Rendered at 19:21:15 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
probably_wrong 12 hours ago [-]
I appreciate that the authors didn't go too far into speculation territory, but this being the internet I'll do it anyway.
The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.
arjie 17 hours ago [-]
In a sense, Sunday mass is just an all-hands where you're told the CEO's vision and you get to think about how aligned you are with the vision.
FearNotDaniel 13 hours ago [-]
In no sense is that true of a Catholic Mass. Nor, from what I hear, of an Orthodox liturgy though I’m no expert there. It might be true of some Evangelical Sunday worship services but they cannot be called a “Mass”
disgruntledphd2 10 hours ago [-]
> In no sense is that true of a Catholic Mass.
Sorry, can you help me understand what you mean here?
I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
So I'm struggling to understand how this would differ across other Christian denominations, so I'd really appreciate a better awareness of what you mean here.
throw0101c 5 hours ago [-]
> I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
Have you ever gone to a mass on random Thursday? There is often no sermon during daily, non-Sunday mass. Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".
disgruntledphd2 5 hours ago [-]
> Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".
Again, super confused. Like yeah the Eucharist is clearly the most important part for many Catholics, but the notion that the readings don't contain moral teachings is very strange to me.
Am I missing something in your point?
watwut 8 hours ago [-]
The mass and the preaching are two separate things. The mass is the ritual liturgy part and can be performed without the preaching. It is not some kind of rare thing either.
Yes, they tend to be combined on Sundays, because that is practical and many believers want both on Sunday anyway. But that does not make them the same thing.
plastic-enjoyer 12 hours ago [-]
The American mind can't comprehend European Catholicism
watwut 12 hours ago [-]
This is downvoted ... and absolutely true.
probably_wrong 12 hours ago [-]
I have down voted that comment because HN is not Reddit and that comment is nothing but a cheap shot with no substance. If the commenter had explained why they feel that way then the comment would have been just fine.
watwut 11 hours ago [-]
Considering it responded to cheap incorrect analogy and was actually correct, I find it ok. Disagreeing with one liner low effort comment should not require whole essay. It should require exact same effort as was put into the original comment.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
probably_wrong 10 hours ago [-]
I disagree with the idea that it was "actually correct". I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic" (as another commenter suggests). And because I disagree I would love to engage with their criticism, but I can't because the entire counter-argument was "no".
The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".
watwut 8 hours ago [-]
> I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic
I meant Catholic as in Catholic Church - the huge hierarchical organization lead by Pope. The mass is the ritual part, the bread, wine and the ceremony. Then there is the preaching which is separate thing. You can have mass only, the preaching only or the combination of the two. Catholicism is really big on rituals and tradition, they have meaning by themselves.
The Midnight Mass for example does not have much preaching. That is not the point of going there. The point is to celebrate.
fellowniusmonk 12 hours ago [-]
Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way in who they follow, all the rest follow some different teacher of their choosing.
disgruntledphd2 10 hours ago [-]
> Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way
I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
Sadly, they're not the majority, but living this way is pretty hard so it's not that surprising.
throw0101c 6 hours ago [-]
>> Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way […]
> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:
> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).
disgruntledphd2 5 hours ago [-]
> When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
Much as I dislike disagreeing with C.S. Lewis, my personal nomenclature is to reserve the term Christian for those who live the values promoted by the Gospels. This is clearly non standard though, so I see the potential for confusion.
throw0101c 4 hours ago [-]
Built into the very concept of Christianity is the idea that no human can perfectly live the life espoused by Christ. It is why Jesus gave The Twelve (and their successors?) the authority to forgive sins:
There was an early Christian heresy what believed that clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid:
In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.
disgruntledphd2 3 hours ago [-]
> In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.
Yeah, I definitely take that point.
That being said, I don't have a better term for the small number of people who actually try to live the teachings of the Gospels, as opposed to those who mumble along to the Nicene Creed, take the Eucharist and go right back to robbing their fellow humanity.
So that's the term I picked.
Like, to be fair, I am almost certainly a heretic from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but if the Source of All judges me based on that, then I guess we have very different priorities.
For context, I grew up in an Ireland where literally everyone was a practicing Catholic, but very few actually lived it in their lives, hence why this annoys me. As Jesus (did not) say, blessed be the hypocrites etc.
rexpop 13 hours ago [-]
Yikes! Way to raise mammon up to the altar of God.
