but they all seem to qualify as feelings of joy accompanied by the idea of an external cause or at least occasioned by an external cause. — John

Yes! That's what I was thinking as well.

So I don't think love necessarily entails an external, especially from the divine point of view. — Agustino

Spinoza's definition seems accurate from the point of view of a creature. But since God must be the source of Love, and in the beginning there was only God, then it seems to follow that from the divine point of view, Love does not require an external (although even God's Love was directed outwards towards the creation that was to come).

I think the salient point is that the idea of an external cause is the idea of something outside oneself; it can be interpreted as getting outside of oneself, the idea of a connection or relationship with something greater, with the world, with life, with the lover, with God. — John

Yes, I fully agree. Breaking out of the prison of the self is what love enables us human beings to do.

I have experienced those kinds of feelings of emptiness after sex but never when I have felt love for and communion with my lover. At those times I have felt a profound sense of peace and completion after lovemaking. — John

Well personally I've only ever had sex with someone I was in love with. However sex - at least per Christianity - is an activity which belongs to the fallen flesh, which saps energy, and diminishes vitality. Jesus for example made it clear that in Heaven they "neither marry nor are given in marriage" - indeed marriage doesn't exist in the kingdom of God (and neither does sex for that matter). In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, lay believers are expected to abstain from sexual intercourse (not that most do, unfortunately) in periods of fasting and celebration. And it's not just Christianity, but all religious practices have for the most part seen sex negatively, for precisely this reason.

So I obviously can't speak about how you've felt things, but for me, I'm not referring to feeling an emptiness. No I too felt a fulfilment, but it was a weak fulfilment - it's like being at peace in weakness (because you fought too hard on the field of battle and are too tired [an analogy to a soldier]), instead of being at peace because of strength. By analogy, it's like a comparison between being at peace with whatever the result of an activity will be because (1) you have tried so hard, or (2) you know how things will go. (1) is a peace that emerges out of weakness - you did your best, you couldn't do more, so you just let go. (2) is a peace that emerges out of your own inner strength, your knowledge - there's no letting go there.

I don't consider sexual intercourse (even with a beloved) to be the highest joy because to a large extent it's still grasping after something that is external to you - it's still looking outside for satisfaction, hence why there is always some pain left behind. Whereas my belief is that all satisfaction is found inside, and can only ever radiate outwards. Therefore, so long as we are embodied beings, sexual intercourse with a beloved will be a good thing - but only if, paradoxically, we feel no need for it.

Thus even Spinoza's God may be love, but It cannot love us. (Re God-as-It, it is intriguing (for me at least) and I realized just recently that there is, in English at least, no non-gendered personal pronoun). — John

Yes, I agree on this.

On the other hand, to say that God is a Person is not necessarily to say that God is a person such as we are; that would be ridiculous, anyway, because we are embodied, sensual creatures, and it wouldn't seem to make any sense at all to say that God is an embodied sensual creature. — John

Hmm. I'm not sure. Christianity isn't clear in this regard because the second person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - is embodied. In addition, Christianity claims that there is a bodily resurrection after death. Sure, it won't be the same kind of body as this earthly one, but it will be a body nonetheless.

(can we even conceive of a truly ungendered personhood, for example?) — John

Well I think the "ungendered" or better "androgynous" person, as referenced in the works of, for example, Berdyaev refers to someone who is complete in and of themselves - someone who doesn't need something or someone external to complete them. Men are incomplete because they need women and vice versa. If they didn't need them, they would be complete. Of course, it doesn't follow from not needing them that they wouldn't want to be together, etc.

in any case; personhood would not seem to consist merely, or even necessarily, in being an embodied, sensual creature. — John

Would you agree that intellect and will are both absolutely essential for personhood, whether we're talking about embodied or disembodied persons?

But I do not believe that the equivalence of God and Love is essential to Christianity. You are denying that I can call myself Christian, because I think that God is the Trinity rather than God is Love, and that's completely ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

So the Scriptures state unequivocally that God is Love and you do not believe it? What kind of other evidence would you want that Christianity holds that God is Love?

Even if Christians draw their teachings directly from the Gospels, the passages need to be interpreted, and they are interpreted by means of philosophy. So in the case of religion, you cannot distinguish between what Christianity teaches, and what the philosophers teach, because it is all the teachings of philosophers. It is however the case, that some philosophers teach a different thing than others. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay but the passages certainly don't require references to Platonic Forms and the like to be explained, right? The Bible can be taken and understood on its own terms.

