gifts from gods
My best blogging buddy, The Ark, is a popular chap. He’s always inviting religious folks over to his blog for a cosy chat about their beliefs. If you’re religiously inclined, and you haven’t met Ark yet, pop over and say hello. Tell him Violet sent you.
Last time I was hanging out at The Ark’s spot, I bumped into one of his Christian friends, Mark. We got chatting about morality and I thought it might be nice to clear up some basic Christian misunderstandings.
Empathy: a gift from the god God
Empathy is the thing that helps us understand and care about how other people are feeling. It does not come magically from a deity. It is not a moral law. It is a naturally evolved characteristic humans have that helps us form relationships and work together. We learn a large chunk of our empathic responses, like most behaviours, through imitation. Some children may lack the necessary input and may have difficulty as adults understanding the feelings of others. Other people may be born with disorders that give them atypical empathic responses. If someone hasn’t learned or can’t learn empathy, it’s not their fault and it’s not a ‘sin’. They are likely to be socially conditioned to follow what other people usually do, but may not have what are considered normal responses on all occasions.
Love thy neighbour – a gift from the god God
Everyone wants to live in a nice world. Because it’s obvious that a nice world is a better place to live – for us and any offspring we have. When we allow suffering, injustice and discrimination, we are increasing the likelihood that someone we know and care about will suffer. It’s nice when people treat us well, and we can only expect people to treat us well if we treat other people well. This is frequently called ‘The Golden Rule’ because loads of ancient philosophers across many cultures stated the same thing, and no religion can claim exclusivity for such a basic and common sense understanding of life.
Absolute Rights & Wrongs – a gift from the god God
Even Christians don’t truly believe there are absolute rights and wrongs. According to their rule book, stealing is wrong. But stealing a piece of bread to feed a starving child, in the absence of any other access to food, is clearly not. Why? Because if a child dies of hunger, it suffers (empathy), its family suffers (empathy) and if you were starving you would want someone to give you food (nice world), and if your child was starving you would want someone to them food (nice world). Stealing is usually ‘wrong’ for similar reasons – I don’t want someone stealing from me (empathy and nice world). But balancing the outcomes of stealing the bread and not feeding the child, there’s a bigger, badder outcome if the starving child doesn’t eat. That’s not absolute. That’s logic.
Logic – a gift from the god God
Only joking!
Greetings,
I’ll focus on absolute right and wrongs. I’m a Christian and I believe that there are objective rights and wrongs. You suggest that is inconsistent because, as you’ve shown, there is a time for everything (a time to steal, not to steal, etc). Are you correct?
I don’t think so. I don’t need a comprehensive ethical system in order to affirm that some things truly are reprehensibly wrong (I’ll spare you shock value examples). I merely need to have a deep human intuition that some things are horrifically wrong and take that intuition to be indicative of a moral fact-even if others disagree. There presence of gray areas does not undercut my experience of black and white on certain horrific issues.
Hope you don’t mind me kicking it off again.
LikeLike
Ben,
Can you state just one objective moral value?
If allowing your god existence and we say that moral laws come from him, doesn’t this make them subjective to his whims and disposition?
LikeLike
Thanks for asking, although I was hoping I wouldn’t have to start listing nasty things.
Would agree with me that it is objectively wrong to abuse children, or persecute homosexuals, or burn those with whom one disagrees alive? Or do you regard at intuition as conventional-true relative to me, but not necessarily binding on all people?
LikeLike
Sorry for the sloppy typing in my last. It seems to me fairly obvious that some things are truly wrong. It is unthinkable for the things I mentioned to be subjectively wrong. What role does God play? That’s a good question that I’ll need to think about. But in the mean time I think what I’ve said makes sense.
LikeLike
No need to apologise for sloppy typing, I have sloppy reading and don’t worry about making sense either, I try not to make sense most of the time.