CEOs are psychopaths.
skylurk 13 hours ago [-]
Some pastors are psychopaths.
rexpop 12 hours ago [-]
Sorry, I forgot pastors existed. I assumed OP meant "God".
watwut 11 hours ago [-]
Yes, but it is not requirement. You can be a pastor or rise in hierarchy without being psychopath. For CEOs, the selection strongly favors sociopaths.
comrade1234 18 hours ago [-]
I feel much more at peace now that my sex drive has decreased. Before this feeling it was my primary goal and I was very successful but now I couldn't care less about sex.
So I often wonder about yogis and saints - are they better humans than me? But i dont think so when I read about people like mlk jr and jfk and how they were terrible people when it came to women, even worse than me.
tasty_freeze 17 hours ago [-]
I'm a 62 year old straight man. I've described the change this way.
I've always been able to see a handsome man, say Pierce Brosnan back in the day, and say "he is quite handsome" without have a whit of sexual stirrings. When I was young seeing a beautiful woman would trigger desires, but now it is like looking at handsome men. I can recognize they are attractive but it is purely intellectual with no emotional or hormonal attachment.
tuesdaynight 8 hours ago [-]
If you don't mind, how old were you when that decrease happened? I started working out some years ago and my libido just flew through the roof. I will not say that I don't like it, but I'm afraid of that interfering with future relationships. I'm on the monogamous team, so I would suffer if my future partner could not meet my libido levels
Goodness, yes. I’m not even that old yet but just no longer being possessed by the relentless drive of my 20s makes life much more peaceful.
zabriel_goss 17 hours ago [-]
Perhaps Freud was right about the libido!
Masayoshi Takanaka is a virtuosic City Pop guitarist who saw a recent renewed popularity while riding the resurgence of the genre's popularity. When asked in an interview if there would be a new album, he stated no, saying that humans lose their creative drive as their sexual energy declines, and this is why he could not produce a new album.
chasd00 18 hours ago [-]
I have to admit, it is nice when that edge comes off a little bit. Such a perpetual monkey on your back.
beebmam 17 hours ago [-]
There’s no serious evidence that humans or any animal has free will.
throw0101c 6 hours ago [-]
Is not the belief that only things with (empirical) evidence are "real" a form of Scientism?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The laws of physics wrote that sentence, it was fated to be written when this deterministic system of a universe was set off like a mechanism. Or maybe not, let me use my non-free will to choose to say.. Aubergine. Periwinkle. Streptococcus.
beebmam 14 hours ago [-]
I didn't say there is evidence of absence.
There's also no evidence that mystical leprechauns exist. Do you seriously consider their possible existence in the decisions you make? But somehow, we all seem to presume free will exists in virtually every part of society.
vintermann 12 hours ago [-]
Category error.
analog8374 17 hours ago [-]
I relate. There was this one saint, Augustine I think, who, entering puberty, realized that the mind-control orbs dangling between his legs were gonna interfere with his life-goals, so he cut em off.
Maybe that's the smart thing to do. I mean, does "fight and fuck" really enter into your saner agenda? Do you want it to?
ButlerianJihad 17 hours ago [-]
That was definitely not St. Augustine, who was well-known for a lifestyle of patronizing harlots before his conversion of heart.
Apparently, this action is attributed to Origen of Alexandria, who was never "canonized" and is not regarded as a saint in any Christian tradition. It has consistently been viewed as a bad idea and a sin to be castrating or mutilating anyone's genitals, even your own.
wahern 16 hours ago [-]
Origen was anathematized because some people believed he taught universal salvation, i.e. everybody, regardless of belief, will ultimately be reunited with god. Whether he taught that is debatable, but certainly much of his exegesis was quite abstract, which tracks with this argument that Origen likely didn't castrate himself: https://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/did-ori... Likewise, he was a polarizing figure during a formative time in the development of Christianity, so it's quite believable his opponents would spread gossip about him. In the first few centuries there were some virulently anti-sex (and anti-women) Christian cults that preached that any sex, including marital sex, was dirty and demanded things like lay continence or lauded castration.[1] Despite clerical continence being normative, mainstream Christianity forcefully rejected the notion that there was anything inherently wrong with (marital) sex, so to claim Origen castrated himself would be to insinuate his beliefs aligned with radical, non-orthodox, sexually deviant (in a sense) groups.
EDIT: [1] I originally used celibacy. But celibacy and continence are distinct. Celibacy implies continence, because only only married couples are permitted to have sex, but even married couples can be continent. Therein lies the confusion about the origins of modern-day Roman Catholic clerical celibacy and its relation to early clerical practices, including practices of the apostles.
Barrin92 17 hours ago [-]
You're likely thinking of Origen although people question whether it's true.
