The Argument from Self-Loathing

Debate Room
1

Below I link to an interesting interview with Ben Sasse, former (pre-Trump) Republican senator and educator who is, at this moment, dying pretty horribly from metastasized pancreatic cancer. It is interesting (to me, anyway) as a window into the “conservative mind” that I grew up in the midst of, and of the theistic concepts that play into that.

Near the end of the rather lengthy interview, Sasse is asked a question:

I don’t recall anyone making an argument for theism in exactly these terms. I don’t find it remotely persuasive, because it starts from the asserted premise that any given human being is inherently inadequate / unworthy and has important parts of themselves that must be not only denied, but actively murdered.

The charge that any personal interest, passion or desire (or just a need for stability or control over something) is a sort of delusion of grandeur to the point of aspiring to deity, is replicated in many aspects of our society. Various inflection points in science, particularly medicine, like the invention of anesthesia, or the exercise of choice in things traditionally left to chance, such as choosing the time and manner of one’s death, are routinely (and selectively) gaslit as “playing God”. For some reason “playing God” by engaging in heroic measures, as Sasse is doing, to either elide a “death sentence” or to at least delay it – THAT is not a problem, lol.

One ends up constantly parsing one’s degree of (mis)alignment with some asserted divine will and if you have never lived like that you can’t imagine how limiting it is.

Anyway, I think the interview is provocative and interesting apart from these questions and gives some insight into how pre-MAGA (arguably, proto-MAGA) thinking works. And Sasse is admirable in how he’s handling his demise, I think, even if through using a theistic lens for it.

At any rate here’s the link. It is supposed to be an unlocked NYT article. If it doesn’t work for some folks, my apologies, as I’m not a subscriber, but let me know and I can post a couple of fair-use quotes if someone wants them and can’t read via the link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/opinion/ben-sasse-death-pancreatic-cancer.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z1A.ibPY.nXlR5mwBWOKm&smid=nytcore-ios-share

1 Like
2

I was sorry to hear of Mr. Sasse’s current health condition. If his ontology is offering him comfort in this time then that’s great for him.

His apparent desire to be taken seriously when suggesting that an innate god complex is “our” problem is shaky generalization, indeed.

(Should he also be trying to make other people a bit less impressed by products of a Harvard education… and Oxford… and St John’s…. and Yale - mission accomplished.)

2 Likes
3

It is too bad that Mr. Sasse is dying, but don’t be fooled: he is one of the architects of the mess we find ourselves in.

He was more than happy to try to give me a death sentence (his opposition to the ACA).

2 Likes
4

I cannot relate to that either. My soul is deeply disturbed. From guilt, to shame, to lust, to temptation, self loathing, self deception, sloth, laziness, weakness, denial, continued voluntary participation within the construct of my own vices, a seemingly endless ability to judge others, a habitual tendency of disparagement, cynicism, dark irony, the list continues …

I have an inherent desire to change, but no ability to. Every action, word and thought is motivated by a primal urge to fornicate with women and exact violence upon men. I am a primitive monkey in that sense. I feel somewhat relieved only when I allow myself to embrace these two motives - believing that I am at least human and that it is at least good of me that I act as one.

And yet this always fails to satisfy. It is as if I am totally unable to find even one redeeming quality about myself. And I do not admit any of this for the sake of your pity. I can relate to the old man.

I am genuinely loathe of self. It comforts me to know at least that God has a sense of humour and is capable of forgiveness. The impending judgment of my morally bereft constitution is constantly on my mind. All attempts to “be a good person” appear like pathetic pleading and wiggling in the face of my eventual fate.

5

(Just to be clear, rat_spit was quoting me quoting Ben Sasse. I don’t personally share Sasse’s self loathing).

But to your point I’m quoting above, I trust you do not literally mean NO ability. Of course you have the ability to change. In some ways more (or more easily) than others.

Many people’s biggest enemy for example is the stern judgmental voice in their heads. That is my stepson’s nemesis. It has gotten so bad that he largely doesn’t see it, it is just the ocean of assumptions in which he swims, defining a perfectionist world that has to unfold in a rigid way that is guaranteed to fail (or at least not always to succeed).

I am glad that you can see some humor / absurdity in all this and that forgiveness for your imperfections, real or imagined, is possible.

6

And where do you think this voice comes from?

7

The same place any inner narrative comes from … the stories we habitually tell ourselves about ourselves and others.

8

Are you subject to spontaneous thoughts popping into your head? Don’t you think it that we had the choice we would turn off those thoughts and narratives? Doesn’t that tell you something about where they’re coming from?

9

It is called “the mind’s eye” or “the mind’s voice”. Partly that serves as a mechanism to recall past experiences and predict future ones. which is central to goal setting and decision-making. It’s also a mechanism for self-direction. Our subconscious is both stupid and obedient. I used to follow a particular route on my daily walk and I would tell “myself” that I would reward myself near the end by stopping for a cup of coffee. Invariably when I got there I would say, nah, I’ll walk another quarter mile to home and make myself a cup a lot cheaper. And yet it never failed to motivate me to have that faux goal. My subconscious dumbly looked forward to it.

