Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze So just from looking at that stuff, am I wrong or do most religions and cults work on people's guilt and insecurities to manipulate them? Societies are classifiable by their socialization patterns, and guilt-driven vs. shame-driven is one of the major axes. Religions and cults are not particularly different in that regard, which makes sense, as that's the original form of society-building. quote:
Last thing I would want to have would be the leader of a religion, Is it the responsibility or the temptation that gets to you? quote:
but I can't help but think there are some clever buggers out there who make up concepts and people fall for them, now my rational mind is trying to discover the "secret sauce", guilt, fear and promises seem to be the main ingredients, then something that promises happiness and keep it all vague enough so you can explain even the most mundane things... This is called "hope". Reality is a very sucky place, consisting of a variable degree of losses and wins, with the absolute limit being zero points. Few people ever get anywhere near as fortunate as to achieve zero points, and for the vast majority of humanity, the notion of life as suffering is apt. The default condition of humanity is abject poverty, with intermittent bouts of disease, hunger, natural disasters and wars. Some few people work to avoid it, but the necessary qualities inherently cause resistance, and most societies are successful at expelling or terminating the factors in them that can inflict happiness or stability. Since time immemorial, religions have introduced such odd notions as "hope", "justice", "deservedness" and so forth. The idea that the scales will balance overall, and even should balance, is central to this theme. When you throw in an afterlife, or several cycles of life, you introduce the ability to balance the books on a cosmic scale, even though they demonstrably do not balance in a single lifetime of a single individual. There is some value to that notion, at least in its functional effect on people. In a lot of situations, the objectively sensible thing is to kill a few people, grab their money and leave for a poorer country before anyone has time to nail you. The formerly presented ideas introduce the illusion that you're likely to be caught. And the illusion that things could conceivably work out for you in the long run if you just live a good life and don't drag others down to help yourself. And, finally, the idea that if it all goes down the drain, there will be something to make it worthwhile. This scaffolding allows things like cooperation and infrastructure. Health care, representative government, law enforcement, money... it's all built on a social contract that is worked into the rearing process before a child is old enough to participate in a social contract. And you may note that law enforcement extends this to also cover adults, using the ages old formula. Building societies, nations, etc., is a dirty and dishonest business. Most people still prefer it to the alternative, though. quote:
What else have I missed? The point. Leaving you in good company. Health, al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|