Explains why SX's discussions are so short. — Michael

I don't think SX's discussions are generally very profound (take that as significant), but they are highly scholastic and technical generally, which do require a lot more effort to engage in, hence attracting just a limited number of members.

Many of the profound topics on here though do end up being discussed at quite a superficial level though :P

I appreciate your comments, Erik, but I'd also appreciate if you could show me where I was initially cranky. I'm not saying you're lying, but I'd just appreciate a point of reference for my own knowledge's sake. — Thanatos Sand

>:O >:O >:O

If you show this guy a tree, he will still say it's not a tree - he'll be like "so where is the tree?! You said you'll show me a tree!!"

Banno's secret of course is to discuss the easiest most superficial and meanest subjects which everyone has the depth required to discuss - that's how he achieves the longest threads >:)

Can a post-truth society last? — Banno

A hypocritical society that lasts isn't to be preferred over an honest one that disappears.

What do you mean on Nietzsche's level? — Beebert

For example, at least Osho, takes on a lot of Nietzsche's ideas, including critique of traditional religion, condemnation of hypocrisy, ideas on morality, etc.

These men belong to a different cathegory — Beebert

How do you mean?

?!?!?! — Beebert

What's the question?

I have just heard others talk about him and he sound like a "rich lazy people pleaser" basically — Beebert

Listen to this. It's exactly what you're saying too ^^ (especially with regards to life-affirmation).

Have you read Steiner too? — Beebert

Not really, very little. Steiner has a lot of writings, I've only had a look at Philosophy of Freedom.

I felt that both seemed scary. — Beebert

Well I obviously think they're incomplete (and very likely to lead one astray), but they are on Nietzsche's level.

Rajneesh is more akin to Gurdjieff than to Steiner. He avows a deep admiration for the former, I'm nof aware of him ever referring to the latter. — Janus

It would be strange to find a prominent historical figure that Osho doesn't refer to. He speaks, at times quite extensively, about Steiner, though not quite so admiringly. Even his admiration for Gurdjieff is limited, much like his admiration for Buddha, Christ, etc. The only figure that he seems to have only admiration and adoration for seems to be the Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma.

Here's what he had to say on Steiner.

he seems like a charlatan — Beebert

Sure, he would even admit to that probably :P But look at his ideas. You'd agree with them. You'd agree with him that society kills the individual, destroys creativity, and enforces conformity. You'd agree that man is free, and must express his freedom. You'd agree on the cruelty of hell and eternal punishment. You'd agree on the cruelty of moralists (such as the 14 year old girl example I gave you). And so forth. His favorite book was afterall "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (here's his reading of it) and his second favorite was Brothers Karamazov.

For me, since I got introduced to philosophy (and religion in a way) by Osho, I found him and reading his writings to give one a broad overview of all of spirituality and philosophy and also to instil a sense of looking for authenticity and personal experience - all of which I found very useful when reading philosophy afterwards and studying religions, and even becoming a Christian. Of course I think that Osho can also lead one astray - in fact is likely to lead one astray - but there are good elements there too.

the number 2 exists — Buxtebuddha

On this point we can take entities like circles too. Perfect circles don't actually exist in material reality, and yet we have knowledge of them and their properties. The field of Being is much larger than just what can be scientifically or empirically investigated, and we don't always derive things from the empirical towards the conceptual, spiritual, or otherwise non-empirical, it can also be the other way around, as in the case of circles. We derive our equations from perfect circles which we conceive apart from empirical reality, and then we apply them back to real objects (imperfect circles).

You couldn't verify whether the number 2 exists in and of itself because, as you say, there is no coherent conception of numbers in material. However, the number 2 does exist as an idea. That it represents this and that. It's definition, in other words, makes it real, in that one can interact with it in one's mind, but not real in the way one interacts with a keyboard. — Buxtebuddha

Number 2 isn't just an idea. An idea is always an idea OF something (an idea of a circle, an idea of a man, an idea of God, etc.). Number 2 is a being, an entity, which is of a different kind than material entities in this world are.

Where does anything that isn't true come from? — Buxtebuddha

What do you mean that "something isn't true"? Again, you're asking these questions, but you don't take into consideration how truth applies to different types of beings - you presuppose it applies in the same manner.

Where did the idea of a "transcendent being/force" come from, eh? — Buxtebuddha

Our human experience.

