Supernaturally Virtuous Litter Picking

Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.
«1

Comments

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    I believe you, but in order to convince others
    you need to get rid of that T shirt that says Virtuous Litter Picker.
  • KendelKendel Shipmate
    The Lord works in mysterious ways.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    Has someone stated this to you? Or is it just an example of the belief that one needs God in one's life to act virtuously?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.
  • I like to pick up a bit of litter on my walks through the park and woods but I don't use a grabber -I would feel too conspicuous using one. I think I do it because it seems kind to (what's left of) nature around where I live. And because I think that litter on the ground lowers the threshold for people to drop more -but I don't have any evidence for that theory.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    We have now got sets of hi-vis vests for litter picking, saying "VOLUNTEER. Taking pride in East Kilbride" (I had no input into the slogan). They significantly reduces people asking us what we'd done to get community service. But, maybe they're too close to the Virtuous Litter Picker T-shirts.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Friends : ) Custom T ordered. & aye @Kendel, the lengths belief has to go to! @Stetson, a church friend and hospitable neighbour, Oxford & Cambridge, GP & research scientist, prefers something called virtue to barely enlightened self(ish gene) interest.
  • What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?
  • stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    I never heard that theory. It seems pretty unlikely to me. There is always more litter.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    I was thinking of something like this, from The Antichrist...

    A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.

    But stupid with it.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    I never heard that theory. It seems pretty unlikely to me. There is always more litter.
    Quite common when I've been picking up litter. The response that silences most people is "would you pay more council tax to employ people to pick up litter?"

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.

    But stupid with it.

    Me too. You?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    I never heard that theory. It seems pretty unlikely to me. There is always more litter.
    Quite common when I've been picking up litter. The response that silences most people is "would you pay more council tax to employ people to pick up litter?"

    Wow. People really criticise you for picking up litter because you're "taking away someone's job"?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    I never heard that theory. It seems pretty unlikely to me. There is always more litter.
    Quite common when I've been picking up litter. The response that silences most people is "would you pay more council tax to employ people to pick up litter?"

    Wow. People really criticise you for picking up litter because you're "taking away someone's job"?

    After all, someone threw it away - finders keepers! Why shouldn't you pick it up if you wish to? And why shouldn't you then put it in a litter bin if you have a mind to?
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    At what point in a garbage strike should you stop respecting the invisible picket line and burn the garbage?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    I never heard that theory. It seems pretty unlikely to me. There is always more litter.
    Quite common when I've been picking up litter. The response that silences most people is "would you pay more council tax to employ people to pick up litter?"

    Wow. People really criticise you for picking up litter because you're "taking away someone's job"?
    I've been in a litter picking group for about three years, and there are a lot of comments we've received. The exact phrase "taking away someone's job" may not have been used, probably closer to "it should be someone's job" rather than "it's someone's job and you're taking it away", if you see the difference ... but, yes that sort of reaction isn't unheard of. Also, "there are people unemployed who could be given a paid job to do that".

    There are some strange people around.

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    The one time I picked up litter I was in a bus queue and one of a group of (probably) tourists tossed a really big bundle of chip wrappings or similar. So I handed it back to them with 'I believe you dropped something'.

    The wave of silent approval from the rest of the queue was palpable.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    I take it this is the view of some of those in the church you are - or were? - involved with?

    In which case I'd say it's a simple sign of 'super-spirituality' on their part. They've 'spiritualised' what you, and plenty of other people, do irrespective of faith position.

    But I suppose if 'all good things come from above' then anything good and virtuous must ultimately be seen to have its origins in God.

    You may be of God's party without knowing it, just as Milton, according to Blake was 'of the Devil's party without knowing it.'
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.

    But stupid with it.

    Me too. You?

    Guilty as charged!

    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

    A philosopher best avoided, in my view.
  • Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    It's nonsense, and always has been? It's the same argument made by the sort of scumbag who claims moral virtue in abandoning their supermarket trolley in random locations in the car park, because returning it to the appropriate location would be "doing someone out of a job".

    You may as well argue that by not being drunk and disorderly in public on a regular basis, you're doing a policeman out of a job.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited June 2024
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Firenze wrote: »
    The one time I picked up litter I was in a bus queue and one of a group of (probably) tourists tossed a really big bundle of chip wrappings or similar. So I handed it back to them with 'I believe you dropped something'.

