-
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?I’m overly concerned about how offended you are. I asked some question (because I’m genuinely interested).
Clearly I didn’t understand my error, or you thought I made an error where I didn’t. Either way, as you claim, this is common mistake so it might pay you not berate me.
We don’t have to continue if you don’t want to. I would still like you to explain what is different about religious authority and I would still like to know your academic sources about your claims - if they are not forthcoming for whatever reason fair enough. If you’d care to explain my error better go ahead.
I have not been ‘rude’ (to my honest knowledge) nor tried, at any point, to switch topics. Far from it. I’ve asked the same questions repeatedly and if you think it is ‘rude’ to keep pressing for a response to questions/inquiries that haven’t been addressed that isn’t really my concern either.
I am called Matthew Roffey, I am 42 years old, and my interest here is precisely what I said it was before - I’m interested in how religious ideas develop, change, jump and manifest in different cultures. I also have a large interest (non-professional) in cognitive neurosciences tied to many phenomenon including emotions and altered states of consciousness.
Note: I don’t care who you are all that much tbh. Obviously you’ve meet often with some aggression from others and reciprocate it. It happens a lot when people mention Jesus or Christianity. Personally I wish there was more consideration for people on the basis of them having a genuine interest rather than looking to ensnare each other and ‘win’ some debate - that REALLY doesn’t interest me.
So, all that aside should I hang around or move on? I don’t wish to waste my time or yours (especially mine). -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?Note: you’ve still not given me the name of a single professor? I I’d also still like to know what is specifically different about ‘religious authority’ compared to ‘authority’ in general? — I like sushi
-
Objective truth and certaintyThere is a simpler way to deal with this. Science has little to nothing to say about ‘truth’ but a lot to say about ‘facts’. Logic has little to nothing to say about facts but a lot to say about ‘truths’ - and there are different kinds of truths some of which are universal when set within strict parameters (that is precisely why propositional logic is useful).
Probability is much more well established in mathematics, which in turn can be put to use in the sciences but only with an error of margin ever present.
Potential refers to known possibilities and probable refers to known potential outcomes. But there could very well be unknown potential outcomes (which is clearly the case in reality as we’re unable to take into account every little variable).
1+1=2 is objectively true in basic arithmetic. In abstraction universals are used that can be mapped onto reality and allow us to make extremely accurate predictions in some situations and much less accurate predictions in other situations - it depend on how many variables there are , and how accurately they are accounted for.
The rest is purely a linguistic issue. Given that in day-to-day life we’re not inclined to use the terms ‘truth’ and ‘objective’ in anything other than gist manner it is no wonder that when we dog further there are clear misinterpretations and miscommunications. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?Even today people these days cant tell the difference. YOU can't, lol. Not that I blame you, everyone else does it, but it does show the scale of the problem I am trying to address. — ernestm
Huh? I literally just pointed out the difference between guilt and being guilty. The Greeks tended to use sorrow. If you think I thought you were just talking about ‘guilt’ in general you’re quite wrong. I mentioned guilt because - obviously - feeling guilty about an action is related to guilt. ‘Feeling guilty’ necessarily requires an appreciation of guilt.
I should actually explain, spell out, and repeat that guilt is not saying someone else is at fault, but taking personal responsibility for a fault. — ernestm
Absolutely no need to. I know exactly what it means. There is a hell of a lot more to feeling guilty than just that.
Note: you’ve still not given me the name of a single professor? I I’d also still like to know what is specifically different about ‘religious authority’ compared to ‘authority’ in general?
If you ‘rest your case’ on this it’s a poor case. It follows, in my mind, that feelings of guilt extend from common law, which extends from natural empathy through the so-called ‘social contract’.
I’m curious, do you believe there are instances where feelings of guilt were presented in cultures not influence by Christian society?
You do realise that no human could walk on that leg? The ‘joint’ certainly wasn’t fixed, unless the meaning of ‘fixed’ was ‘fastened and immobile’. There are records of surgeons in ancient Rome dealing with brain clots quite effectively though - they were capable due to the gladiatorial traditions and centuries of bloody warfare. -
Genes Vs. MemesAnyway, to refer right back to the OP it is imaginable that as technologies develop, and perhaps reshape our environment more and more (uploaded consciousness or some kind of more physical melding with computers) then ‘memes’ will take over leaving the empty husk of DNA in the remote past.
I’m sure there are several sci-fi novels out there exploring this already. Westworld is epic for exploring this in a very visceral way (highly recommend if you haven’t watched it).