At some point your argument requires a pure understanding of a thing in itself, which isn't possible. You end up with infinite regression of things coming from other things which came from another thing which... — Buxtebuddha

Only if we limit ourselves to the "scientific" world.

And flying spaghetti monsters, and unicorns, and......... — Buxtebuddha

Irrelevant. Those don't claim to be transcendent as Mithras, the gods, and other spiritual realities claim to be. Instead they are empirical matters, which are indeed a matter of verification.

even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy. — Agustino

Probably my first "foray" into philosophy was Osho at 12 (just because my father at that time was very into the Osho movement). You Mr. Beebs will 100% like Osho given your current positions. If you watch a few of his videos or read his books, you'll forget Nietzsche >:O . I would disagree with him on most things (largely) ever since I became a Christian, but there would still be points of agreement - as there are with Nietzsche for example.

You cannot have one foot in heaven and the other in hell ;)

little trick — Thorongil

>:O

It's not a little trick at all, but in an age dominated by scientism and the objectification of reality people often have a tendency to admit only one spiritual reality - typically God - because admitting more than one is "too far" out there. But admitting only one spiritual reality is obviously false - a move predicated by one's subjugation to this age rather than anything else.

How old are you if I may ask? — Beebert

Mid 20s.

Have you studied philosophy at University? — Beebert

No, I'm a civil engineer by degree. I've worked in it briefly, but I'm working in IT/marketing at the moment. So I'm not a professional philosopher - although I have been studying philosophy for a long time, since I was 14-15 probably, or even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy.

Ah, shoot. I read a "not" that wasn't there. To be honest, I was expecting you to answer that Mithras does not exist. — Thorongil

Ah well, that explains why you read a "not" there :P

That you think he does is even more bizarre. Explain yourself. — Thorongil

Well I find it strange that you expected me to answer "no", when I've been saying all along that the Romans had an experience of a spiritual reality that they identified by the name of Mithras. I wouldn't be saying they had an experience of nothing would I? The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc.

Okay. — Thorongil

Then you mean "no." :-| — Thorongil

Why do I mean no? :s I actually said yes and told you that the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name - hence the being represented by Mithras - does exist.

Perceptible, experiential, verifiable, and fundamentally private. This keyboard I'm typing on is real, being a part of and existing within reality, because it is perceptible, tangible, and so on (I can touch it, type on it, bash my head into it if I wanted to), I can experience its tangibility, which also means, therefore, that the keyboard is verifiable through both its tangibility and experiential quality. It is additionally not contingent upon any outside agent's confirmation. Me and the keyboard is all that is needed. — Buxtebuddha

Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner.

Is Mithras in and of himself perceptible, i.e., can he be smelled, touched, etc.? No. Is Mithras in and of himself experiential if he's not perceptible? No. Is Mithras in and of himself verifiable, then? Obviously not, as we have no other means with which to confirm interaction with ourselves by outside agents. Is Mithras in and of himself a perceptible experience that is verified through one's own privacy? Again, clearly not, seeing as Mithras is not perceptible or experiential. — Buxtebuddha

Spiritual experiences are subjective and therefore not objectively verifiable to begin with. There may be intersubjective verification though it cannot achieve the degree of objectivity that is possible when dealing with objects. Obviously if you adopt your new form of scientism, you'll now reject anything which is not an object (and thus not "verifiable") as nonexistant - basically objectifying the entire world.

But what about the idea of Mithras - all that which is attributed to be him, of him, and from him? — Buxtebuddha

Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? :s

You answer your own question here. — Buxtebuddha

No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic.

"It?" Does the being signified by the name Mithras exist? — Thorongil

Yes, the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name does exist.

Does Mithras exist or is he a figment of Roman soldiers' imaginations? — Thorongil

Mithras is a name. Does it matter whether you call it Mithras or Cthulhu?

Buber did not believe that Jesus took himself to be divine — Beebert

Of course, he's Jewish! >:O

You can find that it is Paul and to some extent John who changed the hebrew understanding of trust proclaimed also by Christ, trust as openness to an encounter Into Faith in an image, in an idea of Christ's role as sacrifice etc. — Beebert

I think the two are not opposed, but supplementary to each other.

Are you familiar with Martin Buber? — Beebert

Somewhat, but not "very familiar". I have his work "I and Thou" and it's another one of those that I started but not finished yet.