    The wave of silent approval from the rest of the queue was palpable.

    A woman can get away with that.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Brilliant @Firenze!

    I volunteer at the local Community Library. We offer a free WiFi connection 24 hours a day and there are seats in the open courtyard so people are there at all times. I wander around picking up the litter before I start my shift. I once scored a pair of wine glasses, which I disinfected and kept.

    I also ring up supermarkets and report trollies left in various places. because otherwise they end up in the river.

    My brother says there's a river in his area so polluted that the trollies come out with bits eaten by chemicals.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    Dear me. Not criterion?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    Dear me. Not criterion?

    Yeah, sorry. Off-base with the article-number thingamabob. "Morals have aesthetic criteria" seems to be the quote.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    Dear me. Not criterion?

    Yeah, sorry. Off-base with the article-number thingamabob. "Morals have aesthetic criteria" seems to be the quote.

    but shurely in German?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    It's nonsense, and always has been? It's the same argument made by the sort of scumbag who claims moral virtue in abandoning their supermarket trolley in random locations in the car park, because returning it to the appropriate location would be "doing someone out of a job".

    You may as well argue that by not being drunk and disorderly in public on a regular basis, you're doing a policeman out of a job.

    That would be my late father. I'll accept "misguided" on his behalf but you can fuck right off with "scumbag".
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    Dear me. Not criterion?

    Yeah, sorry. Off-base with the article-number thingamabob. "Morals have aesthetic criteria" seems to be the quote.

    but shurely in German?

    Well, I was going by the English translation that came up when I googled.
  • stetson wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    I was thinking of something like this, from The Antichrist...

    A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger.

    Yes, that is one of the big books that established Nietzsche as frankly vile. I believe that this quote is wrong, but it is one of the less horrific things in that thing.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    I take it this is the view of some of those in the church you are - or were? - involved with?

    In which case I'd say it's a simple sign of 'super-spirituality' on their part. They've 'spiritualised' what you, and plenty of other people, do irrespective of faith position.

    But I suppose if 'all good things come from above' then anything good and virtuous must ultimately be seen to have its origins in God.

    You may be of God's party without knowing it, just as Milton, according to Blake was 'of the Devil's party without knowing it.'

    Of course in this specific case Blake was terribly wrong – I recommend CS Lewis’ Preface to Paradise Lost.
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.

    But stupid with it.

    Me too. You?

    Guilty as charged!

    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

    A philosopher best avoided, in my view.

    Amen!
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    If butterflies were a pest that would get into your home and eat your food and leave droppings everywhere, I think we’d be eager to crush them no matter how pretty they were.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    I was thinking of something like this, from The Antichrist...

    A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger.

    Yes, that is one of the big books that established Nietzsche as frankly vile. I believe that this quote is wrong, but it is one of the less horrific things in that thing.

    Yeah. I think everyone who reads The Antichrist gets that "WTF, asshole?!" jolt on the first page with "The weak and the botched shall perish, and one shall help them to do so."

    Which I'm pretty sure is the intended effect. Personally, I'm partial to the section where he compares reading the New Testament unfavourably to reading the Law Book Of Manu, the latter of which dictates, among other things, that members of the lowest castes
    be allowed to drink water only from the hoof marks on dirt roads after a rainfall.

    Yeah, so the guy knew how to pick his examples. But there's a reason why I wrote "...he compares reading the New Testsment to reading the Law Book Of Manu...", rather than just "...he compares the Law Book Of Manu etc". Because Nietzsche is not endorsing applying the Law Book Of Manu to the current era, or even saying they were appropriate in their own era, he is describing the psychological effect that the book has on him, as the reader, contrasted with that of the gospels.

    On a cutsier note, I also like Nietzsche's summation of his comparison of Christianity with its fellow "nihilistic" faith, Buddhism...

    Buddhism makes no promises, and keeps all of them.

    Christianity makes many promises, and keeps none of them.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Apparently when I pick up litter with muh grabber, to and from work, at church, where I'm a hireling to do the same, I'm being virtuous, with the implication that I couldn't do it without the Holy Spirit. Nothing to do with being an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    I take it this is the view of some of those in the church you are - or were? - involved with?