I don’t think we’re anywhere near hitting that tipping point yet, but we can never be too sure what’s around the corner. I’d be surprised to see such take any serious hold in my life time. Once someone figures out how to actually harness quantum computing (if ever) then we’ll see. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?This sounds very strongly related to themes of ‘guilt’ to me:
... There is nothing more degrading or shameful than a woman who can contemplate and carry out deeds like the hideous crime if murdering the husband of her youth. I had certainly expected a joyful welcome from my children and my servants when I reached home. But now, in the depth of her villainy, she has branded with infamy not herself alone but the whole of her sex, even the virtuous ones, for all time to come.
- The Odyssey, penguin classics, 431
This certainly goes along with your point. It doesn’t really suggest that there was no sense of guilt.
Clearly there is great emphasize on topics like ‘justice’ from both the Romans and the Greek. I could simply argue that people didn’t lie because they had no concept of guilt, but that would be silly.
Guilt, as in a guilty party, clearly existed. If you’re simply saying there was no specific adjective for ‘guilt’ fair enough. If there were crimes, which there were, then there are people who are guilty of such crimes. People would be accused of crimes and claim innocence.
Logically I’d say that ‘to feel guilty’ is a repercussion of common law not something given to humanity from an individual - or ‘guilt’ and ‘remorse’ would be quite alien concepts today.
It is interesting to see that Metanoia meant ‘change of mind’ in Greek.
Note: I’d appreciate it if you gave me some names of the professors you’re referring to. Thanks -
Genes Vs. MemesOkay, I think I see. You’re proposing a hypothetical where ALL culture/memes are removed.
Interesting thought. I don’t see how some form of cohesive culture wouldn’t come into being relatively quickly - with a generation or two. I’d love to hear a counter argument to my speculation though.
The root of ‘meme’ was the Greek ‘mimetic’ which means ‘imitation’. This is something all humans do instinctively I’d argue - one example being a new born (within minutes) actively tries to mimic adult facial expressions.
Adaptive behaviors adapt from an original behavior. In terms of memes, those memes that have a strong ability to latch onto human psychology - for better or worse for the human, as with the survival of genes - survive.
I cut short the extract, but this is the point Dawkins was, in his words, trying to ‘emphasize’.
However speculative my development of the theory of memes may be, there is one serious point which I would like to emphasize once again. This is that when we look at the evolution of cultural traits and at their their survival value, we must be clear whose survival we are talking about
The ‘who’ being the ‘meme’.
Anyway, if all memes disappeared we’d make new ones through human error and misunderstanding. We’d create a new language - although some would argue language isn’t ‘innate’. Parents would try and keep their children safe (instinctually protect them) and children would copy their parents and actively test them by doing something and observing their parents reaction (for signs of dis/approval).
There is a book a read sometime ago that goes into more detail about child develop called ‘The Scientist in the Crib’. Obviously it’s biased due to it’s intent but there are some fascinating and useful insights into how children adapt to the world, and how adults adapt to children. -
Genes Vs. MemesClearly it was overcome because we’re here now. I’m not denying that humans have a relatively long juvenile period during which we fit into our surroundings. The case remains that diverse human cultures exist because of this, but the specific use of the term ‘meme’ doesn’t state that ‘memes’ existed prior to humans - that’s just getting things backwards.
Why wouldn't basic knowledge about how to survive constitute learned knowledge, culture (memes)? — Nils Loc
I never said it wouldn’t. We can survive without culture though, so the assumption that we need ‘memes’ to live was wrong. I’m assuming we can agree that ants don’t have a culture. They still survive and reproduce. Humans, although more vulnerable in infancy, don’t need culture to survive and reproduce - unless we’re calling raising and feeding young ‘culture’.
I wasn’t saying more than that nor am I denying the blatant use of culture for societies. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?There are plenty of examples in languages new and old where emotional concepts don’t line up on a 1 to 1 basis. To suggest Greeks not having a term specifically for guilt doesn’t mean they didn’t ‘feel’ guilt. Just like lack of the concept of gravity didn’t help them if they fell off a cliff.
You made an assumption:
On the other hand, it must rely on the fact that people actually want to respect religious authority, which opens a deeper question.
— ernestm
You said ‘must’ and that isn’t necessarily true. It is an assumption. Regardless it boils don’t to the statement that people ‘want to respect religious authority,’ which is again, an assumption without any founding.
