Hint: Who do you think he voted for in 2020? :mask:According to the depiction of Jesus in the NT Gospels, who would it be more reasonable to expect Christ to vote for in the 2024 presidential election: Don Poorleone or Sleepy Joe Biden??
:100: :fire:What we do by choice either adds to or detracts from that essential being. A good deed, a positive action, a virtuous choice makes the inner personality better, stronger, more capable of facing challenges. A craven, underhanded, destructive act leaves pock-marks on the soul.
It's an old idea that endures in various guises in various religions.
And we do always know when we're committing an offence against our own best self. — Vera Mont
[T]he (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) either
• helps more than harns,
• harms more than helps,
• harms and helps more or less equally
or
• (mostly it seems) neither harms nor helps
by which habits of judgment (i.e. virtues, vices) are reflectively cultivated. — 180 Proof
Both – in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty – lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) – greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96
So then "consciousness" is impersonal? For instance, my awareness of being self-aware isn't actually mine? :chin:I think there is a persistent confusion between self and consciousness which messes up a lot of the discourse. — bert1
i guess "He" ain't so "Omni" after all ...How does God prove that he is God? — Moses
Well, "if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God" (OP), and if "God" is (at most) a Bronze Age fictional character (myth), then "sin" is just as meaningless, or impossible, as acting "contrary to the will of" Bilbo Baggins. QED. Again, javi, for emphasis I paraphrase Camus: stupidity is the only sin without god.Oh, of course, it is possible to knowingly sin ... There are a lot of ways to sin. — javi2541997
You might find (the implications of) this discussion interesting ...What is thetrue nature of theself?
The self is an illusion generated by the brain. This illusion vanishes when the brain dies. — Truth Seeker
Given this statement, what is your question?Thusly, the most (positively) intrinisically valuable state is universalized states of eudamonia (i.e., universal flourishing and deep happiness); and this is ‘The Good’. — Bob Ross
Yes.Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin.
QED.
Agree — Art48
:up: :up:Radical non-dualisms like that of Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity, rather than elevating consciousness to supreme status. — Joshs
:roll:It's a fact. — Wayfarer
Yes, (i.e.) the unbounded void of uncountable, endlessly swirling atoms ... natura naturans.In other words, ultimate reality is not an alternative to conventional reality; it is the insight into the emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence in all phenomena. — Wayfarer
Well, the alternative is 'to live carelessly', no?My somewhat crude question is, why should we care? — Tom Storm
:sparkle: :eyes: :sweat: :lol: :rofl:Is this frame[work] really just for people who enjoy 'wanking about oneness'
Perhaps these reflections are used by some as a prophylactic against superstition, magical thinking, ego-fantasy, zerosum games, etc.... or does it have a tangible use in daily living?
Ontological immanence¹.What is non-dualism? — Sirius
Misunderstanding, or ignorance-denial, of the fundamental inseparability of everything from nature is "the nature of illusions" (i.e. superstitions) such as "non-contingent facts", "transcendent values", "supernatural entities", etc.What is the nature of an illusion?
I think (A) refers more broadly to eliminativism (e.g. D. Dennett, P. Churchland, et al) than specifically to Metzinger's 'representational-functionalism'.Does A equate with Metzinger's 'self-model theory of subjectivity'? — Tom Storm
Well, I prefer (A) speculatively but (D) empirically; however, I find both (B) & (C) are incoherent (e.g. compositional fallacy & appeal to ignorance, respectively).Which seems more reasonable, or likely, to you, @Wayfarer (or anyone): (A) every human is a zombie with a(n involuntary) 'theory of mind'? or (B) every entity is a 'conscious' monad necessarily inaccessible / inexplicable to one another's 'subjectivity'? or (C) mind is a 'mystery' too intractable for science, even in principle, to explain? or (D) mind is a near-intractably complex phenomenon that science (or AGI) has yet to explain?
— 180 Proof
B is closest to the truth I reckon, but we can know other minds by inference ... — bert1
Behold the *Jihad of Estrogen* :strong:Politics... it isn't about logic and intelligence, it's a religion. — ssu
My preferred example is 'the principle of noncontradiction' (PNC).I hold that some concepts are primitive and absolutely simple [ ... ] the best example I have: being (viz., ‘to be’, ‘existence’, ‘to exist’, etc.) — Bob Ross
non-circular definitions — Bob Ross
:up:all definitions are essentially circular — noAxioms
Maybe you missed the link posted by @ "wonderer1" ...the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object — Gnomon
There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun. — Gerry O'Driscoll, doorman at Abbey Road Studios
I wouldn't want to live an 'unexamined life' or without ever wholeheartedly loving anyone else. I also wouldn't want be a coward or servile. (I'm sure there's more ...)With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
Yes, we are 'beings-in-media-res'. I prefer Jasper's notion of 'Existenz' as conditioned, or grounded, by what he calls the encompassing¹ or even better, more concrete, Spinoza's/Deleuze's 'radical immanence' (i.e. eternal and infinite substance²).I wonder if we forget our place if we don't sometimes remind ourselves of the middle. — Fire Ologist
"Determinism" is a thought-experiment, not a truth-claim – a supposition, not a proposition.Is determinism true? — Truth Seeker
We cannot "know" it, only imagine it.How can we know for sure?
:100: :up:My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better.
— boethius
Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple ... My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here. — Mikie
:smirk:Now everything else can toss the coin (or when you do metaphysics, the coin can toss everything else). — Fire Ologist
Interesting. I agree with "the coin ... logic". However, suppose "everything else ... objects of science/philosophy" instead tosses the "coin", so to speak, again and again again dialectically. :chin:I would say the two sides of the coin include science and philosophy together on the one side, keep the coin as the connector logic, but put everything else on the other side as the objects of science/philosophy. — Fire Ologist
You believe the goal of physicists' "T.O.E." is to explain "everything"? that it's not just physics but some final (super-natural) metaphysics? I thought the aim was to produce a testable unification of the fundamental forces of nature – to demonstrate they are aspects or modalities of one another – that's formulated into a G.U.T. (which would include QG). What does "everything" have to do with it? That's not physics. How is it even possible to test a purported explanation for "everything"?I hope the T.O.E. fails. — ucarr
:up:I read Robert Alter's biblical translation — BitconnectCarlos
