Predation is a result of the fall, and in the kingdom of Christ the bible says that there will be peace on earth, and includes animals, and peace among predator and prey, as well as man and animal.

That said, I'm not a vegetarian, and Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out. Paul thought that we shouldn't be bickering over diets, and what we eat. I think that if one thinks that God hates meat eaters, or that they are ravenous barbarians, or whatever, then that is an example of what Jesus was talking about.

Clearly, since high levels of compassion are cultivated and demanded by most religious attitudes, this often extends to the whole of nature, and as a consequence, there is this concern, and inclination. I think though that if any particular practice or dogma is poisoning the well, and actually ultimately decreasing one's capacity for compassion, due to the antagonism of it, then some calculus has to be done, and one must decide if it is ultimately worth it, or good and true in principle, but not practicable without generating too much strife, and conflict in one's soul.

People tend to always speak of originality, and novelty when speaking of art, and creation, but that is from the perspective of the consumer. The artist worries about truth and beauty, and all good art is ultimately about precisely the same things, in my view.

Well, indifference is the opposite of love, so... good job. Referents, evidence, is all nonsense about experiences. For the index of the thing, not everything is easily indexed, particularly with respect to the nature of one's subjectivity. This is best expressed artistically, in my view, but I also do not hold that there is no possible objective demonstration of at least the effects. That love quiets the pre-frontal cortex (akin to flow state), suppresses fear and negative emotions is neurologically demonstrable. That religion focuses on family, health, the reduction of addiction, which is why the high taxes on junk food cigarettes and alcohol are labeled "sin taxes" rather, because they're with respect to self harm. The "genetics", and "nature" and lack of "free will" is making everyone stupid, gross, and die of heart disease.

That you need what is being talked about to be something ridiculous and cartoonish, so that everyone can be stupid, and you can be so smart is just killing you. You interpret everything everyone says to be nonsense, stupid, and wrong, so that they can be wrong, and you can be right, but the reality is that the opposite is occurring, and you're just handicapping yourself, indeed.

To put it in another way, the emotions are salient, directional, highlighting. They reveal what is significant. You can say as aggregates of form and apprehension. They also have a life of their own, and impel and compel. Love is just of a totally different kind and order of the rest, which are in some sense in conflict with the world, and draws distinctions, diversions, separations, all anxiety inducing, all striving, all craving for change. Satisfaction, and love differ almost entirely to the rest, and are binding, anxiety suppressing, inducing of selflessness, calm, relaxation, serenity. It's just a completely different plane of existence.

Conflict permeates one right down to the way they move, with effort and striving, with weight. Their fields of vision are of lower orders, their sentience singular.

The problem is not a "violation of natural law", as that is a nonsense, as the prerequisite of the judgment is a complete knowledge of nature, so that one could know whether or not it is in principle natural or not. Just being something that we didn't think could happen naturally doesn't mean that it would be impossible for it to happen naturally. The violation of a theory of how nature works usually just means that theory is wrong, rather than that the theory is correct, but something impossible, and thus supernatural must be taking place.

What matters is the whether it can or cannot be explained naturally in principle, but people take positions such as "god of the gaps", and suggest that everything is explicable naturally, even if it has in fact yet to be, or cannot take place.

The former case is a naive conceit, and the second it's just axiomatic. Personally I think that if you think that love is explainable with chemical descriptions, rather than the supernatural, then you probably don't know what it is. The regrowing of limps, and other parlor tricks could never be as miraculous.

Doesn't hurt to be as shredded as Geralt either.

Thanks a lot for the comment, I don't disagree with it, but that is the thing, per the law of attraction, that like attracts like, one already has to be of a certain constitution for one not to say "obviously that is insignificant", and be wrong. The law of attraction will be agreeable and comprehensible to those that already to some degree apprehend it through their lives, experiences, and constitutions, and is difficult to share, and explain to the wrong, wouldn't you agree?

I have since changed my position somewhat since writing the OP. I've discovered some new things, gained some new ground. I don't disagree with your suggestions or explanations however, though I'm more concerned with how to dig a little deeper, as to why people would find this disagreeable, and be averse to it, and how to get it across when they do.

This is why I have started to focus more on repentance, or renewal, or cleaning of the slate, which opens one's heart, as it were, to be more willing and able to let others into it.

Values are constitutional, they imply physical arrangements and health. You can say no evidence, they're stupid and wrong, but if your values are toxic, and theirs elixirs, I think I'll be "stupid", and "wrong" then.

Really all of the hatred and name calling is just control. Not reason, it's checking what one dare think and feel, precisely because they abuse themselves into their constitutions, and wish to do the same to you.

