The idea of self-sacrifice as the height of human virtue is so widely accepted today that both religious and non-religious people easily identify with it.
Jon, thanks for the article. I hadn’t seen Lewis’s description of a post-Christian man.
The topic reminds me of a terrific book I’m reading called “The Writer’s Journey” by Christopher Vogler that explores the use of mythic structure in modern storytelling. Vogler maps Joseph Campbell’s Hero Journey against many movies, really interesting.
Jon, I know you mean well and value freedom; however, I must be strongly against your belief in and support of “Self-Sacrifice” which I and Nathaniel Branden, among probably not so many others (unfortunately), consider the primary motive for evil-doing in this all too human world.
Here are Branden’s words on this which I cannot do better than quote:
“One of the tragedies of human history is that most of the ethical systems that achieved any degree of world influence were, at root, variations on the theme of self-sacrifice. Unselfishness was equated with virtue; selfishness—honoring the needs and wants of the self—was made a synonym of evil. With such systems, the individual has always been a victim, twisted against him or her self and commanded to be “unselfish” in sacrificial service to some allegedly higher value called God or pharaoh or emperor or king or society or the state or the race of the proletariat—or the cosmos. It is a strange paradox of our history that this doctrine—which tells us that we are to regard ourselves, in effect, as sacrificial animals— has been generally accepted as a doctrine representing benevolence and love for humankind. From the first individual, thousands of years ago, who was sacrificed on an altar for the good of the tribe, to the heretics and dissenters burned at the stake for the good of the populace or the glory of God, to the millions exterminated in gas chambers or slave-labor camps for the good of the race or of the proletariat, it is this morality that has served as justification for every dictatorship and every atrocity, past or present. Yet few intellectuals have challenged the basic assumption which makes such slaughter possible—“the good of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the larger whole. When we are acting in the name of ‘something greater than ourselves’ we lose the sense of personal responsibility for our actions and become capable of evils we would not commit on our own behalf. The surrender of self releases us from accountability.” Nathaniel Branden
Ah-Men.
Get free, stay free of the Grater Good that will shred you if you allow it.
What did I write that suggests I don't value freedom or believe that “the good of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the larger whole"?
Commanded/forced sacrifice is not self-sacrifice. And yes, thinking that you can command others to sacrifice their comforts, money, land, lives to YOUR definition of sacrifice is narcissism or communism.
The whole purpose of self-sacrifice is that the individual has to choose, ie, has to invoke Charity (the pure love of Christ) of themselves, with no one forcing or coercing them to do so.
Like Gandolf, Like Frodo until the very end. They could have quit and saved themselves at any time. There was no one forcing them to lay down their lives, they chose it.
Part of this comes from language drift/translation drift over time. What a word meant in Hebrew, or Greek or Latin, in often not exactly what the meaning still is today. Despite stealing so many words from other languages, the culture that spawned the word often did not come along with it, and thus losing it's meaning in it's new context.
Agreed 1,000%. It kind of reminds me of this awesome quote from the great Adam Smith:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”
Free Friends Forum 15: SELF-SACRIFICE—VIRTUE OR VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE?
NOTHING GREATER THAN OUR SELVES
Here is the Substack post that generated FFF#15:
WHY SELF-SACRIFICE IS (STILL) THE MOST POWERFUL IDEA IN MOVIES Jon Miltimore, July 30, 2024
The idea of self-sacrifice as the height of human virtue is so widely accepted today that both religious and non-religious people easily identify with it.
AN INVITATION IN GOOD FAITH TO JON MILTIMORE AND ALL TO JOIN OUR DISCUSSION U.S. SATURDAY OR SUNDAY (see below for times)
I disagree with Jon about Self-Sacrifice (SS) being a virtue; on the contrary, I consider it an unnecessary, tragic waste of Humanity that should be understood and abandoned not praised and furthered.
Indeed. I think it was Alan Watts that pointed out that just by virtue of speaking a western language, an individual will ideologically orient themselves from a Christian perspective, no matter how much such an individual may claim independence from Christianity. To make this point, Alan Watts asks : “What is a tree made of?" and a western person will answer "the tree is made of wood". In contrast with, generally speaking, no Chinese person would say such a thing because to them a tree is "not something that was made". Such language reflects the assumption that the word is an object that was made by a creator (hens why western civilization tends to bulldoze nature down). Interestingly enough, a militant English speaking atheist will still speak of trees as things that are made, unaware of the subtle implications of this language they are using and how profound those implications shape their world views. If this sounds too anecdotal, I’ll say this, as someone who converted to Buddhism 15 years ago and who assiduously studies and practices it daily, I’ve come to understand that no matter how much effort I direct towards unrooting Christianity from my psyche (an enormous amount effort, as if my life and sanity depended on it), these Christian roots will always be in some way a factor that shapes my perceptions of the world. Ever since I’ve decided to make peace with that, ironically, not only do I feel a greater sense of freedom from Christianity. A one claim independence from something if one can’t recognize it in one’s self? It seems best to acknowledge and integrate our collective Christian roots, instead of denying them, vilifying or ignoring them, and learn to work with them in the most value producing ways.