Essay question! 'Comment on the attraction of Plotinus to the early Greek-speaking theologians, and the ways that they agreed with, and differentiated, themselves from him, in the formation of orthodox theology in the early period of the Church'.

You have 10,000 words. Get cracking! (Only kidding.)

Do you know about the writings of 'pseudo-Dionysius', and how important they were in the formation of Christian theology in the early to medieval period?

I think we have mentioned that book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Lossky, previously. I haven't read it although have read passages from it, and am familiar with the general drift. But, as you have affinities with Orthodoxy, I'm sure you would find some discussion in there of the part played by various Platonist and neo-Platonist ideas in the work of the Church Fathers, especially of course the Greek-speaking fathers.

I think one of the cardinal differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology, is that the former is more Platonist, the latter more Aristotelean. Actually I did run this past an Orthodox Father one day, and he emphatically agreed.

I think the 'nominalists', contrarily, are far less compatible with Platonist thinking, and, therefore, much more inclined towards fundamentalism. That is why, I think, we have this strongly dichotomising tendency between 'religion and science', 'mind and matter', and all the other debilitating dualities of current Western thinking. If Platonism had retained greater influence, it might have all worked out radically differently to that. But all of this is highly speculative, of course.

A note from Eckhardt. — Wayfarer

Yes I've read quite a bit on it as well, but I'm primarily interested in what you personally think here.

I'm well aware that Greek Orthodoxy is heavily Platonist, but I don't necessarily view that as a good thing, and neither does a priest I've spoken to about it. In certain regards it moves far far away from the simplicity of the Gospels.

So I'll ask again. What's your personal opinion, is it a good thing or a bad thing and why do you think so? What does Platonism add to the Gospels if anything?

Now a reforming Catholic. — The Great Whatever

Since when is that?

When something which you perceive to be inferior to you harms you, or presents you with the prospect of being harmed in the near future, the natural response is anger. (If the agent doing the harming is perceived to be superior to you, you feel fear). — Mariner

Superior and inferior in what way? I may perceive someone to hold some power over me, and therefore I do not manifest my anger openly to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean I view them as superior to me. I may very well think they are inferior and do not deserve to hold that power that they currently do. Yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling anger towards them.

does it seem right to think that Christ experienced joy on the cross? — John

I think it does. I don't know about you for example, but I've had moments when I gladly did something painful, and undertook suffering, knowing that it was the right thing to do. So beyond the pain and suffering, there was a sense of joy at what I'm doing. Obviously all this pales in comparison to the suffering that Jesus had to take on, but I think the principle still holds.

The same can be said of Socrates. Can we say Socrates would have been more joyous had he chosen to escape than if he chose to stay and be forced to drink the hemlock? I think he took some joy out of doing the right thing, a joy that would have been replaced by despair had he chosen the opposite.

For myself, I would say that possibly the greatest joys I have experienced were when making love. — John

I find it hard to say what my greatest joys were. Two come to mind. Achieving something that others thought was impossible and seeing other people inspired by it. And a time when I was 16-17 watching my girlfriend playing in the dust while I sat on a bench next to her. Very close to those two came listening to a great classical music concert, praying, attending a service on Mt. Athos, working in the field building houses for handicapped people (I used to dig ditches), other moments with my girlfriend and some similar experiences. Making love itself would rank after all these for me. It's intense (perhaps more intense than the other experiences), but, for me at least, followed by sadness, exactly as described by Spinoza. This is interesting. It feels similar to getting something you don't deserve, and then losing it.

In any case I think all these 'emotion' words are nuanced in complex ways. It seems to me that only one-sidedness or confusion will result if we fall into hypostatizing words as kinds of absolute essences. — John

I agree.

Does it mean that God experiences love, or that God emanates or bestows love? — John

It could be that way, and it definitely is that way in Christianity, however, just from the fact that God is Love it doesn't follow that God is a person in the same way you and me are persons, or that God experiences love.

For me, it is certainly true that only when we love do we feel "at home" in the world; we go out of ourselves, released from narrow self-concern, and then we can truly be in the world. I also think it is true that there is no self-pain in love, although we may certainly feel the pain of others; which is a very different thing; this is where love becomes compassion. — John

Yes I agree.

but I think there's a lot of neoplatonism in mainstream Christian theology to this day. — Wayfarer

Yes but is this a good thing?

