Social Anxiety Support

blc1 · 09-13-2009, 03:39 PM

Words from a Russian prophet:

"Do you know that ages will pass and mankind will proclaim in its wisdom and science that there is no crime and, therefore no sin, but that there are only hungry people. 'Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!' — that is what they will inscribe on their banner which they will raise against you and which will destroy your temple."
I believe Dostoyevsky rejected utopian socialism because within its framework, there is no concept of individual sin. Your thoughts?

Paul'sBunyon · 09-14-2009, 03:26 PM

I believe he rejected it because he lived in a craphole that couldn't feed itself anyway and had nothing but horror stories that passed for it's history. No one should go hungry in America.

Thomas Paine · 09-14-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blc1

Words from a Russian prophet:

"Do you know that ages will pass and mankind will proclaim in its wisdom and science that there is no crime and, therefore no sin, but that there are only hungry people. 'Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!' — that is what they will inscribe on their banner which they will raise against you and which will destroy your temple."
I believe Dostoyevsky rejected utopian socialism because within its framework, there is no concept of individual sin. Your thoughts?

I must really not understand what Dostoevsky stood for, or really not understand socialism, because what I get from that quote is actually a philosophy that is in favor of socialism, is a prediction that the concept of "free will" is going to be debunked, and is saying that nobody can possibly be virtuous unless they first have the basics like food. That's kind of what I got from Crime and Punishment too, as well as an example of natural justice.

Maybe he was more of a Thomas Paine style Libertarian hybrid? Or am I missing something???

blc1 · 09-14-2009, 07:59 PM

Dostoyevsky was a socialist in his youth and had a sort of conversion experience in prison. The quote comes from the Grand inquisitor chapter in theBrothers Karamazov. Ivan mentions one of Christs temptations- commanding stones into bread and then there is a discussion of the nature of "bread" itself. I don't think Ivan's story predicts that freewill will be debunked, he argues that freewill is too much for man to bear. Ivan's indictment of Christ is that he demands too much, that we must not live by bread alone. In a sense, Totalitarian regimes do man the favor of relieving the burden of freedom. He uses "wisdom" and "science" derisively.

ivankaramazov · 09-14-2009, 08:51 PM

I mentioned no such thing! Poor translation!

Thomas Paine · 09-14-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivankaramazov

i mentioned no such thing! Poor translation!

lmfao!!! Freudian Slip, maybe?

Thomas Paine · 09-14-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blc1

Dostoyevsky was a socialist in his youth and had a sort of conversion experience in prison.

So basically he went insane in prison due to the poor nutrition? Hmm...

Tangent · 09-16-2009, 06:04 AM

Depends on one's definition of "sin", but as a socialist I don't see any contradiction between my ideology and the concept of individual wrongdoing - which I would define as something that causes unnecessary and unfair suffering or loss to an individual without that individual's consent.

However if "sin" is defined in an exclusively religious context, such that it only refers to transgressions against "traditional" precepts, then arguably it does not exist as a concept within socialism, which is a "rationalist" (I use the term loosely, for fear of provoking heated retribution) ideology rather than one based on a set of solid laws which must be followed without question. For example, Christian doctrine defines homosexuality as "sin", not on any rational basis but on the basis that the bible says it is sin. Socialism however, looks at homosexuality, decides it causes no harm or suffering, and therefore does not condemn it.

Zirnitra · 09-19-2009, 09:18 PM

'Sin' is what the Judeo-Christian doctrine placed upon man to make him more docile and submissive and validated it with its hypothetical God using a simple threat/reward mechanism. It is simply codified behaviors and marketed these 'thou shalts' as a common bond to ensure a harmonious coexistence. It has no meaning outside of human interests.

09-13-2009, 03:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
blc1 Status: SAS Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: California Gender: Female Age: 20 Posts: 155	Sin and Socialism Words from a Russian prophet: "Do you know that ages will pass and mankind will proclaim in its wisdom and science that there is no crime and, therefore no sin, but that there are only hungry people. 'Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!' — that is what they will inscribe on their banner which they will raise against you and which will destroy your temple." I believe Dostoyevsky rejected utopian socialism because within its framework, there is no concept of individual sin. Your thoughts?

09-14-2009, 03:26 PM	#2 (permalink)
Paul'sBunyon Status: SAS Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 166	I believe he rejected it because he lived in a craphole that couldn't feed itself anyway and had nothing but horror stories that passed for it's history. No one should go hungry in America. __________________ MY PECKS AND ABS, 'NUFF SAID.

09-16-2009, 06:04 AM	#8 (permalink)
Tangent Status: Cynical Misanthrope Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: N.E. England Gender: Male Age: 18 Posts: 301	Depends on one's definition of "sin", but as a socialist I don't see any contradiction between my ideology and the concept of individual wrongdoing - which I would define as something that causes unnecessary and unfair suffering or loss to an individual without that individual's consent. However if "sin" is defined in an exclusively religious context, such that it only refers to transgressions against "traditional" precepts, then arguably it does not exist as a concept within socialism, which is a "rationalist" (I use the term loosely, for fear of provoking heated retribution) ideology rather than one based on a set of solid laws which must be followed without question. For example, Christian doctrine defines homosexuality as "sin", not on any rational basis but on the basis that the bible says it is sin. Socialism however, looks at homosexuality, decides it causes no harm or suffering, and therefore does not condemn it. __________________ http://journalofasadact.blogspot.com/ - The daily goings on of a socially anxious dyspraxic pariah. http://asininerants.blogspot.com/ - The social, political, religious and miscellaneous musings of the above. Facebook - Add me!

09-14-2009, 07:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
blc1 Status: SAS Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: California Gender: Female Age: 20 Posts: 155	Dostoyevsky was a socialist in his youth and had a sort of conversion experience in prison. The quote comes from the Grand inquisitor chapter in theBrothers Karamazov. Ivan mentions one of Christs temptations- commanding stones into bread and then there is a discussion of the nature of "bread" itself. I don't think Ivan's story predicts that freewill will be debunked, he argues that freewill is too much for man to bear. Ivan's indictment of Christ is that he demands too much, that we must not live by bread alone. In a sense, Totalitarian regimes do man the favor of relieving the burden of freedom. He uses "wisdom" and "science" derisively.

09-14-2009, 08:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
ivankaramazov Status: SAS Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Gender: Male Age: 26 Posts: 237	I mentioned no such thing! Poor translation!

09-19-2009, 09:18 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zirnitra Status: Hyperion Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: My Mind Gender: Male Posts: 91	'Sin' is what the Judeo-Christian doctrine placed upon man to make him more docile and submissive and validated it with its hypothetical God using a simple threat/reward mechanism. It is simply codified behaviors and marketed these 'thou shalts' as a common bond to ensure a harmonious coexistence. It has no meaning outside of human interests.