Tell me SPECIFICALLY what is the difference between ‘respecting’ religious authority that is intrinsically different from just respecting authority in general. That might help.
Now you’ve switched to Christians and lions. It is not at all difficult to find individual examples (factual or fictional) that align with some original claim. The point being if you make a sweeping statement about humans and religion a singular story doesn’t cut it.
People, humans, are willing to die for a whole host of reasons (revenge, patriotism, god, guilt, etc.,.) That doesn’t mean the reasons they willingly die for are stupid, noble, right, wrong or anything else. As for people dying for a cause they deem worthy, they are making a sacrifice. People, often lovers and parents, have been dying to save others for a long, long time that undoubtedly predates Christianity.
The guilt thing is interesting. References would be useful because some unnamed professors doesn’t give me much to work with. -
Genes Vs. MemesNow you’ve shifted the discussion to the disproved position of the tabla rasa (empty slate). If someone is born and denied sensory experience or help they certainly won’t go far and die quickly. That has very little to do with memes and more to do with basic sustenance.
You seem to be equates memes with experience. That is patently false.
Instances of feral children growing up with wolves and running around on all fours is fascinating stuff. What this tells us is we adapt to the social community as best we can. Wolves growing up around humans are incapable of adapting to human society though. The point here being that there is a latent capacity, a genetic predisposition, that allow adaptive behaviors. Memes - as Dawkins frames them - are components of culture not components of animals.
Note: I’m not talking about memes as you’ve ‘loosely described them’. I’m talking about the actual terminology used by Dawkins. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?That’s the opposite of the original question you posed. Christians denied the authority of the Romans willfully. They chose an individual path that opposed the authoritative figure.
Monks set themselves on fire in Vietnam. That is something we do know more about.
Basically you seem to be talking about sacrifice. Maybe ‘Fear and Trembling’ would be a good read for you. I’m not really interested in highly speculative history based solely on religious texts.
As for the ancient Greeks not feeling guilt you’d have to show your thinking more. It is an interesting idea. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?I still want to hear your answer/s to the ‘deeper question’ first.
You asked why people give up their ‘will’ in reference to people’s ‘respect for authority’ (I removed the ‘religious’ part because I don’t see the importance - authority is authority regardless).
So, why is the subject willing to give up their ‘will’? That’s what you stated as the ‘deeper question,’ so I’d like a direct answer as I’ve given you a few possible answers myself already.
Thanks -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?Oh! You want a different answer to the one I’ve given? Okay ...
Maybe because they wish to experience something ‘wholly other’. Meaning, as their sense of being and self is essentially tied to their ‘will’ (choices), then absconding and giving themselves over to some ‘other’ may seem appealing. People may do this due to trauma, curiosity and or purely by accident.
Another possible answer ... mmm ...? Do you have any suggestions?
I guess they may have seen someone else do this and they simply like the look of it, or they’ve been living too rigid a life and feel suffocated (there could no end of possible reasons for such a feeling).
However I see it it’s a matter of ‘comfort zones’ and ‘exploration’ and/or the neglect of them. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?So the deeper question is why people are willing to respect authority. I believe I have already outlined my view.
To repeat, if you’re completely subservient to someone then you have little to no responsibility because you’re not making any decisions and therefore nothing is your fault. If you’re in full-blown rebellion then you’re taking on all the responsibility (whether you know it or not) and anything that goes wrong is your fault.
I’m not for a second suggesting reality is anywhere near this black and white, just pointing out that we give up certain ‘freedoms’ to relieve ourselves from the heavy burden of responsibility. We don’t tend to do this willy nilly though, and shift our sense of ‘responsibility’ to an authority figure, or authoritative structure, that we deem more able to cope - our choice is never absent we simply distance ourselves from it in order to ease the stresses and strains of living.
Some people just see an easy option and go for it. Some analyze more. All vary in their attitudes dependent upon the level of import they attach to the circumstances they are in. We never get anything perfectly right, but may see a vision of perfection in ‘what has been’ never in ‘what is’.
The manner in which religious ideas accumulate over time and jump from culture to culture - and/or manifest in the same manner in and of themselves - fascinates me no end.
Maybe we’re not on the same wavelength, either way it is interesting to read your thoughts. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?I’m not going to pretend I know exactly what your take is on The Holy Spirit. Needless to say it is clear enough that the narratives contained within the bible have impacted society (especially western societies).