Art is emotionally manipulative, and within dramas, the author controls causality, so that the outcomes of actions and resolutions of circumstances can be caused by anything they choose. Unless it is controlled for truth, to some degree, to promote pro-social values and virtues, it is extremely dangerous propaganda, of the highest caliber.

Another way to look at the problem of the will, is through care. How is it that you can know the right things, and not do them? Why can't you have the will? Because you don't care enough, and on top of that, the perfect way to care is for the right things in themselves. Any other target of affection is inferior in effect.

I was inspired there by your post on Augustine's influence. Really informative, I didn't know of those distinctions, and I learned, and agree with your criticism of it.

There's a beautiful irony in that art is more literal than anything else. All of the metaphors of the bodily that proliferate it, conjoined with a suggestion of constitutional attitudes or dispositions of its association is completely literal. "I can" is necessary for comprehension, "I can do that with my body" applies to the range of emotions and attitudes. Like explaining color to a blind person, it is nearly a waste of time... but if the color perception were merely dormant, then that would be another story. Might be a way to jump start it.

You don't know what you're capable of until you do it, a whole new domain of understanding becomes available to you. Just like with individual experiences. Not having had some food, you really can't enter the discussion about it. Or being at war and having killed someone, or given birth -- but emotions are different than specific experiences, they, like unlock a new dimension of color, or flavor to all experience, and introduce one to new levels and domains of discourse, that without, pass one right by. The sound of the celestial realm is silence.

Related to will, there is being stuck in one's ways. Perfect contrition, or the repenting of those ways, the remorse and hatred of them is necessary to change, and a real regeneration, or rebirth follows. With the love of God, and for the sake of the good alone, this is supposed to bring about the complete destruction of those ways, but imperfect contrition or attrition weakens their hold, or reduces the cravings. In the bottom level of the Buddhist hell, one is entirely slave to craving, and is depicted as having a tiny mouth and huge gut, and just can't get enough.

This is why it is said that one cannot really change, or is themselves helpless without the grace of God that renews the will, or the revaluation causes a reorientation towards better ways, to the best of one's knowledge known through their conscience.

Though, I to reject the notion that this has nothing to do with the body, and much prefer the ancient notion of the "I can" rather than "I will", but the significance of why we can know the right things, and not do them is due to literal attachment, and hardening... which, can be worked out in gradually ways, over time, but can also be shattered in an instant.

I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me.

Share different perspectives means to talk to people that think different things, because you don't learn anything from just talking to people that think all the same things. Talking about different positions, and perspectives? Discussing different views and ideas about fundamental subjects is what philosophy is about.

Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent.

Perhaps you could give a demonstration. I still don't understand what you want me to do? Make up someone with different views to mine and then pretend to have a discussing with them? Lol?

Also, why?

What do you mean?

I haven't spoken of essential elements of faith, or advocated for any particular sects, and have rather said that I thought that they all worked. I don't recognize what you suggest. With a proper philosophical dialogue, I could tell you what I think, and you could tell me what you think, rather than the reverse.

Why? Should you only ever preach to the choir, and only ever talk to people that already agree with you? For me personally, I don't find that nearly as fruitful, or time as well spent as sharing differing perspectives. I already know what I think, and personally like to learn new things.

Yeah, Dennett can explain anything away.

Yeah, I think that's the smart thing to do.

You'll at least wait a bit for the Guinea pig phase to end, and see what happens to the first wave, right?

He's also funny, in that he says that he doesn't really believe in a God, but still prays to any that perhaps might be listening for their blessings from time to time.

He did suggest head chips, or becoming one with the AI to prevent becoming obsolete, which was consequentialist, I agree, but I'm not entirely sure that I buy into that fear of AI that he seems to, though he is definitely a way smarter person than I am, so maybe he is right. Though I do think that there is something to be said about quality over quantity, and all of the information in the world doesn't necessitate good discernment, or judgment. I don't think that that is improved substantively with information. Maybe have the internet in your head, but people are not equally good at separating the wheat from the chafe.

Yeah, he claimed that he doesn't even make minimum wage anymore, and only cares about the profitability of his ventures out of justifying their continued existence because they've become too big to privately fund, and to obligations to shareholders.

I think that he avoided consequentialism entirely. He was probed about it, about us not becoming an intersteller species because it would be bad for humanity, but he says no, he just thinks that it would be cooler, basically, and probed further in that consequentialist direction is what led him to saying that he actually thought that love was the answer.

I think he's great. I know, people made a big deal about it, were texting him right away about it too. The controversy!