Well, I said all morals are subjective and you listed a few that to you are objective because we all seem to agree on them. Unless you are a psycopath, which means you are sick, you would want to be killed, or raped and any other thing you will call nasty. All this values are subject to how humans feels and interact with each other. We find it wrong to abuse children or anyone else because we wouldn’t want to be treated in that manner and collectively we call this wrong. How it ceases to be subjective, that is depended on human beings, I don’t get and maybe you would do well as to educate me.
Whenever you can think about the part god plays, just write here, I will surely read it and say my 2 cents 🙂
LikeLike
Sorry, I’ll still pass on the role God plays because I don’t want to get sidetracked by the Euthyphro dilemma (and I’m not spun up on it personally).
However, how does what I subjectively regard as wrong become objective? Firstly, to avoid morally absurd situations. If right and wrong are merely a function of societal consensus, then who are we to say that past societies have been wrong about various things. Everyone once agreed that it was appropriate to persecute homosexuals for example. Was that wrong? Not if right and wrong are democratic. But it is wrong and we now know that. I chalk this up to objective moral facts.
Second, some moral facts are basic beliefs. They do no rest on any logical foundation. We don’t always know why it is wrong to harm another even though it is. I regard other intuitions (such as my memory, my sensory experience, etc) as reliable judges of the objective world. I think that my moral intuition also indicates the reality of a world of moral facts. I don’t know whether or not I have “coloured glasses” obscuring my moral vision. But I am sure that there is something out there to be morally confused about, rather than nothing.
LikeLike
Sorry to interject here, but I feel I must comment.
“I’ll still pass on the role God plays because I don’t want to get sidetracked by the Euthyphro dilemma (and I’m not spun up on it personally).” Am I to understand from this that you view discussing these matters as a mindless exercise of rehashing what other people have told you in the form of their ‘theories’ on life? This may explain why you don’t respond to what people are actually saying but instantly put it in a ‘theory’ box and offer the irrelevant antidote you read about Christian classes. Breathtakingly weird. Try and think about what is being said without classifying the argument and respond appropriately (i.e. use your own brain in free movement, we’re not playing chess).
Instinctive morals come solely from what we have learned within our culture, upbringing and personal influences. Things we are exposed to as normal on a daily basis seem fine and normal, and things we haven’t seen before seem shocking and weird. Things that people tell us are bad and wicked, seem naturally bad and wicked. We’re big sponges when we’re growing up.
I was told homosexuality was sinful as a child, so when one of my very well behaved and nice friends came out as a teenager, my innate moral compass went spinning. Questioning enters the fray when people realise that the instinctive feeling they are having doesn’t make any sense, when they logically consider what the outcomes of particular actions are and see that they aren’t actually damaging, or that there is some form of negative outcome, but the positive outcome has more weight. Then their morals shift.
And this is all morality is: decision making that should be made logically, but may be made instinctively as a result of cultural morals (handy shortcuts to easy decision-making that often lead an illogical way). That is why there is no objective morality – there is only the weight of the beneficial and detrimental outcomes of the decision, which may vary according to individual analysis, but using empathy as a guide, most people are able to generally agree. And this means we can retrospectively and culturally judge whether something is a good or bad decision – if it is moral or immoral if you like.
LikeLike
Hello violet,
I think it’s most productive to stay on topic – right now the question is whether or not moral facts exist. There’s no need to discuss what role God plays since I’m not appealing to him. Do I sound too theoretical? I’m o.k. with that. My education is in math and physics. Theory is my friend.
Furthermore, you regularly appeal to logic. Logic isn’t just whatever you think sounds smart. It is the science of thinking clearly and consistently. It doesn’t answer life’s big questions. It just helps to work out the implications of those beliefs you already have. Most importantly, it can force you to choose between two contradictory beliefs that you find important.
Let’s get logical. You seem to argue that morality is not objective; nevertheless we can condemn other societies for their poor moral judgment. I think these two views are face value contradictory.