I've read a large stack of Christian theology, and I've only come across God is a Trinity. The three members of the Trinity are interpreted in numerous different ways, but I haven't yet come across an interpretation which claims Love as one of the members of the Trinity. Therefore I have to disagree with your claim. I think your mistaken — Metaphysician Undercover

The equivalence between Love and God is essential to Christianity. It's almost the very heart of Christian revelation. Kierkegaard for example discusses this at length in Works of Love.

But regardless, I suggest you look at what Christianity teaches - NOT the philosophers.

Contrary to this, I believe it is a mistake to remove the relationship of an external object from "love". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because I think you're considering love from the human point of view. But from God's perspective, God loved before there was any external world to love.

There must be something loved, or you have a meaningless "love". — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, but remember the commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself"? That presupposes that you first love yourself. So I don't think love necessarily entails an external, especially from the divine point of view. The essence of the Triune God of Christianity is Love, and was so even before there was any external creation.

They can carry out actions for no purpose other than that the acts are apprehended as good, and these are acts of love. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so how do we go about apprehending what is and what isn't good then? If you don't have a loving heart, you may apprehend domination over your fellow men as a good. Does that mean that it's loving to dominate your fellow men because it is apprehended as good? Clearly apprehension of good and evil isn't a straightforward matter.

So this claimed distinction between a Christian God and a Neo-Platonist God is completely unjustified. — Metaphysician Undercover

Year of grace 1654, Monday 23 November, feast of St. Clement . . . from about half past ten at night to about half an hour after midnight, FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars. Certitude, heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ. God of Jesus Christ. "My God and your God." . . . Joy, Joy, Joy, tears of joy. . . Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. May I never be separated from him. — Blaise Pascal

So I'm not so sure that the Neo-Platonic God set up by St. Augustine is the most faithful representation of God as found in the Scriptures.

Perhaps pleasure and pain are somatic intensities and joy is the cognitive assignment of these feelings under the united concept of joy. — Cavacava

I can agree with that I think :P

My understanding of joy is that it's one of many default states we can find ourselves in. That, when nothing is happening, one is content, or comfortable, in themselves (though not, I would say, with themselves...)

I suppose that for me, I gauge whether or not I'm living a joyous life when I lay in bed at night, wherein that moment it's just me and the dark (and my snoring dog.) At present, I'm usually very conflicted, frustrated, and often times emotionally twinged. Were I to be joyous, I think I'd be able to have a calmed mind, to be able to embrace a kind of silence and stillness that, perhaps as the Christian mystics would say, is me moving more toward God. So, pleasure has nothing to do with joy. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, agreed :D Peace and serenity - a certain confidence in life - silence and stillness of the mind - are parts of joy for certain.

INTJ. It's an indication, but not great.

That allows me to react or even anticipate in my communication towards them. As a manager, you need to be able to vacilitate between these different behaviours as circumstances require. — Benkei

Oh dear... >:O

I know a style of management too. It's called bang your fist, but first make sure you have a table underneath, otherwise you'll bang your own foot ;)

That said, I've been classified an ENTP and a Cancer. — Benkei

I'm not so sure about the first, but for the latter I've seen ample evidence >:O

It is just that joy is commonly understood to be a "higher" kind of pleasure; possibly an ethical or intellectual pleasure, as opposed to the lower sensual pleasures. — John

Well okay, but I think joy is different than the feeling you have from - say - helping an old lady cross the street. That is pleasure (whether "higher" or "lower"), but what I mean by joy is different than that. Joy is experiencing your life as inherently meaningful - worthwhile. Joy is unconcerned with pain or pleasure - it's something that has to do with a deeper attitude of gratitude, and, as Spinoza would say, perceiving yourself however dimly sub specie aeternitatis. Feeling "at home" in the world, instead of "alien". Not sure exactly how best to describe what I'm trying to convey by it. But as an experience, it's different from pleasure and pain.

In any case it seems as though you are rejecting Spinoza's definition of love, which is fine; I would probably tend to agree about that as well. I only cited it because the exchange between you and MU reminded me of it and its pertinence. — John

Ah yes, of course! It's strange but when I first wrote the answer to MU, the first thing that crossed my mind was Spinoza's definition of love too. I developed the distinction I tried to make between pleasure/joy out of that.

But you are right - from the Christian point of view, one would have to reject Spinoza's definition.

In the "Christian picture" love cannot equal God, because love is something that we as human beings can possess, or do. — Metaphysician Undercover

'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.' John 4:8 — Wayfarer

This.