Our subconscious believes what we habitually tell it. I would give my whole kingdom if I could get my stepson to tell himself he’s doing his best and there’s no point in anyone asking more of him than that, than to tell himself he’s a complete failure and he’ll never measure up and everyone despises him. The narrative is of his own perfectionist / OCD invention, and he’s the only one that can tell it to STFU and feed it a new narrative.

1 Like
10

It is sad to me any human whom is dying. However, from over 6 decades of living, I can never shed any tear when it is a REPUBLICAN. Republican automatically means they are an Inexorable Believers I tend to sometimes call “Religitards”. However, that is the only time I shall use that term here. I prefer Inexorable Believers because it definitively tells you they cannot be reasoned with, they can never be rational, they cannot think critically. For OVER 60 years, all I have heard from those damnable religious Republicans is “God for America.” From Democrats even religious ones, I hear “Americans for America.”

Thus, when any Republican/Inexorable Believer dies, all I can remember is one thing me dad taught me: “Never say anything about the dead unless it is good.”

Well… “Good. He is dead.”

Sorry, Theists, but I can NEVER feel any sadness for the death of any religious person. For ALL of Humanity’s ILLS are derived from the theological differences between you Inexorable Believers and your belief systems. ALL wars and depravity can ULTIMATELY be traced back to the differences in religious ideology.

It is always sad when any human dies, but some ARE more deserving than others. However, I AIN’T the one that decides. That is for Reality to weed. Charlie Kirk was one prime example. I was livid with the way he was assassinated. That is just (sorry for English) fucking wrong. That is not the way to do it. My method in all debates I have had was to point out where my opponent was so lacking of any knowledge, they can only be said to be “stupid, idiotic, and retarded.” That is my preferred method of assassination. Assassinate their dumb-assery. In other words, assassinate their persona, not the person.

11

It depends a lot on definitions and framing. I’ve read studies of wars throughout history that only credit around 15% of wars to explicitly religious reasons, and while theism tends to lend its support / moral “authority” at times to wars, or (as in the Middle East) religion can be a catalyst or accelerant on tribalisms behind wars, I’m reluctant to say it’s as simple as “all war is caused by religion” even in some ultimate sense. I think wars are caused by tribal and territorial impulses and religion is just a useful fool to rubber stamp or justify those impulses by claiming god approves of them or that there was some prior divine bestowal of territory that is now being usurped.

Perhaps at the end of the day it’s so muddled and hard to separate out that it become a distinction without a difference, IDK. But there are moderate theists who aren’t hostile to secular society and it’s not all authoritarian / fundamentalist sentiment out there. Theism isn’t a monolith. Some of it is far more dangerous and antisocial, some, not at all really. And I say this as a former fundagelical, who could be forgiven for thinking that all Christians are nutters because I wasn’t very aware of the saner folks. In reality however on a worldwide basis over 80% of Christians are not evangelicals, much less fundamentalists – so there are some meaningful distinctions there.

I certainly agree that even relatively liberal theists don’t deserve special treatment in the marketplace of ideas, and we should be pretty much “put up or shut up” regarding their truth claims.

12

Interesting. Bigot much?
Second warning: Cut out the rage bating.

2 Likes
13

See? This is where you and I are fundamentally different. After walking in such a way I would invariably treat myself to a cup of coffee.

Here I could offer you some practical advice from a person who has suffered from intrusive thoughts, negative, obsessive, obnoxious, and repetitive thoughts - there is an art.

One must enter into a certain meditation. One which encompasses the chakras and the breathing apparatus - there is great wisdom even if dwelling only on the tip of the nose (while seated cross-wise). The same can be said of the lower nostrils.

these two nose parts are the ones dwelled on by Theravāda Buddhist masters. But a similar line can be drawn from the - outer nostrils, the bridge of the nose, and the sides of the nose.

It may be worth telling him to go on a ten day solitary retreat! I don’t know. Just a suggestion…

14

Interesting. I really expected I would be like you and indulge. By default, I used to. But my accidental discovery was that if I didn’t indulge, the motivation still remained. I could lie to my subconscious and it would never catch on.

I appreciate that. I think he will likely need some such discipline to think his way out of it. He’s just started a virtual therapy program run by Stanford and if they can’t get through to him maybe I will sic the local Buddhists on him. We have both Theravāda and Zen communities here.

15

It’s right there?

20 characters or less etc etc etc

1 Like
16

You just saved me a lot of typing, and for the record there are Republicans and theists who are among the most intelligent people you will meet. That I disagree with any policy or political idea, must be about what I deem wrong with it, and not where it comes from. As the first is based on the best reasoning I am able to summon, whereas the second is little more than bias using a poisoning of the well fallacy.

1 Like
17

Can you prove that you exist? I know your body exists. I know you “have” thoughts. Can you prove that you have a self which is the cause of those thoughts? Can you even argue that’s the case?

18

I don’t know what you mean by “have a self” or what it is you’re asking me to prove? Obviously I don’t believe human consciousness can exist without a functioning human brain, as there is no objective evidence it can.

There is also overwhelming objective evidence that human consciousness requires a functioning human brain, and that is therefore a strong argument that consciousness is an emergent property of the same.

1 Like