "Keep in mind that I see a distinction between someone expressing their ideas through art vs. a deliberate attempt to use art, not as art, but as a tool to push society in one direction or another (guide)." and "I know of nobody that says that art can not have a message, but that is the way this clown interpretive it. His insistence that art MUST teach what the artists beliefs is nonsense." Clearly I was pointing out a difference between artistic expression even using art to deliver a message, art as art, vs propaganda, art, not as art, but as a tool of cultural manipulation.

Please to not imply that I have said something I clearly have not.

I an not discouraging anything but the use of art as propaganda aimed at instilling one culture over another. It is the lecturer that is trying to limit art by basically saying that art should not be for art's sake, but should be used as a tool to manipulate society.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 01:54AM by MJ.

Stay away from art criticism & theory. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Cheers!

Since I was not criticizing any art nor discussing any artistic "theory", it seems you are the one that does not know what they are talking about.

To make it simple enough for you to understand, I was talking about how art should and does relate to culture, that is not a criticism of art and that has nothing to do with artistic theory.

You should not butt in on subjects to which you are so ill informed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 01:17AM by MJ.

"I was talking about how art should and does relate to culture, that is not a criticism of art and that has nothing to do with artistic theory."

How art *relates* to culture IS art criticism. How art *should* relate to culture IS art theory. I rest my case: anyone who thinks up a statement like yours and has the temerity to hit the "post" button is talking straight out of the very secure position of complete and utter ignorance.

So I encourage you to really do try for once in your RfM life to not be a contrarian to the point that you make a supreme fool out of yourself. Go back to gay activism, an area in which you at least know the barest minimum necessary to practice.

Discussing an idea or concept is NOT THE SAME AS criticizing the idea or concept. But even as that, I am NOT discussing art as anything other than a broad concept and not actually criticizing any aspect of artistic expression or art. I AM criticizing that someone claims that art should be propaganda, but that is not a criticism of ART, it is a criticism that that person's idea. Can you at least see that difference?

Discussing how art relates to something other than art is NOT art theory. Art theory is design, composition, color, medium, esthetics's, etc. Discussing how art relates to culture is about INFLUENCE, not theory. I am talking about how something that is not "art", influences art "theory" but that is not the same as discussing art theory.

I was not the one that is insisting that there is a "should" when it comes to art (that would be Bottom, in the video making such claims), I am, in fact, arguing against the idea proposed by Bottom that art SHOULD be about "guiding" culture.

If you have actually read everything I have posted on this subject, you would know that I am a proponent of "art for art's sake" meaning that art is what ever the artist creates and art isn't about what art "should" be. In by discussing what art "should" be I am saying that it SHOULDN'T be anything other than ART. Get it? In discussing what art should be, a valid point is that art "shouldn't" be anything other than art.

You really are very hard and very unsuccessfully to twist words and definitions into something they are not.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 02:38AM by MJ.

A contrarian, a supreme fool, and an abuser of the English language. And you insist on CLEARLY demonstrating how little you know about art, art theory, art criticism, or the place of art in modern culture. Every word you write, whether in response to myself or others, betrays your desperate and obviously intentional ignorance about art, cultural studies, semiotics, aesthetic values, relativism, ...

Why not drag yourself to the library and ask for a book about art criticism (or any other of the topics noted above) so that you can educate your dense self w.r.t. the specific meanings of terms like "criticism" when used in relation to words like "art"? I could offer you several suggestions but you are such a contrary & argumentative sort that I fear any specific mention would bias you against that which should only improve you. You should probably restrain yourself from arguing with any unfortunate librarians who happen to cross your path: they are only there to help you.

Good luck with your issues.

Art has always been use as propaganda. What else is new?

Claiming that art has always been used for propaganda does not address what we are discussing, which is; should the primary purpose of art be propaganda.

Get it? We are discussing the idea if it is a good idea to claim that the primary purpose of art should be propaganda.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 02:35AM by MJ.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,401544,401544#msg-401544

Link to the original thread.