In reference to ‘religious authority’ I can bend that, quite a way, to be referring to what is terms ‘religiosity’ - a kind of psychological ‘susceptibility’ to phenomenon like hypnosis or merely an ability to suspend belief, etc.,. In terms of authority in general I think people like someone to take responsibility off their shoulders to some degree or another. The body of ‘authority’ (be this parents, teachers, political/religious figures) necessarily lifts the burden of responsibility off of people, but by doing so limits their freedom. Some will ‘respect’ authority and some will ‘rebel’ - it depends.
I’m still interested to hear what the ‘deeper question’ is explicitly if can spare a minute to point it out and/or outline it for me.
Thanks -
Genes Vs. MemesActually pinprick is more on point than you are here. A false idea almost certainly qualifies as a meme, but a meme doesn’t necessarily qualify as a false idea. Our scientific knowledge isn’t inherited genetically it is ‘inherited through memes’ (so to speak).
From the horse’s mouth:
“I have been a bit negative about memes, but they have their cheerful side as well. When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We are built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild, may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features, in talent for music, in the colur of her hair. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conquered. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king’s genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction.
But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.
However speculative my development of the theory of memes may be, there is one serious point which I would like to emphasize once again. This is that when we look at the evolution of cultural traits and at their their survival value, we must be clear whose survival we are talking about ...”
- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (p.199) -
The Codex QuaerentisI'm looking for people who like what it is that I'm trying to do and have thoughts on how I can do it better. It seems you don't think I should be even trying to do this, and your only thoughts are on how it's awful, with no constructive suggestions for how to make it better. — Pfhorrest
This isn’t true at all. You asked for criticism and I’ve clearly offered constructive criticism.
Anyway, you’ve made yourself clear enough. If you have a change of heart let me know, if not no problem. I’ll not be bothering you anymore than I have appeared to already. -
The Codex QuaerentisI literally said I do the same thing (ie. Not try hard enough, and that being human is the reason for this). The little bit at the end was directed at all humans. We try to try, to keep trying to try. The :D means *joke*
I think you’re just upset because you claimed you were looking for something yet did your best to avoid it. It happens, and it will happen again to you and me both. I’m not at all sorry if I touched a nerve. Sometimes things are better said than not and if in this instance I shouldn’t have pointed out what I pointed out it’s moot now - I said as I saw fit because I get upset seeing myself and others miss what’s right under their noses.
I don’t hold grudges because I know everyone has a necessary capacity to change - for better or worse. If may ‘feel’ like I attacked you, but I didn’t attack you because I don’t know you. -
Why are we here?I was hoping to find something like a “philosophy fandom”, that might have that same kind of collaborative creative enthusiasm for “fan philosophical” works. But from what I gather even in contemporary video game fandoms that kind of spirit is hard to find these days, so maybe that kind of hope was always in vain.
(...but I’m trying anyway). — Pfhorrest
Not trying hard enough. Maybe you’re just not ready yet and find it easier to swallow if it’s ‘the world’ that’s against you instead of yourself.
We’re all human though. I do the same often enough and still hoodwink myself for days/weeks/months at a time. Slowly less and less, it is what it is, we are what we are, but we can instill ourselves a break our own destructive patterns if we manage to stop being consumed by hidden fears for a few brief instances (and they’re always brief or insanity ensues).
GL and keep trying to try, to try trying, to try :D -
Universal validity of MathematicsIt wasn’t really ‘invented’. Roger Penrose has a nice way of summing up ‘reality,’ ‘mathematics’ and ‘consciousness’ by saying they all appear to operate under different sets of ‘rules’/‘laws’ yet they are also intertwined with each other.
I haven’t come across any arguments for psychologism that don’t have gaping holes in them.
A great many mathematical discoveries are made without any regard for the physical world. Long after such discoveries people do, sometimes, find that these discoveries are of practical use in terms of modeling reality - physics and mathematics feed of each other quite a lot (some would even argue they are different sides of the same entity). -
Intelligence as PhilosophyIf I was pinned down I’d say philosophy is nothing to do with either knowledge or intelligence in any direct sense. Philosophy is a cultural phenomenon that I would loosely frame as ‘applied curiosity’ - ‘knowledge’ would dictate where your curiosity was directed and ‘intelligence’ would dictate your success in expressing something given in a ‘fresh’ light or something ‘fresh’ in a given light.
Note: Expressing something given in a given light would be to confirm for others, whereas expressing something ‘fresh’ in a ‘fresh’ light would be mostly unintelligible babble to others.
