Mmm, I would say that the world is the totality of perception, whether one knows or does not know the factual quality of something.

That guy gets quite a bit wrong. Who is he, exactly? And why didn't he piss before he got up there?

It would be wise, here, to distinguish between sexual orientation and fetishes.

Praise be! Thank Christ that my moderated indulgence of cannibalism hasn't become too excessive! :D

I did NOT have sexual relations with my hand.

So, for us it would seem necessary that we perform--transcend. We transcend the limitations of our understanding of God by engaging in fervent prayer, fasting, and meditation--all actions. For us, we can't be here, then there, without actually moving from here to there. — Bitter Crank

Hmm, but who's to say all these are ways toward transcendence? Is praying and fasting and the like acts of transcending? And how would you know until you're actually transcendent? At that point, it would seem that you wouldn't even have knowledge of having gone from A to B.

Kant thought it was outside experience--which for us, I guess means we don't transcend and tell about it. — Bitter Crank

This makes the most sense to me.

I think transcendence is an incoherent notion in metaphysics. If X is transcendent to Y, then there can be no relationship between X and Y (certainly no road from X to Y), because any sort of relationship (act of relating) would imply breaching the gap that we have just postulated through transcendence. If X and Y are transcendent, then in what kind of relationship can they be with the road that connects them? Clearly they can't be in any relationship - the road can't even exist - because if the road exists, then they aren't transcendent. With regards to existence - Being - nothing can be transcendent - that which is transcendent doesn't exist. — Agustino

I don't see how this follows. If X is your starting place, X is not transcendent, only Y is. However, my thinking here concerns, as you worded it, the road that bridges the two, X and Y. I'm trying to figure out whether what is transcendent ( Y ) is of the same purity as the act of transcending, moving from itself toward Y, and whether there is no bridge and X is always transcending. If that's the case, then X's act of transcending cannot be the same as Y, otherwise there's no difference between it and Y.

Thus God needs the world as much as the world needs God, and therefore only God is necessary and has Being - but this God entails Creation as His shadow. — Agustino

How loving...

I pervert every thread I come into don't I...sigh.

He can lay a new roof on my cheeks.

You can come up into my ass anytime, Wossy.

Nope, >:O

Your problem is in the title. You've fallen into love, and not risen into it.

>:O what?

It seems like you have ideas but I don't see any real convaincing argument compared to me and what i said, if you have nothing but assertions i would ask you to at least tell me where I'm wrong but not just by affirming things. — Hamtatro

I'm speaking as someone who suffers from depression. I thought I had already made that explicitly clear :\

Mongolian throat chanting?

basically you are telling me that they live because they are too lazy to kill
themselves ? ^^ — Hamtatro

Sort of, but not everyone. You're oversimplifying.

So you judged that your life worth more (or "is so good that" depending on the level of fun that I want to put in my words .. ) than "nothing". It is exactly what i wanted to tell you. If you were suffering more than you enjoy your life (no familly for example etc..) then it would be smarter from you to chose death. — Hamtatro

What? No. Life is majority suffering. But merely because this is the case does not mean I must kill myself. I only said that it might not matter were therenothing but suffering in my life, with there being a total absence of love.

What does it mean ? They live depressed because they like it ? — Hamtatro

No. The only meaningful thing in their life becomes, oxymoronically, their depression.

Like I said before the final goal of any human is to satisfy his needs, which lead to happines, no one continue living if he have the choice in a case where there is more overall suffering than happiness (in his mind). — Hamtatro

But I don't think life is ever more "happy" than it does suffer.

there's not much to gain out of life — Agustino

there's nothing "big" you can get out of it. — Agustino

nothing is of real importance ultimately. — Agustino

life is worth living in and of itself, it doesn't require any particular thing — Agustino

So I'm skeptical about "cure all" solutions. — Agustino

The human condition doesn't have a cure, because it doesn't need one. — Agustino

Once you become satisfied with the idea that you can't gain anything out of life, and therefore neither can you lose, you are finally free — Agustino

Yet you find your life so good that you still want to live it — Hamtatro

Firstly, depressed and/or suicidal individuals often keep on living precisely because of their illness - their depression becomes what sustains them, not so much what occurs, as Question alluded to, outside of the bed, or the shower, or the house. In other words, some depressed people live to be depressed, not to live a life of love...not that such people choose that "lifestyle."