And for brevity's sakes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

I think lecture and instruction has its place. The difference between a lecture and a sermon is a sermon does not encourage questions and discussion. The preacher wants an "amen" not a "say what"? I am not sure debate is the best method either because it can so easily be used to humiliate and shame some on less skilled or informed. I think we need open discussion with out prejudice or judgement. An environment where people are free to ask and say things that may be very ignorant or wrong as long as the person asking the question asks it with a willingness to be corrected or be shown another point of view or evidence that might prove them wrong.

Both lecture and sermon denote an authority that is imparting their knowledge to others that lack that knowledge.

In terms of something like culture, all individuals should be allowed to bring who they are to society and have who they are contribute to defining that societies culture. Society should not use culture to define who the individuals should be. Using a culture to define who an individual is or should be, is exactly what the LDS does in Utah.

Replacing religion with "culture" as a means of controlling who people are is just replacing one bad idea with, well, the same bad idea.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 01:55AM by MJ.

Cultures need their elders and teachers to relay the stories to the next feneration. I am fine with someone lecturing me. I would be fine with Dawkins or De Grasee Tyson lecturing me. I would be fine being lectured to by Hawkins or Harris. These are people who are experts in their field and I can learn from them. There is nothing wrong with such communications. If there are areas where I am an expert and could help inform someone else, I would be happy to give a lecture.

I have been talking about using art as propaganda to push a culture on others. I didn't mean to say there was not a place for lecturing, provided lecturing is about imparting knowledge not propaganda.

and what is propaganda?
one mans knowledge is another mans propaganda!!
just sayin...:)

Imparting knowledge does not mean it has to be taught as unchallengeable fact that we must accept as true because that is the "guidance" bottom insists we all need.

But hey, keep on thinking that imparting the knowledge of how to write, how to add and subtract, is indistinguishable from propaganda, Bwahshshshshshsh,.


Whatever dude.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 01:12PM by MJ.

I didn't mean to say there was not a place for lecturing, provided lecturing is about imparting knowledge not propaganda.

in your sentance you say nothing about culture...my point is how does one decide what is proaganda and what is knowledge? Propaganda to you may but just knowledge to me...you qualified your statemnet with the "provided"...just sayin

My hole conversation has been about culture, to take one sentence out of the context of a discussion about the use of culture to try to act as if I am saying something I have not is BULL SHIT.

And even YOU should now that it is BULL SHIT. Do I really have to repeat everything I said in two threads on the subject in EVERY FUCKING SENTENCE?

Your hate for me is showing, It is clear that you are simply trying to find fault any way you can and not really interested in discussion of ideas.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 02:23AM by MJ.

I don't think Botton ever said the British government should do those things. I took it as atheists should do more of these things to get their world view out there. I think his rhetoric maybe went to far, but I will admit there are times when I look at some are and think 'really? someone was paid for that?'

He talks about education, but religion has, in many instances, done a horrible job of education, using education as propaganda to bush religious dogma rather than truth. There was a time when religion dominated the education and the culture of Europe, it is known as "The Dark Ages".

He then depicts education as instilling facts, not about learning to think. Higher education, now days is less about memorizing facts and more about how to think, how to research, etc. But he somehow thinks that what we know know must be instilled by repetition as seemingly unassailable facts, the way religious dogma is.

He claims that looking to culture for moralistic guidance has been forgotten, well MAYBE to people like him, but not by most atheists I know. Perhaps they are not trying to turn Plato into some sort of moralistic icon, but atheists are all about culture (as in the culture of today, not the dogma of ancient societies) teaching morality.

His concept that morality should be taught at universities is also flawed, until that is, he can actual define a morality that everyone can agree on. If he is claiming that universities should teach a brand of culture, then he is saying that universities should be used as propaganda tools. Universities still teach about the things he listed, they just do not push it as propaganda the way bottom seems to suggest.

Then, when he is talking about Universities, he talks about society in need of moral guidance. At this point he is clearly trying to say that it should be the JOB of Universities to TEACH A CULTURAL NORM, just like churches, including TSCC, teach their version of a cultural norm. Universities can and DO expose us to different cultural ideas, but SHOULD NOT GUIDE us as to what cultural norms to accept. As soon as Universities teach a cultural norm as the desirable norm (and that is what he is saying when he says "guidance"), then they become dogmatic institutions of propaganda, not a repository of knowledge.