How would you respond to this? — Beebert

I would say that Buber is wrong in his interpretation of Christ. Christ did have a salvific role, in that Christ came to deify human nature (where forgiveness of sins is only a part of that). To treat Christ merely as a man with a close relationship with God as opposed to Saviour would be blasphemy from a Christian point of view. Unless Christ died and rose from the dead, as Paul said, there is no Christianity and our faith is in vain.

faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person — Beebert

I disagree that we always perceive God's presence in our lives. We see darkly.

"To win a crowd is no art; for that only untruth is needed, nonsense, and a little knowledge of human passions. But no witness to the truth dares to get involved with the crowd." -- K — Mongrel

That is correct.

But the truth - and this forum proves it - is that I don't "win" people at first at all. Quite the contrary, people often start by hating or disliking me. It is only after a long time and arduous journey that I win "crowds", if it can be said I do so at all. I've always been the underdog, not only here, but in other areas of life too.

And I respect people who are willing to be the underdog, but it does take some courage to do that, and not cowardice. I do like people who refuse the price of "fitting in".

Yes indeed. Which is strange because he at least claims to be quite well read, but some of these actions seem quite childish and peculiar to me.

The Sand Castle constructed here in that thread was very entertaining >:)

Yes, it was 'Thresholdsun'. I couldn't sign in with 'Janus' after an extended absence wherein I had forgotten my password. So I simply created another account. Actually I had a few different usernames because i kept losing my password; and I'm kind of impatient. :) — Janus

Yes, I had another account there, long ago. When I finally returned to create Agustino, I had forgotten about that one.

Havin' a bit o' fun in the sandpit? ;) — Janus

Oh, I love playing with Sand >:)

And calling Mongrel's comments "stupid" and saying her judgement is pathetic is also insulting. — Thanatos Sand

I never said her judgement is pathetic. And calling someone's comments stupid isn't an insult. If you call a comment stupid it's not the same as calling the person who wrote it stupid - the latter would be an insult, the former is a criticism.

So, the only pathetic one is you. And only someone who actually has a hole, like you, would think someone else has it. So, you must really have a lovely one. So, go get some professional help with that clear anger and delusion problem of yours. I'm pulling for you....:) — Thanatos Sand

>:O Yes man up man up! Play my game coward, or go hide under you bed. What are you waiting for - you stand to offer an apology, I stand to get banned. Let's do it. I'm not the coward here.

LOL. Sorry, not playing someone else's stupid game isn't cowardice. It's wisdom. — Thanatos Sand

Oh yeah, it's wisdom, because you would be shamed if you accepted to play my game, and you know it. Right. It is indeed wisdom, the wisdom of a coward. The point being of course that you're the only cuckoo around here who found my comments racist, but you'll not admit to that. No, you are right, even if everyone else says differently.

And speaking of insults, isn't it funny, Augustino, that I can find you insulting someone: — Thanatos Sand

I don't think the part you quoted is actually insulting. You missed one of my previous posts to Mongrel which was insulting though.

Just because I find your comments in this thread stupid and you're a woman doesn't make me a sexist, nor a jerk. You just don't know what you're talking about with regards to Kierkegaard (or Christian mysticism for that matter). Your judgement is so dominated by your 1960s atheistic/humanistic/leftist ideology that you can't even see beyond your own nose. It's pathetic. Everyone who disagrees with you is labeled a sexist." — Agustino

Notice I say her comments, not her, are stupid.
And anyway, I actually agreed that I sometimes insult, unlike you, because you are a coward, you cannot even admit to it. That's why you're pathetic. Now go hide in your hole.

I guess I'm returning to my roots. >:) — Janus

>:O I remember you had a different username, something like Threshold something. It was something starting with T at any rate.

God of "passages" — Janus

I'm returning to my roots. — Janus

>:)

Yeah, it has become "unconcealed" because the populace is now so jaded and indifferent to truth that such a "truth" may be revealed without much ill-effect for the politicians. We have been efficiently "divided and conquered". — Janus

Well after many years of giving them TV, feeding them with meaningless jobs and entertainment, and giving them that real freedom of living meaningless and pointless lives all the while making them feel as if they were truly living - shouldn't the elite get to finally relax as well? We have after all reached the fulfilment of democracy - in tyranny - for the people are finally in power! For who is Donald Trump if not as truthful as we ourselves are? He's real, he's just like we are. No pretensions. Look at what these two blonde girls say:

Thanks for trying, Creative. I can't see how re-defining "truth" as something like "historical belief" could be a good thing. — Banno

Notice, that I for one take the world to be more truthful post-Trump than pre-Trump (that's one reason why I am pro Trump). This is because Trump does openly what he does - thus it is as Creative (Heidegger) would say unconcealed. It has finally become unconcealed. The ways of politicians have been revealed openly. It has openly been revealed that they do not care about truth, whereas before they pretended that they do, and the truth was concealed by their pretension. Now there is no question.