>Maybe that's the smart thing to do
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols:
"The Church combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice, its “remedy,” is castration. It never inquires “how can a desire be spiritualised, beautified, deified?”—In all ages it has laid the weight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation of sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and revenge).—But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking life itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life."
lioeters 15 hours ago [-]
My man Nietzsche, of reason and passion, Apollo and Dionysus. Rest in eternal restlessness of the spirit, to live and suffer the beauty.
_doctor_love 15 hours ago [-]
At risk of sounding insensitive, MLK Jr. and JFK were only on the farm team as far as being yogis and saints.
For the pro league some names you need: Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Brahmananda, Sri Yogananda Paramahansa, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (yes, really), Chogyam Trungpa (yes, really). And many more names beside.
lioeters 15 hours ago [-]
Francis of Assisi, Lao Tzu, Gurdjieff (yes, really), Blavatsky (yes), Zhang Guolao, Nasreddin, Jesus of Nazareth.. These last three all have been known to ride a donkey backwards.
disgruntledphd2 10 hours ago [-]
I mean, if we're including Blavatsky, then we probably need to include Crowley (even though he'd have been very upset to be added to this company).
bitwize 15 hours ago [-]
L. Ron Hubbard (yes, really)
lioeters 6 hours ago [-]
I would guess you're being sarcastic, but it depends on your worldview I suppose. I haven't found any of his writing to be insightful or even entertaining.
avazhi 13 hours ago [-]
Were you not able to get laid or something?
I’m nearly 40 and my sex drive has always been insane and to this day is higher (much higher) than young people I know. I don’t have sex any less than I did when I was younger but being less angry and less dissatisfied with one’s life just seems to be part of getting older. I know there’s that (hilarious) line in The Republic from the old man about not being a slave to his sex drive anymore but I always took that as more of a ‘women are more trouble than they’re worth’ kind of thing. Surely sex is a sine qua non of being satisfied with one’s life.
Libido motivates so many things in life that I’m not sure that I’d be bothered getting out of bed without it.
tonyedgecombe 10 hours ago [-]
>Were you not able to get laid or something?
The GP did say "and I was very successful", perhaps your gigantic libido has destroyed your reading comprehension.
avazhi 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah maybe. Too much blood flow to the wrong head.
datas 18 hours ago [-]
Makes sense, believers are on a journey of sanctification. The first battle is won when your soul is saved. The second battle is a lifelong struggle between the flesh and the spirit.
They are in constant opposition.
socalgal2 18 hours ago [-]
> It’s pretty clear that the typical American is always on the lookout for ways to improve their lives on a whole bunch of different dimensions.
This is not clear to me at all.
ge96 18 hours ago [-]
I'm in my 30s and I'm still a dumbass, six fig job still living check to check
DeluluDon 15 hours ago [-]
I make 40k and in my 30s and still able to save at least $200 per check, are you that spoiled still?
Or do you still have 5 simultaneous dating app subscriptions you haven't canceled?
ge96 4 hours ago [-]
No my case is drinking, going out, working on stopping. But also I have a shit ton of debt like $100K of debt.
It is crazy I used to live on $20k/yr as a dishwasher, lifestyle inflation is real.
Roland303 18 hours ago [-]
that feeling will pass, brains keep on developing right through mid-40's. But I implore you to find a great accountant asap, you get what you pay for.
comrade1234 18 hours ago [-]
Move out of CA.
jjsullivan5196 18 hours ago [-]
fr dawg get outta dodge
18 hours ago [-]
biglyburrito 18 hours ago [-]
August 29, 1997
avazhi 13 hours ago [-]
Judging from the chart the answer is TLDR: We don’t.
The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.
Sorry, can you help me understand what you mean here?
I attended a Catholic mass from 1-18 (and occasionally since then), and there was definitely a bunch of moral reflection from the readings, gospels and the sermons.
So I'm struggling to understand how this would differ across other Christian denominations, so I'd really appreciate a better awareness of what you mean here.
Have you ever gone to a mass on random Thursday? There is often no sermon during daily, non-Sunday mass. Yes, there are readings, but the central part of the mass is the Eucharist, which the Catechism (¶1324) calls the "source and summit of the Christian life".
Again, super confused. Like yeah the Eucharist is clearly the most important part for many Catholics, but the notion that the readings don't contain moral teachings is very strange to me.
Am I missing something in your point?
Yes, they tend to be combined on Sundays, because that is practical and many believers want both on Sunday anyway. But that does not make them the same thing.
OP did not explained why they think it is the same either. They just fired something.
The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".