Secondly, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't say that I've either embraced depression or judged that life is so good that I still want to live in it. I've merely judged that to not be would be worse than to still be, that leaving behind my family would be a grave, grave mistake, more worse than any of the pains I am facing now in life. Were I truly alone in this world, perhaps I'd find that I would have nothing then to live for, either depression or love, now gone.

I might also add that depression's lethargy can actually be a blessing of sorts, seeing as the apathy that comes from one's woes can coincidentally make the thought of suicide be as pointless as going to school, or getting up for work. So, in this sense, the unintended and unwanted mental and physical laziness and inability to act works in some people's favor, as it lessens the likelihood of them finding the will power to jump in front of a bus or pull the trigger or to cut themselves.

I'd argue that death is the reward and life the penalty.

I suggest that if Christness and altered appearance are emphasised, that is done by later writers trying to retro-fit their preferred theology to a text that does not support it. — andrewk

This may be true. I'll look back and recheck. Though, I think Christ's appearance is described by Mary and the other women in the tomb..?

I think Christ's response is one in light of Thomas having already met and seen Jesus. And there's also emphasis on Jesus' appearance changing from before to after resurrection. If you've read or watched The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien definitely models Gandalf's transformation on Jesus Christ's. In that story, it is primarily Gimli who doubts like Thomas did, while Legolas and Aragorn are more befuddled than anything else. There is a reason why the earliest depictions of Christ, such as in the Roman catacombs, show him as a clean shaven and vibrant young man wearing a Roman Senator's toga. Such an appearance would have been strikingly different from the homeless, hairy, and weather worn wanderer that Jesus was.

We must bear in mind that we are talking about someone that has divine powers, not some inarticulate savage, and hence they would be able to express themselves in the clearest fashion possible, so that no possible doubt could remain as to what they meant. — andrewk

I dunno about this. This assumption is often poked fun of (pretty rightly) by anti-Christians because God chose perhaps the least obvious and easily understandable way in which "he" could remedy the world he created. I'm reminded of a non-stamp collector video, I think, that touches on this, haha.

Are they not the same person? My understanding is that 'Christ' is a name essentially meaning 'Messiah' that was applied to the historical Jesus some time after his death, and it is used mostly to refer to Jesus in relation to his post-resurrection activities. Use of the term also emphasises the belief of the speaker in the divinity, or at least the Messianicity, of Jesus. But they must be the same person because if post-resurrection Jesus is not Christ then Jesus was not resurrected - he was replaced. Hence either they both complain or neither does. — andrewk

But in relation to the story with Thomas, the difference between Jesus and Christ is pretty huge. If Jesus were not resurrected from the dead, thus becoming the Christ, then Christianity falls apart. This is why Christians name the resurrected Jesus, Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that the two persons are separate, but there is a difference, otherwise Thomas wouldn't need to see or feel anything.

Why do you think that? To me the story has always been very simple and has nothing to do with personal identity. It is simply that Thomas does not believe that Jesus's life has continued beyond the crucifixion, until he meets the risen Jesus, and Jesus complains about that. — andrewk

I tried to bring up the distinction between Jesus and the Christ, because it's important, especially in the story with Thomas. Jesus does not "complain", Christ does, it's why he must show himself to Thomas, because Thomas assumes that Jesus is dead, and that Christ is not alive.

Why do you think that? To me the story has always been very simple and has nothing to do with personal identity. It is simply that Thomas does not believe that Jesus's life has continued beyond the crucifixion, until he meets the risen Jesus, and Jesus complains about that. — andrewk

You answer your own question here, I'd say.

Let's stick with Kierkegaard! Answer your own questions a bit more.

But if we are to become like God, what are we to do? Isn't that the idea, to become like Christ? — Agustino

Go on.

The response: "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me" — andrewk

He's trying to distinguish between himself as Jesus and himself as Christ. Thomas believed in Jesus, because he had seen him, talked with him, learned from him, and was preparing to preach Jesus' message after his death. But the story doesn't end there, like Thomas thought, because Christ comes into the story, and essentially says, "wait, wait, hold on guys, I forgot something." Henceforth, Thomas is thus an Apostle of Christ, not merely Jesus. So, in my estimation, Jesus the Christ was not mocking Thomas, or giving disdain, but clarifying - as I wrote in the OP, showing Thomas's doubts the door. Otherwise, Thomas would be teaching Jesus' teaching, and not the full message of Christ.