I mean what do you all think he means when he is harping on "guidance"? What do you really think he is saying when he starts in on the idea that we are all "children"? Could it be that he is saying that HE know better than the rest of us and that we, as "children" need to be told what to thin (guided)?

Then he goes on about "Sermons", well sermons are all about a one way conversation, the person giving the sermon is telling others how to live, what culture is appropriate, etc.

Frankly, the video is so full of references to propagandist ideas to say that such tools should be used to push a particular point of view it is nauseating.

Even when he says we need (notice how he somehow is the on true source of what we as a society needs, think TSCC) didactic learning he is pushing one idea over another. Universities should included didactic learning, but also free thought and creativity, which are not part of didactic learning.

I can't get half way through the video without wondering if you have even watched it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 01:17PM by MJ.

You can't get around a point of view. You can know its a point of view, but you can't get around it. If you're not willing to make judgements on one point of view being better than another, you may as well superglue your junk to the baseboard. You have to make the judgment call or twist in the wind because the truth is not going to save the day.

But that is just a point of view that you will obviously not be able to get around.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 01:13AM by MJ.

"Both lecture and sermon denote an authority that is imparting their knowledge to others that lack that knowledge."

Yes. And one should be wary of such "knowledge" in either context--even if there are "question and answer" communications or a context of "openness" to dialogue. Often, in academic contexts, the dogmatism and ideology is merely disguised, which can be even more dangerous than the blatant sermons of religion.

"In terms of something like culture, all individuals should be allowed to bring who they are to society and have who they are contribute to defining that societies culture. Society should not use culture to define who the individuals should be. Using a culture to define who an individual is or should be, is exactly what the LDS does in Utah."

I agree with this also. However, I would point out that the individual is faced with a dilemma. Who an individual is, is to a large extent defined by the culture. And the individual generally formulates his or her values from that of a culture or subculture. In short, an individual does not determine who he or she is in a cultural vacuum. More importantly (perhaps) the morals of an indivdual are always defined in some sense by a cultural. Given that, it is legitimate for the indivudal to look to that culture to understand and fine tune his or her values, and especially as a vehicle (e.g. through art and literature) to teach those values to his or her children.

"Replacing religion with "culture" as a means of controlling who people are is just replacing one bad idea with, well, the same bad idea."

This is too simplistic. All the author in the original post is saying, I think, is that culture can be a source of value identification and development that is both relevant and useful in grounding one's moral position.

Using culture as a propaganda tool gives us stuff like "Triumph of the will"

There is a difference between using culture to instill one view over another and letting culture and the individual evolve together.

"There is a difference between using culture to instill one view over another and letting culture and the individual evolve together."

Indeed, if we could only instill that idea as a cultural value.



Art should do this, art should do that. What? Does it swing? Good enough.

(Timothy, cue the question marks)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 12:52AM by thingsithink.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "There is a difference between using culture to
> instill one view over another and letting culture
> and the individual evolve together."
>
> Indeed, if we could only instill that idea as a
> cultural value.
>

One would think that in a free society, free expression, be it by speech or art, should already be a cultural value.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2012 02:25AM by MJ.

Hey Rapt, thank you for furthering the discussion. Glad you found De Botton's talk interesting.


I'm with you when it comes to your delight for "GOOD comedic ridicule." We live in an age of Satire (a mode which predominates at the end of Empire, alas). I could not do without Bill Maher or Colbert and Stewart. They bring sanity to our insane public discourse. But in context nothing they do is "impolite" per se. In fact it would be impolite, in context, for them to NOT ridicule. So I don't think this is what De Botton is getting at with his remark about being polite.


This is what De Botton says, to a question about constructive dialogue between believers and atheists:


"…we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist and someone says 'well you know, I did pray the other day,' you politely ignore it;" he then goes on to say that the religious wars of late have "ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement."


In the context of family, the workplace and our general social life I think, like De Botton, that politeness is an overlooked virtue, and agree with him that we should look for harmonious disagreement. In a general social context, it is impolite for a believer to rebuke a non-believer's "sins"; and it is equally impolite for a non-believer to rebuke a believer's "stupidity".


