Carl-Richard

No ?

@Danioover9000 I don't know what you're talking about.

How does this relate to the discussion?

Can you say that in simpler words?

That's a weird twist, but sure.

There is no absolute interpretation. The best you can do is to know which interpretations you want to use for which goals you want to pursue.

I technically agree, but also consider the context. The dude is a gamer and people call in while he is gaming. Most callers are casual, but sometimes you get gems like this. I would also prefer if he was always fully engaged, but that is just how he is. He is obviously not a shining beacon of virtue, but I prefer Destiny over any other daily content YouTube entertainer. It's a funny meme

Just being Destiny.

The reason I made this thread is because I wanted to talk about the video, because I liked the points the guy made in it. He happened to use the term "grand narrative", and I went with that. If I wanted to talk about Lyotard's definition of grand narratives, I would've made a thread about that.

I don't see that. Remember that my thread is about a YouTube video where that concept was being talked about and which I told you to watch and which I explictly referred to multiple times?

So you still misunderstand what I mean by a grand narrative. That's ok. A grand narrative meets all human needs. There can be many possible grand narratives, but all of them have to meet all human needs in some way. Whether the specific contents of each narrative is efficient or actually conducive to each need is a different question. What I was talking about with an "universal grand narrative" was in the scenario where the world is united (not in serious conflict), which would mean that the specific contents of the leading grand narratives (if they exist) would in some way be commensurate.

In this thread, did I present one way to meet human needs or did I present a list of human needs?

Where do you set your limit? How many human needs are there?

Who is to say that a baby needs food?

I knew I should've prefaced this from the beginning, but I was naively expecting a more openminded and less "religious" (dogmatic) response. Anyways, the issue with this thread, like Nilsi so eloquently pointed out, is that I'm using academic definitions of terms like religion, and when people come with their more colloquial understanding, of course that is going to cause a clash. What I'll propose though is that academic definitions are often simply better in terms of describing and explaining things in the world than colloquial definitions. They're more precise, and it's why academics use them. What I feel like is going on here is analogous to somebody saying "OCD is a psychiatric diagnosis with specific criteria", while the responses are like "but I'm pretty OCD when it comes to certain things". Nevertheless, I guess I can also summarize my position using different terms: what I'm proposing with "why we need religion" is that the search for the highest value (whatever that is for you) cannot easily be separated from your mental and physical wellbeing, and those things depend on certain factors. I'm saying we should not ignore those factors. Now, we can for example talk about what you think those factors should be, or we can keep fighting over definitions. Up to you.

You don't have a set of practices or beliefs about how to do spirituality? Seeking the highest value. Less distinctions = better? ?

I'm sure your spiritual inclinations are pretty New Age. It's essentially just postmodern spirituality. That is mysticism. That is dogma. Mmm yes, sprinkle some anti-science in there and we're fully prepared for the New Age ?

@WeCome1 Almost as if I could've said it myself ?

Wut?

It's so obvious if you've used it a few times.

Not for me

Imagine a parasitic life form that speeds up evolution and maximizes the diversification of life, but it also speeds up the process of dying, because dying is a part of evolution, hence you add a relative propensity towards annihilation, expressed through the human avatar as a dysfunctional hazed-out state of wanting to return to the creator (like some freaky out-of-control LSD trip). That is just evolution or God doing its thing, but it's a perplexing thing for humans who are comfortable in their paradigm of living semi-long lives as civilized Martini-drinking drones, but yes, that is just a humancentric bias. There is no reason why life couldn't work like that (and why the ultimate expression of that can't be some kind of hyper-dimensional DMT elf that floats across galaxies and nests on various planets).

He is by all means a plant.

Look what I just stumbled across

You know what I'm going to say, right? Sounds pretty New Age to me: minimal prescriptions, minimal theory, minimal tradition, sort of vague; just pure seeking of the sacred, stripped to its bare bones. "Just follow your bliss, man" I don't think we're getting anywhere. We disagree on what spirituality and religion is, we disagree on the degree to which belief is inherent to either spirituality or religion, etc. It's hard to get off the ground without settling those.