1. Objective morality is a single code of conduct binding on all humans (Definition).
2. There is no objective morality (Your proposal)
3. Therefore, there is no single moral code binding on all humans (By 1 and 2).
4. I am bound by a societal moral code (Your proposal)
5. There are other humans who are not bound by my societal moral code. (By 3 and 4)
So logically, if you believe that you are bound by a societal moral code of some sort (I don’t care how you develop it or what it’s content is) AND you believe that there is no objective morality, it follows logically that there are humans who are not bound by your moral code.
You cannot logically condemn people for apparent evil and horrors relative to your moral code but not to theirs. You can only disagree. As such, it seems to me that this argument (or a similar one) shows that your view faces serious logical problems.
All the best,
p.s. this post is all original material. I made it up on the spot.
LikeLike
I can tell you made it up. And you made it up without reading (or being able to understand?) what I wrote, as it bears no relation to anything I said. Try putting it together with the Empathy and Nice World sections of the post – these are universal human norms which should be and usually are used in the judgement of behaviour. When we are not distracted by nonsensical religious rules – how do you think laws are made? By appealing to ‘objective morality’? No, by logically analysing the outcomes of behaviours. That’s why laws change as our understanding of life develops and our access to information increases, and silly religious rules stay embarrassingly trapped by time.
LikeLike
I think that there’s a simple choice to be made. Either a) use the words right and wrong and accept an objective morality or b) use the words right and wrong “relative to me” and reject an objective morality. Knowledge of the details of this objective morality is irrelevant.
LikeLike
You have a point. I prefer to think of it as ‘the positive outcomes outweigh the negative outcomes’ versus ‘the negative outcomes outweigh the positive outcomes’ – but right and wrong make sense. As long you don’t understand them to be two-dimensional absolutes. They carry the weight of a logical decision-making process that uses all the information available to make a considered decision. And neither can they be considered absolute for eternity, in that if more information comes to light that changes the weighting, the balance can easily change. I don’t think morality is a useful label, it unnecessarily simplifies a more complicated process and carries too many illogical religious connotations.
LikeLike
Very good. So you accept my dilemma in principle? Yes, right and wrong is a bit too simple. Morality can be more complicated – i.e. values and duties, individual rights and wrongs, etc. My point isn’t that life is a “true/false” multiple choice question. Rather, one cannot have it both ways. Either acknowledge an objective (yet perhaps unknown) morality or put a “relative to me” after all of the terms you use to describe the moral dimension.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. I could say ‘on my analysis of the outcomes’ of a behaviour I believe X is the best course of action. But if someone presented some information that changed the balance, it wouldn’t affect any sense of morality, just the conclusion about the best course of action. Not sure how that fits in with your two possibilities.
LikeLike
“I believe X” – your speaking my (abstract) language! Nice.
After your analysis you come up with what is right “relative to you given your analysis.” I will then come up with what is right “relative to me and my analysis.” Who’s to say which one of us is closer to the truth? If you don’t affirm the existence of moral truth there is no way to order different proposals from most correct to least correct as we struggle to find the right thing to do in life. Your analysis simply reduces to your opinion without a moral truth to compare it to in the end.
LikeLike
You agree we have the power to think logically? You agree laws of the land are made (ideally) by logically analysing the outcomes of actions and the effects they have on individuals or society at large? There is no right answer, no ‘right’ thing to do in life at any given moment, but using logic and empathy most people would arrive at similar conclusions regarding the best, or most useful, course of action in any given situation. On finely balanced issues like euthanasia, people fall on both sides, depending on the information they have had access to (perhaps a relative dying of an incurable disease who is suffering) and their concerns for society (perhaps fearing the burden of choice acceptance of assisted dying would place on vulnerable people). Neither is ‘wrong’, both have completely valid points and any conclusion that is drawn inevitably has to take all information available into consideration. What’s your objective morality telling you to do in the case of euthanasia? It should be irrelevant because objective analysis of the facts and potential outcomes based on evidence is what’s required. Morality is nonsense (but useful for shortcut thinking on easy issues that are long resolved and have no positive outcomes e.g. rape, child abuse.)
LikeLike
Well well, Ben, I will allow you to pass that god argument if you don’t want to.