Jon, thanks for the article. I hadn’t seen Lewis’s description of a post-Christian man.
The topic reminds me of a terrific book I’m reading called “The Writer’s Journey” by Christopher Vogler that explores the use of mythic structure in modern storytelling. Vogler maps Joseph Campbell’s Hero Journey against many movies, really interesting.
Sounds like a good book. Let me know when you finish if it's worth buying.
Jon, I know you mean well and value freedom; however, I must be strongly against your belief in and support of “Self-Sacrifice” which I and Nathaniel Branden, among probably not so many others (unfortunately), consider the primary motive for evil-doing in this all too human world.
Here are Branden’s words on this which I cannot do better than quote:
“One of the tragedies of human history is that most of the ethical systems that achieved any degree of world influence were, at root, variations on the theme of self-sacrifice. Unselfishness was equated with virtue; selfishness—honoring the needs and wants of the self—was made a synonym of evil. With such systems, the individual has always been a victim, twisted against him or her self and commanded to be “unselfish” in sacrificial service to some allegedly higher value called God or pharaoh or emperor or king or society or the state or the race of the proletariat—or the cosmos. It is a strange paradox of our history that this doctrine—which tells us that we are to regard ourselves, in effect, as sacrificial animals— has been generally accepted as a doctrine representing benevolence and love for humankind. From the first individual, thousands of years ago, who was sacrificed on an altar for the good of the tribe, to the heretics and dissenters burned at the stake for the good of the populace or the glory of God, to the millions exterminated in gas chambers or slave-labor camps for the good of the race or of the proletariat, it is this morality that has served as justification for every dictatorship and every atrocity, past or present. Yet few intellectuals have challenged the basic assumption which makes such slaughter possible—“the good of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the larger whole. When we are acting in the name of ‘something greater than ourselves’ we lose the sense of personal responsibility for our actions and become capable of evils we would not commit on our own behalf. The surrender of self releases us from accountability.” Nathaniel Branden
Ah-Men.
Get free, stay free of the Grater Good that will shred you if you allow it.
What did I write that suggests I don't value freedom or believe that “the good of the individual must be subordinated to the good of the larger whole"?
Commanded/forced sacrifice is not self-sacrifice. And yes, thinking that you can command others to sacrifice their comforts, money, land, lives to YOUR definition of sacrifice is narcissism or communism.
The whole purpose of self-sacrifice is that the individual has to choose, ie, has to invoke Charity (the pure love of Christ) of themselves, with no one forcing or coercing them to do so.
Like Gandolf, Like Frodo until the very end. They could have quit and saved themselves at any time. There was no one forcing them to lay down their lives, they chose it.
Part of this comes from language drift/translation drift over time. What a word meant in Hebrew, or Greek or Latin, in often not exactly what the meaning still is today. Despite stealing so many words from other languages, the culture that spawned the word often did not come along with it, and thus losing it's meaning in it's new context.
Agreed 1,000%. It kind of reminds me of this awesome quote from the great Adam Smith:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”
Free Friends Forum 15: SELF-SACRIFICE—VIRTUE OR VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE & ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE?
NOTHING GREATER THAN OUR SELVES
Here is the Substack post that generated FFF#15:
WHY SELF-SACRIFICE IS (STILL) THE MOST POWERFUL IDEA IN MOVIES Jon Miltimore, July 30, 2024
The idea of self-sacrifice as the height of human virtue is so widely accepted today that both religious and non-religious people easily identify with it.
AN INVITATION IN GOOD FAITH TO JON MILTIMORE AND ALL TO JOIN OUR DISCUSSION U.S. SATURDAY OR SUNDAY (see below for times)
I disagree with Jon about Self-Sacrifice (SS) being a virtue; on the contrary, I consider it an unnecessary, tragic waste of Humanity that should be understood and abandoned not praised and furthered.
https://responsiblyfree.substack.com/p/free-friends-forum-15-self-sacrifice
Indeed. I think it was Alan Watts that pointed out that just by virtue of speaking a western language, an individual will ideologically orient themselves from a Christian perspective, no matter how much such an individual may claim independence from Christianity. To make this point, Alan Watts asks : “What is a tree made of?" and a western person will answer "the tree is made of wood". In contrast with, generally speaking, no Chinese person would say such a thing because to them a tree is "not something that was made". Such language reflects the assumption that the word is an object that was made by a creator (hens why western civilization tends to bulldoze nature down). Interestingly enough, a militant English speaking atheist will still speak of trees as things that are made, unaware of the subtle implications of this language they are using and how profound those implications shape their world views. If this sounds too anecdotal, I’ll say this, as someone who converted to Buddhism 15 years ago and who assiduously studies and practices it daily, I’ve come to understand that no matter how much effort I direct towards unrooting Christianity from my psyche (an enormous amount effort, as if my life and sanity depended on it), these Christian roots will always be in some way a factor that shapes my perceptions of the world. Ever since I’ve decided to make peace with that, ironically, not only do I feel a greater sense of freedom from Christianity. A one claim independence from something if one can’t recognize it in one’s self? It seems best to acknowledge and integrate our collective Christian roots, instead of denying them, vilifying or ignoring them, and learn to work with them in the most value producing ways.