Comments on: No new thing under the sun

By: Charlie Murtaugh

Charlie Murtaugh — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Beautiful idea — I don’t know that it has much better chance than “bright,” but it’s a great word.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The reactions you point to seem to be the same as you would expect from anyone with strongly opposing views about pretty much anything…

You’re right though: nothing new about it!

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

p.s. I do like the label “lokayata”.

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, if you look more closely, some of my commenters are coming around.

I believe that the negative reaction–and “reaction” really is the proper word–is a comkbination of a few things:

1) Conservatives who are still shuddering at the excesses of feminism in demanding the wholesale change of countless words simply to make feminists feel better about femininity.

2) A few who still resent having to say “gay” instead of “homosexual,” or “black” instead of “negro,”

3) Theists who feel defensive, although often with no small amount of hypocricy since many of them think nothing of calling themselves “chosen” or “clear” or “saved” or even “beacons.”

4) Brights who find Dawkins and Dennett annoying (which, by the way, would include me.)

But in fact there are now at least three bloggers who have endorsed the concept, including myself, articles on the word have made it into two of the world’s biggest English-speaking papers, and the-brights.net web site is continuing to increase in traffic.

I continue to point out that a world which can tolerage gays, queers, blacks, and greens can find some way to live with a cute term like “bright.” I am not alone. We will see what we see.

By: Lynn Gazis-Sax

Lynn Gazis-Sax — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I like “lokayata.” Cool word.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

How “bright” is it to insist that what is obviously real is the only reality? These guys seem like a less imaginative, latter-day manifestation of the French existentialists. Been there, done that raised to the level of supposed new vitue. “Look at me, I’m bright!” As it is put in Georges Bernanos’s novel, “The Imposter”, they make “The strange mistake…of a man not yet aware that pride has no intrinsic substance, being no more than the name given to the soul devouring itself. When that loathsome perversion of love has borne fruit, it has another, more meaningful and weightier name. We call it hatred.” Bright?
–Rob

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Dean: I agree.

Rob: “How “bright” is it to insist that what is obviously real is the only reality?”

Correct me if I am mistaken by your assertion, but why does just about every Christian I meet tell me the only way to salvation is through J.C.? Isn’t that an “only-reality” view as well?

By: Camassia

Camassia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying there’s only one reality — part of the definition of reality is that there’s only one of it. The question is what you think that reality consists of. For Christians, for instance, the Holy Spirit is as much a part of reality as the computer I’m typing on, but lokayatas would deny it because it can’t be perceived directly through the five senses.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

For sure, there is only one reality. I was trying to point out only that what is immediately available to consciousness and easily accessible for ultiliarian and pragmatic purposes, is not necessarily the whole story when it comes to reality. Think about subatomic physics along those lines.
David: I think that Jesus did a much better job of explaining the path to salvation than most people you might speak with who identify themselves as “Christians”–whatever that label has come to mean, when it can be applied to both Mother Teresa and Jerry Falwell…
–Rob

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Christianity does not teach that God will save humanity from its follies. “Humanity” in the sense of “mankind” is not a particularly Christian concept; Christianity is more interested in particular humans, like you and me.