There is often a tendency amongst philosophers to confuse the Christian God of Abraham with the Neoplatonist God of the Philosophers.

Never mind, I'm sure Emptyheaded or whoever he is doesn't care at this point. He's probably too busy trying to figure out how to tie the shoelaces on his new pair of jackboots. — Baden

:-} Yeah, how fun it is to insult someone who can't even respond, isn't it... pathetic!

Yeah more of the shamelessness Baden. But if you really must know, then:

First - a protest is TEMPORARY, not infinite. Second - I've decided to start posting again after a few people have asked me to, and reconsidering what they've said I made the decision to do it.

An example isn't the same as the topic of the thread.

Was my complaint ever that the mod team is out to get me? No, but I know a large part of it is. That's not what this thread is about though. So don't change the subject.

The problem is that the mod team is biased - it has unfairly banned people in the past (Emptyheaded), it has been unapologetic about it, refused to reconsider, and it's been taking on new moderators which are even more pro-banning, by their own admissions. The moderator team is also heavily biased, and creates an atmosphere in which conservative and/or religious views are always on the losing end. Some members don't even want to voice conservative opinions, because they are "hot button" issues.

That's not true.Baden and I admitted to being wrong about censoring discovery's posts attacking the previous Thai king, and other mods took issue with our decision. — Michael

Publicly? Also please note, discoverii is a leftist (as were his posts against the Thai king).

Yeah great, at least everyone can see with what lack of seriousness concerns regarding the way the site is run are met with.

Is there a reason why moderators are turning this thread into a comedy? When there's no other escape, make a joke about it. That's part of the art of war afterall.

Around a month after, actually. — Michael

Yeah, that's a very big difference.

If we don't bring on more mods with different perspectives, we lack diversity; if we do, it's just a ploy to trick people into thinking we want more diversity. — Baden

Hanover isn't very different. He agrees with the other moderators on a lot of things, including, for that matter, religion. If you made someone like Mariner moderator, I could understand. But Hanover? Give me a break. That's obvious as the sun in the sky!

Why was Hanover given moderator powers? — Heister Eggcart

Let me tell you the politically incorrect answer. They've tried to ban Agustino, and there weren't enough moderators supporting that decision. I would release the PM from one of the moderators, except that he would be placed in an unfair position if I unveiled who it was.

So there was not enough support. When it failed, they've decided to bring in someone else, in preparation. Who best to bring but someone who has publicly stated that he wants Agustino to get banned?

As they say, bad facts make bad law, meaning the best way to get a bad rule change is to have the rule maker be confronted with a bad set of facts. I can't say that I've read the exemplar thread cited in this thread, but, from what I've gathered, there were some really bad posts in it, and the mods finally had to arrive at a way to bring that under control, and there's now some concerned with the precedent set by those decisions. If I've gotten that right, then, yeah, we have some bad law created by the bad facts.

But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.

The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically.

Do that. — Hanover

I'd like a feature that allows the rank and file to ban other members from this site. My feeling is that if the general public can be trusted not to pull the emergency brake in the subway, not to pull the fire alarm in public places, and not to play with publically available defibrillators, then we can be trusted not to misuse our power here. — Hanover

This vindictive guy isn't fit to be a moderator, and anyone can see that.

So, do please arrive at another theory to explain the deletions than bias. For example, perhaps the deletions are occurring because they are warranted. — Hanover

When has a moderator EVER admitted to have been wrong and acted out of line? Never? Apparently, you guys never make mistakes. And you're always jumping to defend each other.

So, as amusing as your accusations are, all you need to really do is grow up and follow the posting guidelines. — Baden

Umm no, that one was actually a joke, and you're just misrepresenting it if you post a bit. Not gonna fool me with these tactics.

And yes - I do start my post with:

LOOOOOOOL >:O >:O Playing the victim much? — Agustino

When I'm replying to bullshit and lies like this:

Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this.

You can play this game with everyone else. This is the final time I am going to ask you to do this, stop harrassing me. — TimeLine

What's wrong with that?

Hanover is an irreligious lefty?...Maybe there is hope for our relationship yet! (Y) — Baden

Ha Ha Ha! And when was Hanover made a mod? Exactly when I left. To be able to give a flimsy reason like this that no one actually believes. I think you'd be a good politician Baden. Not to mention that Hanover is an atheist (as are ALL the mods, by the way). On top of that, he says he is a conservative but apart from economics, he probably agrees very little with conservative policies. Does he agree with Russell Kirk for example? Highly doubt it!