Wrong or right are subjective and I will give you an analogy. Consider a hawk[predator] and sheep[prey]. The sheep sees the hawk as bad since it kills it for food while the hawk sees the sheep as good as it is a source of delicious nourishment. There is no objective morality. All the moral code or values have been developed over time. In our times we can all agree slavery is bad. In reading about Roman civilization, you will discover that they owned slaves, though the Romans in many ways were just as moral as we were. Or consider the gladiatorial games, you’d call them immoral/ bad whatever language you chose to use while to the Romans of old, owning gladiators was a mark of class.
What would be the basis of the objective morality. Is this moral standard/ value divorced so much from man that you feel it could not have developed over time as more information became available to us?
Are you serious about this? That you don’t know why it is bad to harm others? I thought in my first response I did indicate that we would not want to intentionally harm others since we would not want to be harmed. Is that not logical or must logic follow A so B?
Why not? I can if from point of view the action seems to be based on wrong moral judgement. I will supply two examples. In Rwanda in 1994, the Hutus went on a killing spree, killing Tutsis and their sympathisers. We all agree it was wrong because ethnic cleansing is based on a wrong moral judgement, that is, a different tribe can be unclean. Tribe doesn’t make a person unclean. In 2007, after a hotly contested election in Kenya, my brothers and sisters went on a killing spree based still on wrong moral judgement. If the people involved had known that nobody chooses where to be born and as such to claim they are unclean is putting guilt where they are not responsible, that is, their birth something no one chooses.
You are creating a dilemma that does not exist. You can use the words right and wrong without accepting an objective morality. In many cases what is right relative to me, for example, I don’t want anyone to steal from me, can be applied across the board except where we have a thief who doesn’t give a hoot either way.
So in this case you are making dear Violet agree to a dilemma that doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Very thoughtful reply! I’ll digest it a bit before responding.
LikeLike
Livelysceptic has just posted on the subject too, very interesting and useful information:
LikeLike
Violet, I agree the post by livelysceptic has a lot of useful information.
LikeLike
Hello,
Ok, here goes. First, I agree that animals are not subject to an objective moral code. This is one of the things that I believe differentiates us from the animals.
If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that the objective moral code to which I refer couldn’t have been developed over time. This is a subtle point. I want to distinguish between moral facts (ontology) and knowledge of those facts (epistemology). On my view, society slowly discovers moral facts as they reflect on moral issues. Using your example, I believe it was always wrong to own slaves. The Romans failed to discover that fact. Many countries today have discovered that fact so it has become moral knowledge for us.
Can there be knowledge without facts? I don’t think so. I think physics offers a good analogy. The facts of quantum physics have always been “out there” in the real world. It has just taken time for us to discover them. When we consider two theories – classical mechanics and quantum mechanics – we can decide which is closer to the truth. Both are technically false (QM and general relativity are incompatible). But quantum mechanics is closer to the real world than classical mechanics. The same goes for morals. When it comes to slavery, I say that our moral knowledge is closer to the real world of moral facts than that of the Romans. But without an objective world out there, who’s to say that quantum is more correct than classical? The same seems true for morality. Who’s to say which society is more correct?
You wonder about the basic beliefs that I mention. Let’s play the “why” game. Suppose I ask you, “why is slavery wrong?” You say because society says so. “Why does society say it is wrong?” You might say that it is hurtful to slaves. “Why is it wrong to hurt slaves?” Because they are humans just like you and I. “Why is it wrong to hurt people just like me?” The Golden rule! “Why should I follow the Golden rule?” ad infinitum.
Eventually, you’re going to get annoyed and say “it’s just wrong, OK!” That indicates to me that moral values have an intuitive objective basis. At some level I just see that something is wrong and I appeal to your intuition expecting that you can also see it. That may not be the case but it’s truly the best I can do. Eventually I must simply ask you to see for yourself that it’s wrong.
In summary, I apprehend a realm of moral facts and strive to discover them through the processes you mention. I am not thereby “inventing” moral knowledge. I’m trying to discover it. That’s the difference.