I meant Catholic as in Catholic Church - the huge hierarchical organization lead by Pope. The mass is the ritual part, the bread, wine and the ceremony. Then there is the preaching which is separate thing. You can have mass only, the preaching only or the combination of the two. Catholicism is really big on rituals and tradition, they have meaning by themselves.
The Midnight Mass for example does not have much preaching. That is not the point of going there. The point is to celebrate.
I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
Sadly, they're not the majority, but living this way is pretty hard so it's not that surprising.
> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:
> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).
Much as I dislike disagreeing with C.S. Lewis, my personal nomenclature is to reserve the term Christian for those who live the values promoted by the Gospels. This is clearly non standard though, so I see the potential for confusion.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:23
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)
There was an early Christian heresy what believed that clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
And another belief that humans can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for God's grace:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.
Yeah, I definitely take that point.
That being said, I don't have a better term for the small number of people who actually try to live the teachings of the Gospels, as opposed to those who mumble along to the Nicene Creed, take the Eucharist and go right back to robbing their fellow humanity.
So that's the term I picked.
Like, to be fair, I am almost certainly a heretic from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but if the Source of All judges me based on that, then I guess we have very different priorities.
For context, I grew up in an Ireland where literally everyone was a practicing Catholic, but very few actually lived it in their lives, hence why this annoys me. As Jesus (did not) say, blessed be the hypocrites etc.
CEOs are psychopaths.
So I often wonder about yogis and saints - are they better humans than me? But i dont think so when I read about people like mlk jr and jfk and how they were terrible people when it came to women, even worse than me.
I've always been able to see a handsome man, say Pierce Brosnan back in the day, and say "he is quite handsome" without have a whit of sexual stirrings. When I was young seeing a beautiful woman would trigger desires, but now it is like looking at handsome men. I can recognize they are attractive but it is purely intellectual with no emotional or hormonal attachment.
And there is flourishing and attachment - https://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-181/lecture-7
Masayoshi Takanaka is a virtuosic City Pop guitarist who saw a recent renewed popularity while riding the resurgence of the genre's popularity. When asked in an interview if there would be a new album, he stated no, saying that humans lose their creative drive as their sexual energy declines, and this is why he could not produce a new album.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/science-and-scientism/
* https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-necessity-of-freedom/
The laws of physics wrote that sentence, it was fated to be written when this deterministic system of a universe was set off like a mechanism. Or maybe not, let me use my non-free will to choose to say.. Aubergine. Periwinkle. Streptococcus.
There's also no evidence that mystical leprechauns exist. Do you seriously consider their possible existence in the decisions you make? But somehow, we all seem to presume free will exists in virtually every part of society.
Maybe that's the smart thing to do. I mean, does "fight and fuck" really enter into your saner agenda? Do you want it to?
Apparently, this action is attributed to Origen of Alexandria, who was never "canonized" and is not regarded as a saint in any Christian tradition. It has consistently been viewed as a bad idea and a sin to be castrating or mutilating anyone's genitals, even your own.
EDIT: [1] I originally used celibacy. But celibacy and continence are distinct. Celibacy implies continence, because only only married couples are permitted to have sex, but even married couples can be continent. Therein lies the confusion about the origins of modern-day Roman Catholic clerical celibacy and its relation to early clerical practices, including practices of the apostles.
>Maybe that's the smart thing to do
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols:
"The Church combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice, its “remedy,” is castration. It never inquires “how can a desire be spiritualised, beautified, deified?”—In all ages it has laid the weight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation of sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and revenge).—But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking life itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life."
For the pro league some names you need: Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Brahmananda, Sri Yogananda Paramahansa, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (yes, really), Chogyam Trungpa (yes, really). And many more names beside.
I’m nearly 40 and my sex drive has always been insane and to this day is higher (much higher) than young people I know. I don’t have sex any less than I did when I was younger but being less angry and less dissatisfied with one’s life just seems to be part of getting older. I know there’s that (hilarious) line in The Republic from the old man about not being a slave to his sex drive anymore but I always took that as more of a ‘women are more trouble than they’re worth’ kind of thing. Surely sex is a sine qua non of being satisfied with one’s life.
Libido motivates so many things in life that I’m not sure that I’d be bothered getting out of bed without it.
The GP did say "and I was very successful", perhaps your gigantic libido has destroyed your reading comprehension.
They are in constant opposition.
This is not clear to me at all.
Or do you still have 5 simultaneous dating app subscriptions you haven't canceled?
It is crazy I used to live on $20k/yr as a dishwasher, lifestyle inflation is real.