Ah, thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can get my hands on the first novel somehow (Y)



Thanks for the book link, I'll try and check that out as well. I am reasonably familiar with the Gospel of Thomas, though I hadn't thought of tying it back into my recent thoughts. Again, thanks for the input :)

He argues that at least part of the reason for the diverging economic fortunes between northern and southern Europe (e.g. between Germany and Greece) lies in the rampant mistrust of government among Southern Europeans, which leads to an impairment in civic and administrative functions such as tax collection (people conduct business in the "shadow economy" rather than keep it on the books and fork over the taxes to the government), leading to a substantial loss of revenue in the national coffers, and precipitating in part the financial hardships we're currently witnessing in some of those countries. — Arkady

This could be another thread topic, perhaps. From a historical standpoint I would heavily disagree with his thesis, if it is as you say.

If I'm to understand Kierkegaard here, I would probably disagree with him. It seems like he has failed to distinguish between the nature of God's love and our own imperfect forms of love. Theologically, God would not test himself, but because we are not God, we must wrestle with both ourselves and others, so that we might sense God's love more fully. And testing, asking questions, looking for the truth - these all tests that are needed. I wouldn't call them violent or hankering desires, either. There's also an irony in Kierkegaard alluding to Keats, seeing as Keats' love was of fleshy passion (if I can remember his biography, I may be wrong), and not particularly contemplative or meditative in nature.

Ya wrong, Hegel's masturbate.

Hegel, with Nietzsche a close second. Historiography, past and present, is rife with both of them, even though guys like Kant and Schopenhauer provided far more incisive critiques of the world.

I have another one which may be similar which happens to me whenever I don't sleep for a night, and then go to sleep. I half-wake from sleep still largely unconscious, trying to solve a problem which I cannot solve because it is irrational - it has no solution - a problem which is often related to my activities the day before and is somehow tied to my life. But the problem is very trivial and yet is made irrational by my mind. For example, I used to work in engineering, so when it happened after returning from visiting some friends late at night on a weekend, and going to sleep in the morning, I woke up in that half-awake state after about 1 hour of sleep, got up sweating in absolute fear, while I thought "the beam doesn't fit" - thinking and feeling as if the beam was my body :-O And I was trying to figure out how to make the beam fit lol, as if I was being suffocated by it.

So in a little while my mind clarified a bit more, and I realised that my mind was simply functioning by itself - I had no meta-cognitive sense, and no real awareness of who I was at all - no sense of self, and the mind was desperately trying to grasp after it. I had a vague sense of self I mean - objects weren't very clearly not myself anymore though. So I gave in to it, and waited, doing nothing. I remember in those moments as if I were begging from something to be given, something that could only be given from the outside - I was powerless. And slowly, as if something had been granted to me from outside, the sense of self came back, and things started to clarify - and I felt grateful. I could never identify the cause of the extreme fear and anxiety that I felt, as it was irrational - it had no cause. So my mind couldn't figure out why it felt so anxious, even though it was trying desperately trying to do it. And despite knowing that the fear was irrational - for my mind knew that - it still kept compulsively searching for a cause. — Agustino

I have no idea what you two are talking about, but I just imagined you were talking about your penis, here.

So, you're reading things into what I say, now? I spoke of reality involving loyalty as a vice, but that isn't as same as your careless misunderstanding above. If you were paying enough attention, you'd know that I think that reality also involves loyalty as a virtue, and that it is neither one nor other in itself. — Sapientia

So, loyalty is amoral, now? Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

I'm not in favour of bringing children into the world, I just don't see anything wrong with it in numerous cases, so I'd defend those cases. — Sapientia

You're not in favor of bringing children into the world, but you don't see anything wrong with it? Uh, so why are you not in favor of procreation? Certainly something has to be wrong with it, otherwise you have no reason to be against it.

And I don't accept as my basis for morality anything as simplistic as the prevention of immorality or suffering in future. I'd have to add qualifications, and by doing so, your implication about an internal inconsistency wouldn't apply. I argued against such a principle at length in the anti-natalism discussions. I take the anti-natalist argument and turn it against them as a reductio ad absurdum. If you start with such a principle, and if it were universally adopted, then, in light of the consequences, I'd conclude that the principle, in its original form, should be rejected, at that it would need to be revised. — Sapientia

Much ado about nothing, here. You still failed to answer my question.