Then there are those who ridicule ex cathedra. This is stupid. FOX does it and MSNBC does it, resulting in an extremely stupid political discourse. As Stewart famously pointed out to J.W. Fulbright's idiot grand-nephew Tucker Carlson, on the old CNN show Crossfire, it hurts America. Richard Dawkins sits on a well-padded Chair also, and too often replaces reason and argument with cheap ridicule, thus devaluing the credibility of his Chair. We expect more from our public institutions.


Which brings us back to satire: I'm all for it, in context. Our Comedians provide the necessary counter-balance, as you say. But you know the old joke, with so many comedians out of work…. In other words, just because you heard a great fat joke on TV last night it doesn't mean you go to work the next day and use it to ridicule the fat girl at the desk next to you. That would be impolite, rude, obnoxious and would do nothing toward making the fat girl less fat. The same goes for an atheist ridiculing the Christian at the desk next to them, or the Christian ridiculing the the non-believer next to them.


Okay…..the soapbox just collapsed from underneath me… By the way, ever notice how Catholics make the best Catholic jokes and Lawyers the best Lawyer jokes? That's the ideal: knowing and being comfortable with our own ridiculousness rather than another's. Mormons are the worst at this…well, besides maybe teachers and accountants…

Cheers, Raptor. And hey, I seem to recall a certain bit of GOOD comedic ridicule coming my way in the form of PDF…yes…?

Human

In the US (I'm only pointing out US because I'm not sure how it's going in other countries right now) it's hard for a constructive dialogue and harmonious agreement because right now that would involve, as he pointed out, that Non-believers shut up and let believers say and do whatever they want. That believers can be as rude as possible to non-believers and non-believers are just supposed to ignore it all.

Just the other day an atheist friend told me a story about a coworker who brought up the subject of religion. After going on and on about her god she asked my friend her thoughts. My friend just stated that she was an atheist. My friend's coworker immediately got up, stopped talking to her, and left the room.

We're not there yet. Not even close.

And, yes, being rude is not going to get us closer to the point. But atheists are going to HAVE to be able to point out that "harmonious disagreement" is a two way street. And as other atheists on this board also point out. It's hard to have harmonious disagreement when the religious groups are involved in taking away rights.

So....yeah....a lot of work still needs to be done.

Helmon and MJ, I think you'll find great value from Roger Scruton's Why Beauty Matters:

"I think we are losing beauty, and there's a danger that with it we are losing the meaning of life."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY

The Book:

http://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Roger-Scruton/dp/019955952X

I am all for teaching beyond didactic learning to include creativity and other subjective matters. I am simply saying that the idea that thinking of us as "children" that need "guidance" is bull shit. Indeed, I am saying that culture should be free of forced "guidance" and be allowed to flourish as in "art for art's sake" None of this demanding that art (beauty) have some purpose, or instill guidance that bottom is preaching.

You really should pay attention before you shoot off your mouth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2012 02:06PM by MJ.

I found this interesting. I think the most impactful point for me was during the Q&A when the moderator turned to the audience and asked (paraphrasing): "How many of you would say that religion plays an important part in your life?"

I don't know about you, but I've always had the impression that the Ted audience, primarily coming from the technology sector, is largely secular leaning, extremely rational and posesses impressive critical thinking skills. Therefore, I was quite surprised at the number of hands that went up. It's difficult to say for sure the percentage of the audience that responded in the affirmative, but there were an awfully high number of hands that went up.

I think religion is here in our culture to stay; for a very long time. Mormonism's rapid rise to prominence may be troubling to many of us on this board, but it's a testament to the power, efficacy and appeal of Mormonism to many human beings, for a variety of reasons.

Although I don't agree with many of Alain de Botton's points, I think, overall, the speech was meaningful, useful and may provide, perhaps, a springboard for dialogue between believers and non-believers.

I've considered my self an atheist since leaving Mormonism, over a decade ago. But, I've always struggled with the black/white connotations that the atheist label represents to many. I, for one, welcome the opportunity to re-define the meaning of atheism and this possibility is what I largely took from the lecture.