But then that's hardly a surprise on a philosophy forum is it? — Baden

The moderators should be unbiased and should be capable to understand different perspectives. This means that ideally there should be 4 irreligious mods, and 4 religious mods. There should be DIVERSITY in the beliefs of the moderators. They should be as different as possible from each other. This ensures lack of bias and helps eliminate blindspots. You're telling me 8 atheists will decide what great philosophy of religion posts are?

Really the mods aren't supposed to be people who get along with each other because they share the same basic worldview. That creates an imbalance of power that manifests by shutting out certain views from the forums and banning certain innocent members, like Emptyheaded.

I've now deleted Noble Dust's comments too by the way as they're also replies to your deleted comment. — Baden

Thank you.

Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this. — TimeLine

Apparently I can't answer TimeLine, but she gets to slander me in public, no repercussions.

Ironic hearing that coming from Thorongil, one of the site's major right wingers who I never even remember moderating. — Baden

Right, make a note of it, and start doing it now. That's exactly what you did with me.

That makes little sense to me because they are saying things or asking things publicly. I need to respond publicly as well, otherwise why do they get to ask me off-topic questions publicly, but I'm expected to answer by PM?

Your constant attention seeking is boring. And I have better things to do. — Baden

Constant attention seeking? I don't remember being around much for the past 3 months.

The continuation of the argument against Timeline was deleted for being off-topic and derailing — Baden

Okay, so TimeLine at the moment has a comment in that thread spreading blatant LIES about me.

Actually, you are attempting to do nothing but beat me because you are a sexist and judging from your sociopathic PMs that imply a need for me to do what you tell me in order for me to 'have a chance' at becoming virtuous alongside your comments elsewhere that women who are submissive and passive are beautiful, the ONLY thing you have been doing is exemplifying this. — TimeLine

Can I address this? Cause it's quite off-topic to me, but it's in that thread. So if I can't address it there, where should I address it?

Also Noble Dust has asked me to explain my actions regarding my posts to TimeLine. It's off-topic, but he has asked me in that thread. Can I answer him, or is that derailing the thread?

Because it seems you don't want to answer, I'll tell you. It's 3 months ago. So yes, I have refrained for 3 months, and at the request of many members I decided to come back. Why don't you try refraining from posting snarky comments and trying to insinuate nonsense about me for HALF that time!

I'm sorry Agustino but your inability to read anything most people say charitably means I'm going to put you on ignore. Enjoy the forums without interacting with me. — Benkei

01/19/2017

Syphilus smiles when Agustino goes around as everyone's bitch... :( — Benkei

02/22/2017

Can't even keep your own word. And you're asking me about keeping mine? >:O

Either way, if you submit a comment that is entirely facetious with no serious content which adds to the discussion, and which risks derailing the discussion, then you should be prepared for it to be deleted and should not kick up a fuss if it is. Especially if it is particularly lengthy, vulgar or personal. Please try to understand it from our perspective. — Sapientia

Thanks for your answer Sapientia!

My joke did have multiple serious meanings (believe it or not :P ). And the meanings were that (1) someone can't understand something without experiencing it, and (2) what may look sensible and good from one perspective, doesn't look sensible and good from another - that was also the point of that Buddhist story I attached at the end.

I also don't think the joke was "vulgar" - there was no swearing involved, bad or aggressive language. Personally because of its exaggerated nature, I would have found it hilarious even if it was addressed to me. It was quite clear that it's a joke because it was exaggerated and contained information that I couldn't have known in the first place. It read almost like an advertisement against pornography and masturbation - I saw nothing terribly wrong with it, worth removing, but okay, I can appreciate if you don't want to see that kind of jokes - thanks for letting me know!

Can you start refraining again? Mr. self-restraint and self-control? — Benkei

What's the date of that post you quoted?

" Love is nothing else but pleasure joy accompanied by the idea of an external cause." Spinoza. — John

What translation are you using? Edwin Curley's reads joy. Which is exactly why I avoided the word pleasure and used joy instead. While I don't know the Latin used, I highly suspect that "pleasure" is the most accurate translation there. Here's why:

If you haven't already, you can read the beginning of an early work of Spinoza (the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect) here. It's a (younger) Spinoza detailing out his attempts at philosophy, as well as his personal motivations for engaging in it. Slightly more personal, at least in the beginning than The Ethics.