    In which case I'd say it's a simple sign of 'super-spirituality' on their part. They've 'spiritualised' what you, and plenty of other people, do irrespective of faith position.

    But I suppose if 'all good things come from above' then anything good and virtuous must ultimately be seen to have its origins in God.

    You may be of God's party without knowing it, just as Milton, according to Blake was 'of the Devil's party without knowing it.'

    Of course in this specific case Blake was terribly wrong – I recommend CS Lewis’ Preface to Paradise Lost.
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    What happened to the theory that by picking up litter you are doing someone out of a job?

    No risk there. I always thank the council workers and finish what they start, because they aren't resourced enough. And I'm not that kind of demarcationist.
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    Bloody clever tho'.

    But stupid with it.

    Me too. You?

    Guilty as charged!

    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

    A philosopher best avoided, in my view.

    Amen!
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Re Nietzsche, in 'A Fish called Wanda', Otto, who I think we can agree was not a nice person at all, is see to be reading (I think) 'Beyond Good and Evil'.
    That would be the Otto who thinks Aristotle was Belgian and the principle of Buddhism is every man for himself? I think the joke is that he is a complete poser.

    Nietzsche is I believe a complicated thinker who contradicted himself a lot and as far as I can tell every one of his readers takes away from him something in their own image.

    My existentialism prof, much quoted by me on the Kierkegaard thread, advised us that Nietzsche's books need to be read cover to cover, not skimmed in a leering quest for his most outrageous jokes and metaphors.

    And for the existentialists, the most important aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy was eternal return, which I could sum up as...

    Maybe you want to help the old lady on the street carry her bags onto the bus. Maybe you want to kick her spine in. Don't let ME tell you what to do, but before you do anything, ask yourself: which action would I want to have repeated over and over again, for all eternity?

    Which I think gets us into his notion that morality follows aesthetic criteria, but I won't get too far into that now, beyond to post a quote from Beyond Good And Evil that I just found today...

    The man who crushes a cockroach is a hero. The man who crushes a beautiful butterfly is a villain. Morals have an aesthetic criteria.

    If butterflies were a pest that would get into your home and eat your food and leave droppings everywhere, I think we’d be eager to crush them no matter how pretty they were.

    Yeah, it's possibly an inept comparison, since the arguments for killing a cockroach are related, at least partly, to physical well-being, whereas the arguments against killing a butterfly are related to visual beauty.

    I haven't read much of BGAE, and don't know the context of that quote, but to pair it with my original example...

    When I decide to help the old lady across the street rather than beat her up for beer money, I'm not doing it because Plato or Jesus or Kant tell me to do it, I do it for the same reason that I spare the butterfly: I simply want there to be more beauty in the world.

    (And, yeah, it might work better if the two creatures were equal in hygienic terms.)

    Nietzsche does have a reply for those who ask rhetorically: "But what if I DO think that beating up the elderly is beautiful?" As explained in my class, you should ask yourself if you really think it's beautiful to do that, or are you just doing it show everyone how evil you are(*). If it's the latter, then you're still stick within the false duality that Nietzsche wants you to transcend.

    (*) The murderers in Rope were cited as an example of this in the lectures. They were, of course, patterned after Leopold and Loeb, who also claimed nietzschean justification for their crimes, and the writers of Rope apparently took this as an accurate representation of Nietzsche's supposedly baleful philosophy.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    By the way, my quote about virtues being "our invention" is, as far as I can tell from the internet, accurate as per whatever translation. The overall context for the passage is a critique of Kant.
  • stetson wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    ChastMastr wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Just re-reading the OP...

    Martin54 wrote: »
    [I am] an eccentric, self righteous old man whose self respect and interest is in seeing a quarter mile of clean street.

    This is almost nietzschean.

    Eek! I assume not--Nietzsche was dreadful.

    I was thinking of something like this, from The Antichrist...

    A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defence. In every other case it is a source of danger.

    Yes, that is one of the big books that established Nietzsche as frankly vile. I believe that this quote is wrong, but it is one of the less horrific things in that thing.