I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to you. Yes, I tend to think along consequentialist lines, and have done so in this discussion. I might've been using one type of ethical reasoning more than others. But I'm not tied down to think only along those lines. I can judge immorality in light of various respects, rather than just a single respect. I think that to suggest otherwise would be another oversimplification. — Sapientia

Ah, so you're a moral relativist that prefers to meander around in whatever ethic suits them best in a certain situation, (Y) (N)

In the example under discussion, it can be immoral in all three respects that you mentioned in your question. It's immoral if you knowingly intend to commit your loyalty to an organisation which you know to be immoral, without good reason. It'd be immoral to commit immoral acts as part of such an organisation that you're loyal to. And it'd be immoral - or even more immoral, if it is already so - if there are immoral consequences as a result. — Sapientia

Why? Again, I ask, what dictates moral behavior in whatever ethic you're trying to peddle me? Please, this is a very simple question.

I thought I'd made that clear by saying: virtue, good - vice, bad. The nature of virtue is good. It can't be otherwise, or it wouldn't be virtue. — Sapientia

Yes, yes, and I'm a college student and you're awesome - but do either of these facts explain anything at all? Nope. Merely differentiating between words like virtue and vice gets me nowhere closer toward understanding how you're defining said words.

I've said this already, too. I mentioned two conditions. Have you forgotten them, or did you not read them in the first place? — Sapientia

As far as I remember with regard to your responses to me, it is actions and their consequences.

Perhaps you were too busy trying to think of a sarcastic comeback or a suitable gif to use. — Sapientia

KILL THOSE FILTHY VEGETARIANS

Loyalty, good man :-!

Trust me, you'll get a hard-on for Eckhart >:)

Heister, actually I must ask you, how do I begin my study of the real Meister? >:O What works would you recommend to start with? O:) — Agustino

https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Thought-Meister-Eckhart-Nothing/dp/0824519965/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

This is a great introduction. McGinn has also translated Eckhart's sermons, but you could try those after, or perhaps follow along with the references as you read the book I linked above. The last chapter in that is perhaps the most revealing. It's what cemented my fascination with Eckhart. And I suppose that we all have that one thinker that every word reads like revelation, and Eckhardus is mine at the moment! (Y)

I think about how things are, and I try to match my thinking so that it reflects reality. — Sapientia

You make this sound so easy, lol. Really, I'd love to have a piece of this revelation, Sappy, it would help me very much (Y)

And the reality I see involves loyalty as what must surely be a vice, since it is present in immoral situations — Sapientia

So, loyalty is a vice, now?

- think about the Mafia - in which the right thing to do would be to break off this loyalty, even if it means betrayal; and, furthermore, since loyalty can and - in some situations - does make matters worse, leading to further immorality.

What is the basis of your morality? The prevention of further immorality or suffering in future? I can't see how that can be since I distinctly remember you being in favor of bringing children into the world.

Loyalty to a heinous organisation which commits immoral acts is surely a vice. How can it not be? — Sapientia

Again, here you seem to prop up a kind of consequentialism, which still doesn't make any sense to me. Are you judging what comes before, what is acted out, or what comes about as a result?

Because it would ruin your quaint little idealised notion of loyalty as a virtue? Sorry, but that's just how it is. You can either face up to this harsh reality or stick your head in the sand. Your choice. — Sapientia

given the nature of virtue — Sapientia

Which is? What makes loyalty a virtue as opposed to when loyalty is a vice if loyalty in itself is not a virtue?

I would post image, but don't know how. — Thorongil

That makes loyalty too relative for my taste. An ideal like loyalty must be virtuous in and of itself, otherwise it's only moral in its application, which I wouldn't be on board with.

If loyalty is inherently good, then it's good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad. If it is inherently good, then it is good in itself, by virtue of it's nature, regardless of what (or who) one is loyal to, or whether it (or they) is (or are) itself (or themself) good or bad. — Sapientia

"Loyalty" to the bad is not loyalty, I thought I already made that clear with my bringing up of "bad character."

Loyalty being good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad seems absurd or lacking in meaning. — Sapientia

wat

I've never suggested this to be the case.

I remember writing on here recently that "bad character" is an oxymoron, and that character is fundamentally good. Similarly, I'd probably argue that loyalty is also inherently good, so perhaps my earlier statement is oxymoronic too, but I was just trying to clarify the kind of loyalty I find myself valuing.