I will offer an example of each category that I don't think can be debated by personal perspectives. — SatmBopd
Essentially, I fear Nietzsche's "Last man" if that makes any sense. — SatmBopd
You're worried about young people choosing shallow entertainment over more stimulating thought and investigation? I would argue that the danger here is precisely that their lives will become less "variable" without more dangerous, and creative investigation into a wider "variety" of ideas and concerns. — SatmBopd
The divide and rule strategy has been quite successful many times. — ssu
Always worth engaging with - Creative, variable things
Sometimes worth engaging with - Non creative but harmless variable things
Rarely worth engaging with - Actively destructive variable things
Probably not worth your time - Static things — SatmBopd
I would guess the most important thing is memory. — T Clark
Can anything ever be real without sensory feedback? — TiredThinker
Why do you favor a polytheistic framework? — frank
I'm just trying to speak in the terms you were using. I don't value anything more than another. — Philosophim
Well, I am valuing two things. A first cause leads to a second right? — Philosophim
But, I don't think you've succeeded in showing the premises of cause and effect aren't real. — Philosophim
Try to explain to me how you can type words on your keyboard without cause and effect. — Philosophim
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/Some of the leading ideas of the phenomenological tradition can be traced back to this issue. Following the lead of Edmund Husserl (1900, 1913), who was both the founder of phenomenology and a student of Brentano’s, the point of the phenomenological analysis has been to show that the essential property of intentionality of being directed onto something is not contingent upon whether some real physical target exists independently of the intentional act itself. To achieve this goal, two concepts have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).
https://iep.utm.edu/husserl/Although not the first to coin the term, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), is the “father” of the philosophical movement known as phenomenology.
Worshipping Elvis surely then is theism, as well, and Elvis fans are theists. — baker
I'm not sure that means an awful lot to me. I don't really give a toss about what might be possible in reflecting upon my own conscious experience. Reflecting upon time holds almost no interest either. — Tom Storm
This points to the fundamental distinction between the uncreated and created. In theistic religions, that is represented as the relationship between creator and created. And that is a distinction which has been completely lost to modern thought. — Wayfarer
I think in all Buddhism gods are part of samsara but have been released. I haven't seen Buddhist talk about a being that is necessary existence — Gregory
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. — Wayfarer
Those episodes were generally brief, but the point which struck me was that it was something entirely new, something I had never felt previously. It was like another dimension of experience. As I said, they were transient, but they left an impression.
At that time I had been reading the literature of popular spirituality - Krishnamurti, books on Buddhism and related subjects that were circulating at the time. Something clicked at that time, or came together - it an opening or awakening experience. I think maybe what is called opening of heart chakra. There are such states as meditative realisations but they're impossible to describe. The consequence was a greater sense of empathy with others and also a sense of joy. It was a permanent change, although not a permanent state, because no state is permanent. But nothing exceptional, life goes on, although I think overall it made me a better person, but certainly neither sage nor saint. If you want an exceptional example read this account from the annals of Richard M. Bucke, who solicited accounts of individuals whom he said experienced cosmic consciousness. (Nothing like that ever happened to me.) — Wayfarer
Phenomenologists still make decisions and have preferences in the world (politics, spirituality, jobs, family, schools) - how are these made? — Tom Storm
Rather it's that the deities they worship are not recognised as such by monotheism. Buddhism is not theistic in the sense of relying on God or gods, the basis of the religion is the recognition of dependent origination - emptiness. Of course, it turns out there's quite a lot of convergence between Buddhism and Christianity in terms of ethics and conduct, but the principles are nevertheless distinct. — Wayfarer
In what ways are phenomenology and solipsism alike, in what ways are they different? — baker
Buddhism is not a theistic religion, though, and would never use that terminology. — Wayfarer
That's because we're geniuses. Or not. — frank
The protocol broadcast by monotheism includes projection and shadow, all that stuff Jung was all over. — frank
The monotheistic God can't accept part of his own creation, as if he doesn't realize he made that. — frank
It leaves the journey toward individuation, which I'm not sure I totally understand. — frank
I think I finally got what you mean, correct me if wrong.
You position is hat polytheism is sort of more "democratic" compared to monotheism which seem to be more "autocratic"?
And, how these 2 affects development of social life and psychology at large? — SpaceDweller
I think polytheism as "multiple perspectives" toward anything are source of division among society.
You answer to that will surely be that deities don't influence or interact with each other and as such can't be source of division?
If so, however while that may be true for deities it's far from true for society, because not everybody in society is reasonable enough to overcome influence or opinions.
Society was, is and always will be divisible. — SpaceDweller
The author will demonstrate why ethics has been an elusive philosophical concept. The great ethicists, from classical Greek to seventeenth- and nineteenth century European thinkers, to present day philosophers, talk about morality and ethics as if it were a probably very clear and well-defined concept. They talk about it as if it were a given that everyone understands what it is. The author will shine light on why this assumption is false and wrong. Then the author will attempt to show how ethics can be easily defined and understood to be what it is by introducing an evolutionary concept of ethics, which distinguishes between autonomous ethics and socially learned ethics. — god must be atheist