LikeLike
Hello,
Why would the question go to ad infinitum while I can say that slavery is wrong simply because I wouldn’t want to be a slave. Why ain’t that reason enough or you don’t give much credence to your likes or dislikes? Consider this example drawn from the Brothers Karamozov where Dmitri is being tried for the brutal murder of his father, his lawyer says in his defense, that the older Karamozov didn’t deserve to be called a father nor treated with respect as such since he at no time took care of his sons. Would you say the lawyer was wrong in his assessment because society desires we respect and honor our parents?
I thought physics and science in general give the best explanation to our understanding of our universe based on the information in our possession at the moment. So that if you are talking about facts to mean absolutes, then such don’t exist, all knowledge is provisional.
Are you suggesting that a parallel universe would exist where this you call objective morals exist and our duty is to discover them? Did I understood you correctly or I missed something?
LikeLike
Hi,
I would say the lawyer is wrong because it is a moral fact we must respect and honour our parents. The lawyer is wrong and would still be wrong even if society had adopted his line of thought years ago. Indeed, what if it were the case that all the other lawyers agreed with his defense after years of precedent setting? Societal norms evolve. Would that be a turn for the worst or for the better? Without moral facts, I don’t see how we can justify calling it a change for the worse. It would just be different.
You and I both believe that certain things are wrong. We just disagree about how those beliefs are warranted. I say it is warranted because it refers to a moral fact that we have discovered. You have another proposal that I can’t intuitively accept. Subjective morality seems to be arbitrary and risks taking a turn for the worse without having the philosophical resources to recognize devolution as such.
Parallel universes is not what I mean. I’m making an analogy between moral and physical facts. Different moral and physical theories are closer to the truth than others on my view. I’m not a postmodernist so I reject the idea that there is no absolute truth just as I reject the idea that there is no real way the world actually is.
Thanks for the thoughtful conversation by the way.
LikeLike
“it is a moral fact we must respect and honour our parents” What a silly way to view the world! Respecting parents is certainly a useful guide in general, given that as children our parents usually have the responsibility to teach us the basics of life, and are likely to want to look after us properly. There is also the genetic bond that will us more likely to connect with them. But that’s as far as it goes. We don’t *need* to respect or honour them more than we do any other human beings. What relation does this ‘moral fact’ of yours have to a child who is abused by their parents?
LikeLike
It’s just an example. I think you miss the point. Choose something more shocking and less controversial, like “thou shalt not commit genocide.” Is that a subjective opinion or a moral fact?
LikeLike
But this is where it all gets pointless. There are no rules that can be applied to every situation – you just don’t get that. We can say that in every case of genocide in history it has been unjustified, cruel and the cause of unnecessary suffering, (being always motivated by irrational fear or hatred) and there is no reason to believe it could ever be justified based on this. But why are you using this as an example? I believe it’s wrong and could never be justified but you don’t (given that the god God did it a few times).
LikeLike
“There are no rules that can be applied to every situation – you just don’t get that.” I can agree with that actually. What I instead affirm is that there is a moral fact for each situation. In each situation there is a right and wrong thing to do. Even if I don’t know what the moral fact is (for the situation), it exists nonetheless. That is objective morality.
LikeLike
What about the 10 Commandments then?
LikeLike
I haven’t claimed that the 10 commandments constitute an objective morality. I’m just appealing to the serious problems of subjective morality.
Nevertheless, I can affirm (as a Christian), that in any given situation it is wrong to worship any God but the one who delivered the commandents. I can also claim that it is always wrong to murder – i.e. take a human life without just cause. Notice that I haven’t been simplistic and said “thou shalt not kill”, but rather do not take a life without just cause.
We are starting to mix up ethics with morality. Objective morality constitutes the realm of moral facts. Ethics is a system to attempt to discover and consistently apply those moral facts to real life. Naturally an overly simplistic ethics (always honour parents…) conflicts with intuitive objective moral facts (…unless there is abuse and justice requires reporting them to police).
LikeLike
“best blogging buddy”? Bit hurt now. I hope you can have more than one best blogging buddy!!