"For as far as sensual pleasure is concerned, the mind is so caught up in it, as if at peace in a [true] good, that it is quite prevented from thinking of anything else. But after the enjoyment of sensual pleasure is past, the greatest sadness follows. If this does not completely engross, still it thoroughly confuses and dulls the mind"

Spinoza (much like the Stoics) didn't have a great idea of comfort, pleasure, and the like - at least not as most people understand them.

And I've avoided Spinoza's definition because of the attachment to an external cause required by it - defining it that way does not fit in with the Christian picture where God = Love. Love in this way cannot have an external cause, because there is nothing external to love to begin with. So defining Love with respect to something external is a grave mistake according to the Christian - much like something external cannot be used to define Substance. Note that there is no question of God being personal yet - the statement isn't, like in Islam, that God is loving. Rather God is Love. (also think about comparing Christian love with Spinoza's conatus).

And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering — Bitter Crank

I agree, it can also lead to a lot of suffering. Society is generally responsible for a large part of that suffering though. "Well-meaning" friends, family, etc.

I don't understand this. You are separating joy from pleasure. But isn't joy a form of pleasure? How can joy be separated from pleasure if joy is a form of pleasure? So if love is related to joy, and joy is a form of pleasure, how do you separate love from pleasure? Your claim that pleasures and pains cannot co-existence is meaningless, because we can experience pleasure in one respect while simultaneously experiencing pain in another respect. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't affirmed that joy is a form of pleasure. Pleasure could lead to joy, but they are definitely not the same. Suffering for that matter can also lead to joy. Does it follow from there that joy is a form of suffering?

Another reason for the separation of pleasure from love is that love is an out-going movement, breaking through the prison of the self. Pleasure on the other hand is self-centered.

Apprehension of the good is not possible in the absence of love - at least not according to Jesus. That's why there exists an unforgivable sin - blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which effectively translates into a hardening of the heart, and a complete elimination of love. People who have reached that point are beyond redemption because they can no longer apprehend the good.

What you are talking about in your last post with the apprehension of the Good is Platonic/Neo-platonic but definitely not Christian.

Also don't forget that God must take the first step in order for salvation to be possible. So without God's love, no apprehension of the good can occur.

Also, Love doesn't remove choice, so of course the theoretical possibility for sin still exists.

Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. — Bitter Crank

I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. How many are willing to die for their children? Quite many. How many are willing to die for the man/woman they love? Quite many. And note, that eros is not only sexual. It's a much deeper and stronger desire for that particular person (which does include sexuality). Do not confuse eros with its corrupted form (lust).

Also our society has a tendency to squish eros whenever it finds it - "ah just another bitch, you'll find another one!"

The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams.

It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agápē. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agápē. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agápē, should be that kind of pleasure. — Bitter Crank

Well, okay, but that's not pleasure as generally understood. That's why I made a distinction between joy/pleasure.

religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue — TimeLine

I have actually said nothing about religion until now, so I have no idea what you're on about.

But apparently you see nothing wrong about parroting what a virtuous woman you are, and how the rest of us are all mindless losers (as if we actually gave a damn about it :P ). And this isn't the first thread where you've done that, I've been following discussions over here and have stumbled on it countless times. And there's many other members who have picked up on it too, Heister, John, etc. but apparently you go on living in your own world. Wake up - it's not all about you. A little bit less arrogance would take you a long way. And whether you believe it or not, I'm saying this as honest and friendly advice. This is not a virtue competition, it's a philosophy forum.

I appreciate the testimony of Jesus — TimeLine

I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. — TimeLine

Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals :P

Jesus answered, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. — John 14:6

Is this the testimony you just said you respect?

oh, THERE YOU ARE! So glad you reappeared. — Bitter Crank

You missed me? :D

Have you been unwell, in prison, recovering from a car crash, or just too busy to be a piston of debate here? — Bitter Crank

Actually I was protesting against the Three Stooges who have "liquidated" one of my friends. If you make a little bit of a search through some of my last comments, you'll see what I'm talking about.

in prison — Bitter Crank

Not yet, but I might land there given my financial illiteracy, and reliance on incapable accountants - I've had to change 4 so-far. For example, one conversation:

Me: "So I will soon need you to do some of my bookings. When can I come by to discuss?"
Her: "Umm I'm very busy at the moment, so I don't know right now. Is it possible to call you by tomorrow when I reach my office?"
Me: "Okay, no problem, I'll wait for your call"

{2 days pass - No call}

I call again.