    Yeah. I think everyone who reads The Antichrist gets that "WTF, asshole?!" jolt on the first page with "The weak and the botched shall perish, and one shall help them to do so."

    Which I'm pretty sure is the intended effect. Personally, I'm partial to the section where he compares reading the New Testament unfavourably to reading the Law Book Of Manu, the latter of which dictates, among other things, that members of the lowest castes
    be allowed to drink water only from the hoof marks on dirt roads after a rainfall.

    Yeah, so the guy knew how to pick his examples. But there's a reason why I wrote "...he compares reading the New Testsment to reading the Law Book Of Manu...", rather than just "...he compares the Law Book Of Manu etc". Because Nietzsche is not endorsing applying the Law Book Of Manu to the current era, or even saying they were appropriate in their own era, he is describing the psychological effect that the book has on him, as the reader, contrasted with that of the gospels.

    On a cutsier note, I also like Nietzsche's summation of his comparison of Christianity with its fellow "nihilistic" faith, Buddhism...

    Buddhism makes no promises, and keeps all of them.

    Christianity makes many promises, and keeps none of them.

    Oh, there’s a lot more in the Antichrist than that. But his other ideas of master morality and slave morality and the like… as Lewis said, there’s a difference between “You like your bread moderately fresh—Why not have it perfectly fresh?” and Nietzsche’s “Throw away that loaf and eat bricks and centipedes instead.”

    All that said, I hope Nietzsche is doing better now than when he was on Earth. 🕯
  • stetson wrote: »
    By the way, my quote about virtues being "our invention" is, as far as I can tell from the internet, accurate as per whatever translation. The overall context for the passage is a critique of Kant.

    Oh, I don’t doubt it—I just wholly disagree with it with every fiber of my being. 🙂
  • Sorry to lower the tone, but in my locality volunteers picking litter have a) been threatened with legal action and b) moaned at by the council because recycling centres are for household waste or something.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all that is wrong with the law in England and Wales.

    In other news, I'm now entering the second week of my jury service. Which I'm not allowed to talk about except to say that there is a kettle, but no teabags.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Litter picking groups should coordinate with the local council, especially if they're operating as a larger group and will be filling several bags. Technically, if you take out a bag to fill, and then leave it somewhere for later collection, you would be fly tipping ... even though you're clearing up fly tipping! if what you do is pick up litter and put it in a local bin then you're OK, but that doesn't collect very much litter because capacity of bins isn't very large (and, certainly around here, some of the litter is there because small bins are full and overflowing in the first place). I regularly clear the area around my flat, filling a black bag which I just put in my own bin for uplift.

    For the picking group, we get bags from the council, with an arrangement that they're left next to council bins for uplift (in theory, council staff empty the bins at least once per week and will uplift bags left there at the same time). We have an app where we can record litter collection and the location of bags, and for larger number of bags that forwards those locations to the council so they can divert a truck to pick them up sooner. When we organise larger groups and collect very large number of bags (+trolleys and other larger items) we inform the council of the event in advance, and it's not been unheard of for the council to have uplifted the stuff within an hour of the end of the event - even when that has been on Sunday afternoon. It's useful for groups to find the right person in their council and form a good working relationship (in our case, that's Emma).
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    edited June 2024
    Martin, you would be welcome on our village. Not only is litter picking a regular thing, but there is a volunteer group to keep our fountain clean, a volunteer group to look after our planters and hanging baskets, and a newly formed volunteer group to scrub the bus shelters clean.

    With small litter picks, bags go into individuals' wheelie bins. Big litter picks, which require a council pick up, see the black bags left in the local councillor's driveway. This is a location from which pick-up is fast and efficient. :wink:

    We've got a volunteer resilience group too, which springs into action if the river bursts its banks and threatens to flood the village (in 2016 it actually did flood the village.)

    At least some of this is done by local businesses for whom it is good publicity; certainly anything involving high-pressure hoses, welding tools, industrial pumps or motorised water bowsers is done by local businesses. Litter-picks might be Scouts, Guides, the Youth Group, etc etc. Again, it's all good publicity.

    May I suggest, Martin, that your T-shirt should read: Martin, Volunteer Litter-picker, and then the logo of something which might be a sponsor. This will reduce the chances of anyone imputing virtuous motives to you, and suggest something vaguely business orientated and publicity-stunty instead.