LikeLike
I just say that because he’s awfully sensitive and keeps going in huffs with me. He’s the only person that regularly compliments my photos so I have to keep him sweet. Because the main purpose of my blog is to generate praise for my pretty pictures, but sometimes people lose sight of this … Apart from the pictures angle, you trump Ark any day. 😉
LikeLike
Oy!!…Don’t Cry for me, Argentina? Alright…
LikeLike
Don’t be jealous Ark. I’ve known Clare for longer (at least a week) and she’s never sworn at any of my blog guests (although she did call one of her own a nincompoop last week, so she’s prone to rage as well).
LikeLike
Very nice post!
Most mammals show an equal measure of empathy to that of humans. It is indeed natural, since it is an obvious evolutionary asset in the struggle for the survival of the fittest.
I think it is possible there are objective truths about right and wrong, in each and every case of human conduct, but that does not require for a supernatural explanation. All such representations have been lacking, and their interpretation seems to allways fall under subjective anyway. There are objective truths about everything in the material universe a part of wich concepts like right and wrong are, but what is the best way to evaluate any such? According to what we have experienced through human history it is science, not religion. Any religion.
LikeLike
Thanks Raut, that’s a great point about animals. I always think of them too when I’m considering how natural empathy and social order is.
I don’t like to think of it as ‘objective truths about right and wrong’ – but I guess assuming empathy there is a natural tendency towards some norms that are commonly agreed. Internationally agreed laws are testimony to this. I think a logical evaluation and weight of the outcomes of behaviour are the best way to determine these.
LikeLike
Interesting theme, Violetwisp! I am working on a blog about the possible evolutionary base of empathy. In my opinion, we invented god because it worked well for the primitive people we were at the time. (I mean as a species, not as individuals.) And we have since lost the need for god because of scientific developments and secular philosophy.
LikeLike
Excellent! That’s a post i’ll be keen to read. The New York Times had a good article on it recently. Link below:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/understanding-how-children-develop-empathy/
LikeLike
Sounds great, looking forward to reading it!
LikeLike
Those that actually kicked off the monotheistic power-bases we have now, in particular Christianity, Islam and Judaism, are some of the most immoral individuals humanity has had the misfortune to produce.
The only way they could arrive at a version of morality they could claim was derived from ‘God’ was to systematically set about liquidating as much opposition as possible.
Although considered somewhat dated, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs illustrates perfectly that religion is not a prerequisite to human growth/self-actualization. In fact, I would venture it is, and always has been a hindrance, certainly when seen in light of the undeniable first two paragraphs of this comment.
Religion preys on ignorance and fear, and always has done; is divisive within society, even at core family levels, and cannot be shown to be an overall force for good.
It is not a natural state of being either, for if it were humans would graduate toward it, which they do not, and compliance has, in the main, been due to unsavoury methods of coercion or simple cultural indoctrination.
Finally, religion is based upon superstition and unsupportable claims of divine intercession. This is anathema, and should be rejected out of hand, and those that preach any form of religious truth should be obliged to prove their claim or keep their beliefs to themselves.
Peace out.
The Ark
LikeLike
Thank you, best buddy Ark. Did you get any visitors as a result of the publicity?
LikeLike
Smile, Only dear Mark.
Go read this and especially the dialogue between Persto – a mind and a half – and Corbin!
It will knock your socks off….Oh, and I have now been summarily banned from her site, which is unfortunate, but I am pleased that my blog about the death penalty for apostasy garnered the attention of Persto, who is one of The Ark’s millions of fans and he popped over to have a chat with her.
http://islamwich.com/2013/04/15/narrative-of-an-experience-in-hijab/comment-page-1/#comment-262
LikeLike
Persto’s a good find! Try and pick up some dialogue tips while you’re lurking. 🙂 I’m surprised Corbin put up with you for so long. Were you spammed or asked to leave and never come back?