Me: "Hi, this is XXX. We spoke on Monday and you told me you'd call me once you reach your office to plan for a meeting. So have you had the time to check your schedule and see when we can do it?"
Her: "Oh I'm not in the office right now. Is it possible to call you back later this afternoon?"
Me: "Okay, no problem"

{4 days pass - No call}

I call again.

Me: "Hi this is XXX. We spoke last week Thursday, and you told me you'd call when you manage to check your schedule. So did you manage to check?"
Her: "No, I have been unfortunately very busy, my sincere apologies. Is it possible to call you back in 2-3 hours?"
Me: "Okay, that's fine, but please don't forget. Thanks!"

{5 hours pass, no call - I decide to ditch her and find another accountant}

>:O >:O >:O >:O In fact to this day, I still don't have an answer from that woman. And other accountants don't seem to be much better - either don't know what to do, take too long, are rude, etc. Too many incapable people who don't put heart in what they do. Many leeches around, who like to suck money without doing a proper job. Or who only care to work properly if a big corporation is on the other side. And then people wonder why economies aren't working well.

What does Love mean to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

To care deeply about others / someone and find existence meaningful. An openness of the soul towards others.

But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering.

I really don't know how you formulate your categories, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that love is a virtue, rather than to say that virtue is a part of love? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms.

Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed once again by your Ayn Rand picture that exemplifies nothing but a very angry person? — TimeLine

Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O (if so, it seems that your habit of asking that kind of questions hasn't changed)

Also, you should try to quote the bit that was actually addressed to you, not the bit that has nothing to do with you whatsoever. It seems you see "me me me" in everything.

At least Augustino is trying to defend religious institutions by being selectively obnoxious. — TimeLine

No, Augustino was using the stock standard argumentum ad hominem by attacking me with the intention of dissuading the audience of my comments — TimeLine

Turn the other cheek, even if they punch you in the face... :D — TimeLine

you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here. — TimeLine

Projection much? — TimeLine

You are a troll and I am done wasting my time with you. — TimeLine

Some people tell you exactly how you should think of them! >:O

you prefer to be mindless enough to follow because it takes the responsibility away from you, your levels of maturity are exemplified here. — TimeLine

Yes, I recognise my inferiority and therefore hand the burden of responsibility over to you. It is after all those who are superior who should carry a greater burden than those who are inferior and mindless.

And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit.

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view. — Bitter Crank

The absolute core is Love.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him,Which is the first commandment of all?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

"Asceticism" (if by this one means restraining greed, lust, selfishness and the like) is part of Love. Morality and virtue are also parts of Love. And yes, Jesus also didn't preach legalism - that's what the Sabbath being made for man means.

I write — TimeLine

I am telling you — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

I am saying — TimeLine

I stand — TimeLine

that I said — TimeLine

I want — TimeLine

I don't mean — TimeLine

my interpretation — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

I am — TimeLine

honest to myself — TimeLine

I practice — TimeLine

my will — TimeLine

want me — TimeLine

I am afraid I will disappoint — TimeLine

I couldn't give a toss — TimeLine

I have transcended — TimeLine

impossible to talk to you — TimeLine

you fail — TimeLine

>:O >:O >:O



Reloaded.

Jesus like Jesus, but I wanna know when Volume 2 of The Virtue of Selfishness is coming out. Definitely gonna get that :P

In this century, nobody comes near Trump in those stakes. — Wayfarer

If by this century you mean the last 100 years, you just don't know what you're talking about. Do you know who Augusto Pinochet was?! Do you know who Pol Pot is?! Really I feel that many people here know very little history, not meaning this in an insulting way. I mean if you consider Trump to be so much trouble, then you really have no idea how most of human history has been like...

Okay fine, if you don't want to respect me, then we can't have a conversation together, end of story. So I will not reply anymore to you until you decide to be respectful.

And further, I presume this new found sensitivity of yours is just a way to avoid answering the question. — Baden

No, it's a way of respecting the rules of the forums, whatever they are. I haven't set them anyway. But if you expect me to respect them, then you should respect them yourself. I can't delete your posts, but you can delete mine - so that asymmetry pretty much ensures you can insult me as much as you want, without me being able to insult back. So fine, you can go ahead with that if that's what you want, enjoy the authoritarianism. But I'm here just to discuss the ideas, not really trade insults anyway.