In this basic outline ‘science’ would be foundation upon the ‘confirmed’ and metaphysics would skirt around the edges of the ‘given’ and occasionally fall prey to mysticism if it flies far beyond the edges of the ‘given’ (in terms of both expression and heuristic). -
Bullshit jobs
But what happened was that, although the part of work that is actually productive has been reduced, the amount of unproductive work has increased to an extraordinary degree; to the point were many, many jobs do not produce anything. — Banno
Again, what do YOU mean by ‘unproductive’ here? I don’t know what distinction you’re referring to. I’m assumed you wasn’t making a value judgement at first then you said ‘bullshit,’ so I’m wondering if you look at ‘unproductive work’ - whatever it loosely means in this case - as of no serious value (hence the ‘bullshit’ remark).
Not trying to be finicky, just trying see if you’re talking about a general ‘gist’ or something more rigid.
Thanks
EDIT: Didn’t notice there was a link! Taking away the garbage is doing something others don’t want to do. Due to red-tape as a result of alterations to laws, ‘control’ of ‘freedoms’ and such, there are just more non-physically directed jobs that people would rather not do. Are these in excess? I personally think there is at least too much momentum in thus direction.
One thing that annoyed me when I read some of Marx’s Das Capital was his blatant disregard for the ‘human value’ - fair enough as the work was essentially about economics.
This bring up all manner of issues such as whether or not a ‘belief’ in personal industry trumps any practical value for society - as with everything it very much depends on each individual situation AND because of these various nuances in social life the becomes more, protection of ‘freedoms’ replace personal responsibilities and freedom, and people end up oiling a machine that gnaws secretly at their sense of self-worth.
With more ‘leisure time’ comes more potential for introspection. Being faced with yourself is rarely an easy experience to deal with - with age it comes though, and for some it comes more readily than others.
How much traction the idea of UBI gets over the coming decades will be interesting to see. -
If women had been equalsProposition with no reference has no truth value. For example: “The king of France is bald.” — Congau
Not necessarily:
Truth values have been put to quite different uses in philosophy and logic, being characterized, for example, as:
primitive abstract objects denoted by sentences in natural and formal languages,
abstract entities hypostatized as the equivalence classes of sentences,
what is aimed at in judgements,
values indicating the degree of truth of sentences,
entities that can be used to explain the vagueness of concepts,
values that are preserved in valid inferences,
values that convey information concerning a given proposition.
Depending on their particular use, truth values have been treated as unanalyzed, as defined, as unstructured, or as structured entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-values/
Red Wibbles eat Lemons as a propositional statement is considered to be either true or false regardless of what Wibbles are. The same goes for a French King or you may as well argue that there is no clear line between having hair and being bald therefore ‘bald’ has no meaning.
Pick a map to work with and let those you’re speaking to know what map it is. -
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?On the other hand, it must rely on the fact that people actually want to respect religious authority, which opens a deeper question. — ernestm
Remove the ‘must’ or the ‘religious’. What deeper question? -
Collaborative CriticismDepends on the person. You’ll get the same from me either way :)
I imagine critiques will vary depending on how serious people are about it. Some people may not feel comfortable exposing themselves, but if they do they have to accept whatever cones their way - at least it’s practice if the critique they get isn’t useful to them.
This is an open forum where anyone can critique anyone as and when they please. This is merely an exercise for direct and sustained criticism over several weeks/months if there is enough interest. -
Collaborative CriticismAll, any, none or whatever. Join in by writing and/or critiquing how ever you can.
I’m sure people will have different ways of doing things and this will trigger debates and discussions. If you just want to offer critique rather than write a piece that’s fine by me. I’ve just come up with an idea of what to write about now I just have to decide how I want to present it so people can possibly get some use out of it - if not, back to the drawing board no biggie! (There is always next week). -
Collaborative Criticism@Zophie
7 days. Go nuts! The word is ‘Chair’ go with it any you see fit :)
Honestly I’m just going open my dictionary every week and slap my finger down (just did it for a laugh and got ‘duodenary’). It doesn't really matter much what the word is really. The point is to write something and give and/or receive critique regarding how well written it is and/or debate the ideas embedded. -
Collaborative CriticismPersonally speaking I’m doing this to improve my writing and critiquing. I’m interested in seeing what people come up with and I’ll comment about their ideas too if I feel like it, but my main focus is on how not the what. Communication skills and such. Rhetoric? I guess so if you want to put it like that. I just call it practice :)
A couple of people here have said they want to collaborate and exchange critique and so do I. This seems like a reasonable stepping stone toward something that could possibly be a lot more than it starts out as.