    @KoF- I did jury duty in April. We had a fancy coffee machine, a kettle AND teabags, plus an unlimited supply of rather dull biscuits. The lunches were nice, too.
  • KoF wrote: »
    Sorry to lower the tone, but in my locality volunteers picking litter have a) been threatened with legal action and b) moaned at by the council because recycling centres are for household waste or something.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is all that is wrong with the law in England and Wales.

    In other news, I'm now entering the second week of my jury service. Which I'm not allowed to talk about except to say that there is a kettle, but no teabags.

    These things vary. Our local authority is pretty supportive of voluntary litter picking groups.

    @ChastMastr - yes, I've read C S Lewis and as you'd expect, perhaps, come down somewhere between his view and Blake's.

    Milton had to work hard to make his Satan unattractive. But I agree that his contemporaries would have picked up the villainous cues more readily than Blake or us post-Enlightenment types.

    Generally speaking, I'm suspicious of any commentary that asserts that Satan = Cromwell for instance, whilst being fully on board that 'Paradise Lost' can't but have been influenced by the politics of the Civil Wars and Commonwealth period.

    Blake was quirky member of that particular tradition too, of course.

    Hence his comment.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Milton had to work hard to make his Satan unattractive. But I agree that his contemporaries would have picked up the villainous cues more readily than Blake or us post-Enlightenment types.
    Milton's problem is that his God is something of an aesthetic void. It doesn't help that the first thing he says boils down to "It's not my fault," which makes him look a bit shifty.
    Also, the fact that Milton's Messiah is not God doesn't do God any favours. All the work of saving people is done by someone else.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Generally speaking, I'm suspicious of any commentary that asserts that Satan = Cromwell for instance, whilst being fully on board that 'Paradise Lost' can't but have been influenced by the politics of the Civil Wars and Commonwealth period.

    Is there evidence that Milton was hostile enough to Cromwell that he woulda made him Satan?

    (And, yes, I know Milton's portrayal of Satan is somewhat ambivalent, but I would have to think that, "all the best lines" notwithstanding, he came down on the side of think he's a bad dude.)
  • Proponents of this view don't make out that Milton was hostile to Cromwell, rather that his Satan is a kind of heroic rebel who doesn't finally succeed in over-throwing the status quo.

    The argument runs that it's some kind of subconscious stress reaction on Milton's part as the glorious Puritan future had failed to materialise. A Republican England had not joined the Dutch and German Protestant states to overthrow the Papacy and usher in the Millenium and bring the light of the glorious Protestant Gospel to the world and hastened the return of Christ.

    Something like that.

    Whatever the case, as @Dafyd reminds us, his theology was pretty unorthodox. I've always thought of him as 'binitarian' rather than 'unitarian' but yes, to all intents and purposes Milton's God the Father is something of an aesthetic void. The Son is somewhat anaemic and the Holy Spirit a kind of draughty after-thought.

    Milton would make a good minister in a mainstream liberal Protestant denomination ... ;).
  • But yes, as @ChastMastr has reminded us, C S Lewis was very much of the view that Milton's Satan is intended to be a bad dude.

    I'd agree - in terms of Milton's intention. As far as the actual execution of this idea goes, I don't think he entirely succeeds.

    I think Blake over-stated his case. As he often did. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a case to be made.

    But we are a long way from litter-picking, virtuous and godly or otherwise.

    'They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow
    Through Eden picked their solitary way.'
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 2024
    Thanks for the explication, GG.

    Milton would make a good minister in a mainstream liberal Protestant denomination ... ;).

    Well, at least in North America, the main direct descendants of Puritanism per se are the Congregationalists, Unitarians, and United Churches(via Congregationalism), so...yeah.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    'They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow
    Through Eden picked their solitary way.'

    "But, Adam, aren't we taking jobs from the cherubim?"
  • stetson wrote: »
    'They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow
    Through Eden picked their solitary way.'

    "But, Adam, aren't we taking jobs from the cherubim?"

    ROTFL!!

    Cool discussion on Milton, but yes, this is really about litter picking.

    I’m dismayed that someone would get in trouble for it. :(
Sign In or Register to comment.