Though, he doesn't think that science is the answer, he thinks that love is. He is an astonishing individual, I think as well.

Elon Musk actually does exactly that.

It's more like there is quantity and quality, and qualia defies third person description, and can't be physically described. There is no conceivable way to describe what something is like, third person, and then for someone to feel what it is like. It has to happen to them first person. The quality is also aesthetic, or involves a kind of judgement that is non-arbitrary, and universal. That some things are better, and others worse is a fact, and it is this that is perplexing, and inexplicable. I'm perfectly willing to say that the soul is literally part of the physical body, but the qualities that make up its contents cannot be, or they would be entirely private, and arbitrary, but this clearly isn't the case, to anyone that has any sense. Worse than that, to deny this, and ignore the reality of the difference renders one lame, and decays them. Steals their life away. This is what it means to be "in the dark", to not "know the truth". To have no "values" as they say.

Though, the soul as quality, may literally be part of the physical body, but its contents are inexplicable physically in principle, and objective.

Music at work is also hilarious, by tragically hip: "Everything is bleak
It's the middle of the night
You're all alone and
The dummies might be right
You feel like a jerk
My music at work
My music at work"

Just to say, some good lyrics on the subject: "Go ahead as you waste your days with thinking
When you fall, everyone stands
Another day, and you've had your fill of sinking
With the life held in your
Hands are shaking cold
These hands are meant to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
Move along
So a day when you've lost yourself completely
Could be a night when your life ends
Such a heart that will lead you to deceiving
All the pain held in your
Hands are shaking cold
Your hands are mine to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
Along, along, along, along
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do (Know you do)
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along" - all american rejects

Or there is also that song that they sing in game of thrones, "hands of gold are always cold"?

Is this wisdom? And if it is, it itself may not be philosophy, but I think that it is precisely the kind of thing that a philosopher ought to love.

Socrates denied that he was an atheist, as that didn't make any sense, as he was acting on what he heard that the Oracle of Delphi said about him, and to the complete inverse, thought himself to be on a divine mission. He just thought that there was nothing wrong with questioning everything, including that.

I definitely agree that philosophy was originally a way of life, and involved practices, and not what it is now taken to be academically. I really don't find academic philosophy to be very interesting, but then, as has been mentioned before, it is almost never brought up or discussed here in any case, so I'm definitely not alone. I too prefer the more traditional approach.

Though, I'm a common man, and think that one needs to work with their hands, move their bodies around. Craftsmen, artists, they're the religiously inclined, though being half an idler, I like philosophy too.

"Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work."

Ah. Do you, like Hadot, think (as Socrates did) that philosophy is discussed in person, face to face. Is spoken, and is distorted and ineffective in written form such as this?

Just skimming over his wiki page, I am not familiar with him myself.

Take it from Adele, you could be rolling in the deep.

I would rather say that God is not only love, but also the truth. In the library of congress there is a statue of the Goddess of truth holding a mirror and a serpent. Why is that? In the ancient Egyptian mythos one only makes it into heaven when their heart is weighed against Maat, the Goddess of truth. There is actually a lot of weighing of hearts to get into heaven, it's a common theme.

Point is, that the truth hurts. The important stuff, the truths relating to ourselves and characters hurt the most, and we hide from that truth, delude ourselves about reality because we don't like the consequences or implications.

There is a distinction made between perfect contrition, and imperfection contrition. Perfect contrition is because one loves God, but any form of contrition, for any reason, as long as it is felt counts, and even for the reason of loving God if the contrition is not felt, it isn't contrition at all. All that is required is the genuine remorse, for any reason, and this restores one to favor, and presence.

I don't know what to say? It certainly doesn't follow that if one believed it, they ought to therefore go and discuss it in a conceptual, historical, philosophical way, but it certainly doesn't follow that you shouldn't either. Clearly the church fathers did discuss it, and study it, but not everyone does or has to. Why would you suggest that?

While you believed in it, you wouldn't bother, or because I do I shouldn't?

Feeling therapy is a good idea, it actually isn't very helpful to explain or point at the true cause, but what the hell? Eh? Ever see an MRI scan of someone?

You'll notice a difference in the elevation and broadness of the shoulders, and a slight head slant. Heart's asleep. Got to wake that baby up. Cry cry cry. Risk your life, lol. Numbness doesn't only stop the emotional pain, but it makes you not notice the physical either.

Focusing on the breath is a way to stay present, and out of the head. To stay absorbed, but one can also be lulled back into the world through keeping their heart beat in their ear. Listening to it. Listening long enough, and it may say some surprising things.

Need to shatter that heart of stone, otherwise it's dead weight.