I’ve tried before. Maybe 200-1000 words would be more reasonable to encourage more people? Fewer words is usually harder I find. -
The Hedonistic Infinity And The Hedonistic LoopAs far as I understand Hedonism it is that life should be judged through pleasure and pain - obviously with the aim of maximising the former!
I’m here for punishment :D -
Genes Vs. MemesHalfway through rereading the chapter now. Nope, it’s not merely ‘superstition’ either.
Like I said, it is about ‘culture’ in general - as in we don’t have ‘genes’ for science but we certainly don’t say science is a ‘superstition’. ‘Meme’ comes from ‘imitation’, we chop and change things - fashions - and some ‘memes’ manage to survive longer than others.
The main difference between memes and genes is that memes are seemingly irreducible. -
Genes Vs. MemesOur genes allow us to have memes, but our memes don’t allow us to have genes.
Memes as conceived by Dawkins are not knowledge but propaganda. — unenlightened
That’s stretching the concept a little and then holding it in the corner. Generally speaking they are cultural markers that propagate due to our propensities to novelty and also our contrary reaction to normality.
Propaganda is the purposeful manipulation of the public to bolster certain political ideologies. Saying memes are propaganda is like saying all birds are swans. There is a relation for sure. I don’t believe Dawkins even mentions propaganda in the chapter on memes does he? -
Psychology: Why was the Alexandria library burned down?When there is conquest or rebellion there is death and destruction. I don’t think there is likely more to it than that.
If it was premeditated then is it the equivalent of modern ‘book burning’ and a cultural cleansing. History is strew with cultures being wiped of the face of the Earth with little remaining other than a few shards of pottery. Thankfully we have actual written accounts from the period that have survived and to my knowledge there isn’t anything substantial to suggest that it was done for any particular ‘point’. Much like Christians loping off cocks from ancient statues.
the most deadliest kind of barbarism usual comes under the guise of ‘civil society’. Such is the stupidity of humans - it’s not all death and destruction though! :) -
Creationism provides the foundations of reasoningBasically it means that purely objectively all choices are random and meaningless. Then with subjectivity we can express feelings about what the agency of the choices was. — Syamsu
Do you at least accept that these choices have nothing to do with what happened though? You may believe for example that you are patient and polite individual when you’re actually obnoxious, condescending and plain stubborn.
A non-naturalistic perspective of ‘the world’ is certainly revealing in terms of individual meaning. We all to some degree possess our own personal ‘mythos’ - full of thoughts and feelings that we’re unable to articulate and grapple with from day-to-day (directly or otherwise).
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by Logic fo Opinion? I can understand it as Use of Opinion, as we all have to make certain spontaneous judgements (which is an admixture of logic and emotion - reason necessitates both emotions and logic they are certainly not distinct entities).
Note: I’m an ‘intellectual wannabe’ and an idiot to boot. I’m okay with that, clearly you’re not. Why? I’m not trying to mock you here just curious why you have this need to call people stupid and talk down to them. Why not just ignore us and leave us alone - ie. not post on forums where you repeatedly get the same feedback. I don’t walk up to three years olds in the street and insult then for being short or emotionally immature.
Here’s something for you: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tz7zxh9Bfow
I won’t be saying anymore so feel free to throw out some more insults if it helps. They’ll be no response forthcoming.
I genuinely wish you the best. Bye bye :) -
Creationism provides the foundations of reasoningThis is an Issue Syamsu has been having for a long time.
It doesn’t look like you’ve taken any advice given to you previously by numerous people. I don’t see anything here that you weren’t saying a long time ago. Did I miss something new you’ve added?
I still don’t see any serious attempt at explicating your terminology. Until you try a different approach you’re just going to keep banging your head against the wall I fear.
GL -
The Codex QuaerentisThis is the moral of the story, so to speak. It's the maxim that everything boils down to. — Pfhorrest
Yet all you give the reader is this:
It may be hopeless, but I'm trying anyway. — Pfhorrest
For a novel, yes it’s an intriguing opening. For a philosophical work I don’t care for it and it doesn’t tell me anything directly ... remember this is the opening sentence. If it’s the maxim of the book then why not simply state that it is the maxim of the book?
I like sushi
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum