sibyloftherhine
Member
I was reading this interview with theoretical physicist Chiara Marletto who discusses her current work at attempting to rewrite the laws of physics in terms of counterfactuals or statements of what's possible and what isn't. Her reasoning behind this is that:
This immediately reminded me of the statement at the end of the About page on Ray Peat's website:
Ray's quote itself, however, has always reminded me of original sin. This has always perplexed me because Ray has criticized the concept.
From Generative Energy (p. 128):
I am in no way condoning the use of "original sin" to justify evil acts like rape and murder. This is the line of reasoning of Calvinists who are merely one sect among the many who believe in "original sin" and were not even the ones who came up with its definition. That being said, what is the difference between blaming "life itself as being at fault for its suffering" and realizing "that our human nature is problematic"? My own answer to that question is the statements themselves have no difference in essence but they differ in the way they are applied. Applying original sin in the same way that "bad genes" is applied to excuse the bad behavior of human beings is creating a limitation for the sake of limiting behavior. Ray's quote on his website, however, is the application of a limit for the sake of widening the potentials of behavior. This is perfectly analogous to Chiara Marletto's current work of attempting to widen the horizons of quantum physics by defining limitations.
If original sin can be used to not only limit human behavior but also to potentialize it, this means that the idea itself is not inherently restricting but instead an idea that can be applied in a restricting, authoritarian manner. I think it's important to note that all evil that exists in the world is the result of the perversion of something good. To lie is to pervert truth, to kill is to pervert life, to rape is to pervert sex. Truth, life and sex are good things that can exist without lies, murder or rape. Good can therefore exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good.
In summary, I do not really understand why Ray condemns the idea of original sin in itself. In my opinion, original sin is a good, true idea and can even be used to justify Ray's own work. In the same way that all sex should not be condemned just because rape exists, original sin should not be condemned just because it is applied by some people (i.e. Calvinists) to justify undesired behavior. For all I know, however, Ray has touched on this topic a bit more, and he might have more reasons for condemning original sin. I would appreciate any resources and insights on this topic.
Declaring something impossible leads to more things being possible.
This immediately reminded me of the statement at the end of the About page on Ray Peat's website:
When we realize that our human nature is problematic, we can begin to explore our best potentials.
Ray's quote itself, however, has always reminded me of original sin. This has always perplexed me because Ray has criticized the concept.
From Generative Energy (p. 128):
Ideas of "original sin," "karma," "bad genes" or "wrong consciousness" are often invoked to "explain" suffering and disease. The most offensive example of this that I have heard was when a well known writer and lecturer claimed that people who are raped or murdered, even the victims of Auschwitz, including children, were responsible for their fate, through some mysterious spiritual defect. Even most of the conventional theories of aging and degenerative diseases contain a strong tendency to blame life itself as being at fault for its suffering.
I am in no way condoning the use of "original sin" to justify evil acts like rape and murder. This is the line of reasoning of Calvinists who are merely one sect among the many who believe in "original sin" and were not even the ones who came up with its definition. That being said, what is the difference between blaming "life itself as being at fault for its suffering" and realizing "that our human nature is problematic"? My own answer to that question is the statements themselves have no difference in essence but they differ in the way they are applied. Applying original sin in the same way that "bad genes" is applied to excuse the bad behavior of human beings is creating a limitation for the sake of limiting behavior. Ray's quote on his website, however, is the application of a limit for the sake of widening the potentials of behavior. This is perfectly analogous to Chiara Marletto's current work of attempting to widen the horizons of quantum physics by defining limitations.
If original sin can be used to not only limit human behavior but also to potentialize it, this means that the idea itself is not inherently restricting but instead an idea that can be applied in a restricting, authoritarian manner. I think it's important to note that all evil that exists in the world is the result of the perversion of something good. To lie is to pervert truth, to kill is to pervert life, to rape is to pervert sex. Truth, life and sex are good things that can exist without lies, murder or rape. Good can therefore exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good.
In summary, I do not really understand why Ray condemns the idea of original sin in itself. In my opinion, original sin is a good, true idea and can even be used to justify Ray's own work. In the same way that all sex should not be condemned just because rape exists, original sin should not be condemned just because it is applied by some people (i.e. Calvinists) to justify undesired behavior. For all I know, however, Ray has touched on this topic a bit more, and he might have more reasons for condemning original sin. I would appreciate any resources and insights on this topic.