You're not nasty, you're just a very unintelligent liar. — Baden

idiotic things you're saying — Baden

trivially stupid your approach is. — Baden

What did I say?

Right, it's a philosophy forum, where we're supposed to respect each other, and yet you hypocritically proceed to insult others and accuse their ideas to be "low quality" and "thoughtless" because they don't agree with you. — Agustino

Seems like I was right.

"context-less" — Baden

Actually no, I didn't dismiss them as context-less. Anyway, when you decide to uphold the very rules that you yourself advocate, and treat others with respect, I may reply to you again.

I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology, but I gather that it stresses becoming one with God ("theosis") over the course of one's life. — aletheist

Well I am an Eastern Orthodox. The thing is you are right that salvation must ultimately be bestowed by God through grace - however this manifests itself in an actual way, and is therefore known by the believer. The believer can look back in their personal history and identify the reason - ie the event - that made them convert and begin on the path of ascension to God (theosis). Thus God's intervention in the life of the believer appears from the inside as it were - the believer perceives it. It's metaphorically similar to having a veil lifted from your eyes.

So there is something that the believer can do to precipitate this. The idea in Orthodoxy is that God is always seeking for the believer - always knocking at his door as it were - but unless the believer opens, God will not force the door. Most of the time, the problem is that the believer does not hear God knocking. So the prerequisite is that the believer become aware of God, and thereby permit the Holy Spirit to do its work. That's why taking part in liturgy, prayer, following the commandments etc. are emphasised - these are essential to bring the believer to an awareness of God.

I see believing in God and being ethical as two different things. Ultimately it is not about anything that I do, it is only about what God has done for me in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. " For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

One cannot be ethical without believing in God though - that would be to vacate belief in God of its corresponding ethical praxis don't you think so? The Pope has recently said that it is better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic, and I think he was right. It's impossible to be a Christian and be unethical - if that's the case, then you're not really a Christian. And inversely - it is not possible to be be ethical and not be a believer in God - you may be unaware that you are a believer, but this lack of awareness doesn't mean that deep in your heart there is no element of belief. Again belief is about degrees, it's not a on-off switch. In addition, remember the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - it is something that occurs deep in the heart, it's not merely a superficial rejection or mockery of God that is under discussion in that case. So someone may very well be outwardly mocking and rejecting God, but inwardly there may be a degree of belief left in them, and hence they would not have committed the unforgivable sin.

So indeed, salvation is a gift of grace - salvation would be impossible if man was searching for God, but God wasn't searching for man. What makes salvation possible is precisely that God is searching for man - and so if man becomes aware of this, they can accept God's gift and be saved. It's not their own works which save them, but their works certainly prepare the way for salvation.

Yes, Spinoza's concept of substance is contradictory to Aristotle's concept. Spinoza denies that there can be many finite substances and contends that there can be only one infinite substance. — John

No, the two concepts aren't contradictory in any way. They are actually compatible. It is true that Aristotle means something different by Substance than Spinoza, however, the two concepts (their meanings) are not contradictory, but complementary. Substance in Spinoza is that which cannot be conceived as not existing, and which must be conceived through itself. There is only one element of Aristotle's metaphysics which fits this description - and there is only ONE of them - the Prime Mover. So Substance in Spinoza is NOT Substance in Aristotle, but rather Prime Mover. Hence the two definitions of Substance aren't even incompatible to begin with.

Speaking of hysteria, you no doubt recall the crowds shrieking 'Lock her up' at the Republican National Convention last year — Wayfarer

And? Shouldn't she be locked up? There has probably never been a more corrupt family in American politics than the Clintons - they have their hands in all the pies.

He collects rent from foreign governments, against the Constitution. — Wayfarer

No, HE doesn't, his businesses do. So it seems you too are engaged in the propagation of fake news.

I don't get why you're going in to bat for him. I marched against Vietnam. Trump's election is a far greater threat to the world order than that was in my view. — Wayfarer

Fear mongering.

It is indisputable - beyond debate - that Donald J Trump frequently lies, dissembles, exagerrates, and engages in other falsehoods. — Wayfarer

Just like how it was beyond debate that Crooked was a corrupt liar, and yet you kept reciting New York Times propaganda?

I read NY Times and Washington Post online — Wayfarer

It shows. The NY Times - probably the most liberal-progressive source of articles out there. Someone sent me an article on dating from them awhile ago, it was disgustingly false and propagandistic.