They experience the idea of Mithras, the idea that there is a deity of war watching over them in battle, that praying to him before battle will ensure victory. — Buxtebuddha

And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such.

In other words, Roman soldiers would have believed in what Mithras represented, not in he himself, because no one had ever directly experienced him. — Buxtebuddha

They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe.

This experience of Mithras as an idea does not mean that Mithras is real and that he is, therefore, directly experiential. — Buxtebuddha

What does being real mean? Being real doesn't have only one understanding. Clearly the transcendent is not real in the same sense an immanent object is - for one the transcendent cannot be object. Numbers are also real in a different sense than chairs are, etc.

Who is J-anus? >:) @Janus

Also, you have quite a wrong view of hell... Here

The point wasn't about innocents. It was about those God sends to the torture of Hell: the guilty. Nietzsche is entirely right. If you're guilty, then violence, rape and death are fine. Such cruelty cannot be intrinsic immoral (or moral). It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, no, I don't think rape, etc. are okay towards the guilty. This doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche is saying at all either.

No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise.

This is just a non-sequitur for example, confusing an is with an ought.

Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They [ the nobles ] revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise.

And here, behold! It is the aristocracy, the noble races, those who came before Christianity, that murder, arson, rape and torture! It is the masters, not the slaves. So it is not the Christian morality that Nietzsche is speaking about, but quite the contrary, the pre-Christian morality, which he actually praises!

It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, but not in the sense of raping them, and so forth. It demands cruelty in that the immoral are told that they must change their ways, repent. In a certain sense this is a cruelty. One is even being cruel to themselves when they demand that they change. But this is absolutely not the same as the cruelty of violence, being raped, etc.

No doubt it's a positive... that's the point: moral greatness is found in the cruelty to and possession of the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this would be wrong. Moral greatness - even according to Nietzsche actually - comes from strength, and is not a reaction to the weakness of others. It is a self-affirmation of one's own greatness, it is not being cruel and possessing the immoral.

So... why are you being a coward? Let's play the game I asked you to play!

I think he does-- the nature of morality is such that it advocates things violence, rape and killing. Morality is a justification for such actions. By Christian doctrine, billions are sent to burn for all eternity and it is moral greatness — TheWillowOfDarkness

:s No, I'm quite sure hell doesn't include rape, killing of innocents, etc.

But the kind of cruelty that morality is and that you described in your previous post can be positive.

So, you admit your bias. Good. I haven't insulted anyone until then. But I've seen you insult people a lot. So, why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with or insult you? :s — Thanatos Sand

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/93150#Post_93150

That convo is just one example. If I spend 5mins digging through your posts I'll find many many insults. Way too many. In fact, I was reading through your posts earlier on, and the number of times you gratuitously insult people is staggering.

Regarding me insulting people, I sometimes do that, though generally not serious, and it's actually not that frequent. But you insulted four different people yesterday, calling two of us racists (for no adequate reason) and then when two other members pointed to this, you deflected it and told them they can't read or are racists themselves. You must consider yourself very smart and superior.

But if you want to play this stupid game let's play it properly. You say that what I said was racist. Let's ask the moderators, because racism is a banable offence according to the forum guidelines. So if what I said was racist, then I should be banned. But if it wasn't, then you should apologise. The moderators don't like me much anyway, so how about we ask them what they think? :) And if they think like you, then I will get banned, otherwise you must apologise. How about that? Are you willing to play or will you try to get out of it when the going gets tough? :)

............. — Buxtebuddha

Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! :s

You have a career in programming, therefore, you do not, and cannot, believe in God. — Buxtebuddha

Nope, I didn't say that.

I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was. The fact you didn't notice that shows how biased, and worthless, your opinion is on the matter. — Thanatos Sand

Yes I am actually aware he insulted you first, but this isn't the first thread where I've seen this behaviour of yours. So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you? :s

Man you should honestly press the break pedal with those insults before you get banned. Literarily every time I stumble across your posts, you're insulting someone. What the hell? :s Is that how you practice your progressive virtue?