LikeLike
LOL…”I am just a vernacular guy, I don’t give two shits,
Even so, the girls love me to bits”
Asked to leave?….Ha ha ha…
No Violet, just banned. Maybe she felt too embarrassed thinking I might pop over and gloat, which I wouldn’t, in case you were going to say. It is a relief to be honest.
But if it were not for the rant, and me pushing for her to acknowledge she did agree with the death penalty,Persto wouldn’t have gone and Theresa aka ‘Corbin’ would still be wondering who might be wielding the Scimitar of Justice if one of her kids elected to announce they were marrying a Christian and saying bye bye to Mohammed, so I am content with that.
I can’t be expected to be all things to all people,you know; I’m not effing Jesus, H Christ.
At least the story had a happy ending…sort of…right?
LikeLike
By the way did you spot the hummingbird blurs in the picture? They look like paint streaks – it’s all very arty and probably the stuff of top photographers. The arty kind.
LikeLike
Really? I honestly thought you had spilled your tea or something. In fact something is looking more probabe the more I look at it. A very ARTY something.
LikeLike
I just got this message from a rude blogger:
bigstick1 Apr 20, 5:45 pm
Tell Ark to check his spam, it probably has me in there with your response. The post is titled: “suffer little children.”
LikeLike
Got him! He’s out the Spam Can
Don’t know why, but I suspect it may be the words in the link he offered. Thanks, your a sweety.
LikeLike
A nice change of role for you … y’know, getting someone else out the spam.
LikeLike
Yes, quite the challenge.
It’s a PDF file about child abuse and religion.Looks horrific.
LikeLike
Another criticism of your blog layout – it really difficult to get to old posts!!
LikeLike
Suggestions? I’d love to modify but bear in mind, I am not very IT savvy so no big words, please.
LikeLike
Have a look round the Widgets section for things that make browsing easier. Or change your theme. I have my 10 last posts on display, and the tag cloud.
LikeLike
”Have a look round the Widgets section for things that make browsing easier. Or change your theme. I have my 10 last posts on display, and the tag cloud.”
I like the theme..I just changed it. How will the cloud help or be different than the category drop down?
I’ll do the widget thing if you really think it’ll help. I have to disappear for a bit.
Appreciate the suggestions,I promise.
LikeLike
Well, it took me 10 minutes to get a post you did less than a week ago. There must be an easier way.
LikeLike
And now?
LikeLike
What did you add? There’s still only your last five posts, and given that you seem to post at least three a day, that doesn’t give much backwards browsing opportunity. Did you add a Category cloud widget thing? That doesn’t work for you because you’ve not categorised neatly and you already have category listing anyway. You seem to tag relevantly. Can you not add the tag cloud instead? I think you should also show where you’ve been commenting – that’ll be fun!
LikeLike
The ‘Cloud’ shows, topic list shows, and as far as I can figure out the recent post widget is limited
to five. And, madam, even if there was a facility to show ‘where’ I have been you can forget it!
I will try to ‘clean up the topic/tag widgets. Apart from that, I am stumped as to what else I can do?
But I appreciate the feedback, truly. If I can make just one ‘fan’ (ha ha) happier then that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
It’s an important-ish point. You should make your site easy to navigate through, and at this point the only easy way to find an old post is to google ‘WordPress Arkenaten’ plus tags or the post name. Which people won’t do very often. The other thing people often have is their ‘most popular posts’ which is useful for people finding you to get an idea of your key themes. I’m here to help! 🙂 You want ‘tag clouds’ though, not category ones.
LikeLike
Okay, so how do I get ‘tag clouds’ and most popular posts?
LikeLike
In the Widgets section, with your other Widgets – no? I think these things are across all themes. But then I could be wrong, only had two themes.
LikeLike
Okay, found the tag cloud. Its up. Álso, recent comments.Thanks.
LikeLike
Excellent! Much better. I would recommend removing the ‘Category cloud’ and ‘Topics’ because they don’t break anything down to help people look, as you haven’t been consistently catogorising. But now, if someone is interested in Nazareth, they just click on the tag cloud and get all your posts.
LikeLike