First: notice how we are all expressing our opinions :)
I think what religion and politics have in common is that they
become part of people's identity, and people can never have a
fruitful argument about something that's part of their
identity. By definition they're partisan.
(NOTE: I'm not rigorously defining the word "governance" in this
response, I can expand on my meaning further if people are
interested)
Paul Graham is on to something in this essay. I think, however,
that Carl Jung pinpointed the exact mechanism with far more
accuracy.
Politics and Religion (for many people) in Jung's system of
thought are often vehicles of "transferance", or, the transferring
of one's spiritual principle or governance principle to a receiver
(a priest, or politician, or guru) because people's psyche's are
largely unconscious and rarely question or examine their own
identity (consciousness, although Jung has a much deeper
definition of identity). People "transfer" to the closest external
match for that which their unsconscious wishes to have integrated.
Paul's statement about it being a part of their identity is
inaccurate because it's actually the opposite. If the person in
question were not transferring their spiritual principle it
would actually be an integrated peice of their identity and
consciousness. There would no longer be an imperative to defend
the vehicle that carries such an important peice of their
"self". As people integrate more of their transfers and projections they have less and less need to justify their existence because that existence is self-contained rather than fragmented.
Understanding that the spiritual and governance principles within
the psyche are actually subjective and not objective experiences
is a sign of someone that has truly identified those
components. I say "truly identified" not because truth is defined
by an authority or natural principle but because the person has
identified the truth of it in relationship to their own
non-physical (mental/psychological) experience.
I think pg is using the word identity differently than you (or Jung) here. He doesn't attempt to explain the source of the "strong convictions" that drive political or religious beliefs. He simply observes the connection between the case where people think of themselves as a certain type of person and consequently will defend the associated beliefs regardless of evidence.
So there's something about peoples minds that makes it costly for them to accept certain facts. For a long time now, professing a certain belief with conviction has been a way of associating yourself with a certain group has had and continues to have direct implications on a person's physical well-being. Given acting is hard and cognitive-dissonance is nasty, actually adopting the belief makes sense.
A more precise way express the essay's thrust might be "don't get attached to your beliefs."
I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that's part of their identity. By definition they're partisan.
(NOTE: I'm not rigorously defining the word "governance" in this response, I can expand on my meaning further if people are interested)
Paul Graham is on to something in this essay. I think, however, that Carl Jung pinpointed the exact mechanism with far more accuracy.
Politics and Religion (for many people) in Jung's system of thought are often vehicles of "transferance", or, the transferring of one's spiritual principle or governance principle to a receiver (a priest, or politician, or guru) because people's psyche's are largely unconscious and rarely question or examine their own identity (consciousness, although Jung has a much deeper definition of identity). People "transfer" to the closest external match for that which their unsconscious wishes to have integrated.
Paul's statement about it being a part of their identity is inaccurate because it's actually the opposite. If the person in question were not transferring their spiritual principle it would actually be an integrated peice of their identity and consciousness. There would no longer be an imperative to defend the vehicle that carries such an important peice of their "self". As people integrate more of their transfers and projections they have less and less need to justify their existence because that existence is self-contained rather than fragmented.
Understanding that the spiritual and governance principles within the psyche are actually subjective and not objective experiences is a sign of someone that has truly identified those components. I say "truly identified" not because truth is defined by an authority or natural principle but because the person has identified the truth of it in relationship to their own non-physical (mental/psychological) experience.