Well, I think it's been established that the pagan mystery cults included the equivalent of baptism, a communal meal, promises of rebirth, salvation and eternal life. The pagan origins of Christmas traditions is well attested. think it's clear Christian thinkers relied a great deal on pagan philosophy. I think the destruction of pagan temples by Christians and the persecution of pagans by Christian Emperors is well documented. Missionary zeal and it's impact on indigenous peoples and religious beliefs is fairly well known. The doctrine of forgiveness of sins is something I'm familiar with as an old Catholic.

I make inferences from such things, certainly.

Just what Jesus actually taught isn't all that clear, I think, and may depend on what one reads, bearing in mind that the evidence indicates that what we have to read was written long after he lived and so couldn't have been written by someone who actually knew him and heard what he said.

The gospels make an interesting study, particularly if you take into account the gnostic gospels, which depict Jesus in an entirely different light. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, depicts a young Jesus using his powers to kill and curse those who offend him, blinding neighbors of Joseph and Mary when they complain about his behavior, and magically doing other things while learning to control his powers. Being gnostic, they involve the teaching of secret knowledge you don't find in the canonical gospels. There are admirable teaching in those gospels, but it seems clear that the Jesus they describe is a persona developed over many years, and he was depicted as very different from the Jesus of the Canon by those who considered themselves Christian.

Mine is Marcus Tullius Cicero, of course. Ciceronianus sum, non Christianus

I can't think of anything signifcantly redemptive that wasn't borrowed from pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato, the neo-platonists, the Stoics and Aristotle.

Not enough, no. I think there's no getting around the fact that Christianty benefited primarily from its acquisition of imperial authority, which ignored the destruction of the pagan past and then actively participated in it. Justinian closed the last of the philosophical schools of Athens, and after that there wasn't much left.

A favorite of mine.

Julian the Apostate credited Christians with their care of the poor, and thought it part of their appeal. During his brief time as Emperor he thought of trying to organize similar relief on behalf of pagan divinities.

I may be making myself misunderstood. The error I mean is to treat the "observer" as in a separate world from the "observed." They're not one and the same, though.

I think the point he's making, if I understand it, is an error because he treats the "observer" as separate from the "observed." Certainly we matter, because we're part of the same world. So, there are no laws of nature or physics separate from us but that's because we're not separate from nature--but that doesn't mean we make the laws. Make any sense?

For me, all we are, all we do, all we know, is derived from our interactivity with the rest of the world. I suspect there's a lot we don't know about the universe, though, and that interaction may include aspects of which we're not yet aware.

How comforting it must be to think the world is only a mental construct, and how blithe you must feel when you hear of those who claim to suffer in it!

I've been away for a time.

By way of explaining how we differ, I wonder if you can elaborate on how you think the capacities of our mind you've referred to in our past exchanges came to be if not through our interaction with the rest 9f the world?

I think ambiguity and misconceptions arise when ordinary language is misused in philosophy, myself.

In fact, I think we agree on several things discussed here. But I'm uncomfortable with your terminology in some cases, and concerned about what I think are inferences which I believe are unsubstantiated.

OK. But I think when we claim each of us create or construct the world, and cats and bunnies do so as well, the world tends to multiply.

For the record, I don't assume there's a world "external" to me. I'm part of the world, like everything else. I'm not sure what you mean by an "internal world." It wouldn't be surprising if you assume there's one though. It seems you think worlds abound. You have a rococo conception of reality, or realities.

But regardless, I think you define and use "intend" and other words in ways I think are so beyond ordinary use I don't think further discussion would benefit either of us.

So, each of us cause the world to exist? I suppose it would be more accurate to say that each of us causes a world to exist, though, as each of us has a mind, each mind therefore causing its own world.

I don't think anyone claims we physically cause the world to exist, building it as bees build a hive and birds build a nest, but perhaps I'm wrong,
as Wayfarer seems to think we (I don't distinguish between myself and my mind) construct the world, or each of us causes a world of our own.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that the characteristics or capacities of our minds under discussion are those that operate or obtain regardless of any intent on our part to use them. For example, to the extent my mind is involved in seeing or hearing, I normally don't will myself to see or hear. I just see or hear. Sometimes I look for something, or try to hear what someone is saying, and in those cases I may be said to intend to see or hear though I think it would sound odd, but I hear and see things without intending to do so merely by being alive. I can't help but do so.

I interact with the rest of the world and experience it merely by being a living human being, but I don't think it's correct to say that I intend to do that when I don't. Similarly, I don't think it's correct to say that I create something merely by being alive.

I think you're overfond of using words implying that intent is present (e.g. "create" "enact") without any reason to do so. You need not respond.

And "universe" is derived from the Latin "universum" meaning the entirety of existing things, which would include the world.

Sorry. My response appears above. The world I create is lopsided.

Isn't it true then we're merely more sophisticated creatures than others we know of, as much products of and part of the world as they are? And if that's the case, isn't talk of our "creating" the world just hyperbole or metaphor?

I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical additions" but the capacities you refer to are, I'd suggest, the result of evolution--as you seemed to acknowledge in an earlier thread--and so are as much a result of our interaction with the rest of the world as are our thumbs (the evolution of which it seems played a role in the development of our intelligence).

So I'd say our capacities, like our thumbs, are the products of experience. They're derived from it. Which wouId suggest that the world created the mind instead of the mind creating the world, if we want to use such language. But I don't think we should treat them as separate in that sense.

Thank you. But I don't see how the fact we possess intelligence indicates that our minds "bring" the form or concept of a triangle, or anything else for that matter, to experience. It merely indicates that we (minds and all) are able to interact with the rest of the world in a way other organisms cannot.

Thanks also for the reference to Maritain. I'm not a fan of Catholic apologists, though.

I confess I don't understand the point of the exegesis on triangulation. I'm uncertain just what an imperfect triangle might be. My guess, however, is that it isn't a triangle. In which case a "perfect" triangle is, simply, a triangle. It should be unsurprising that when we think about a triangle, we think about a triangle. It's difficult to ascribe much significance to this fact. But it seems some do and I wonder why.

We know how "triangle" is defined. We've seen triangles. I'm reasonably certain I didn't know what a triangle was until I saw one and was told it was called a triangle. On what basis, then, do we maintain that a triangle is a form or concept our minds "bring" to experience (assuming for the sake of argument our minds are separate from experience)?

I was happy you referred to "MAGA conservatism." I thought that might indicate you distinguish it from Conservatism, which once championed individual rights and limited government. But then you disappointed me, and stopped using the "MAGA" qualifier.

The grotesque rogues gallery that is the regime now in power in our Great Republic (it resembled a republic, once) is intent on empowering the federal government and restricting individual liberty. MAGA, it seems, consists of its bewildered and besotted followers. If that's Conservatism, it's mutated considerably.

Well, you mentioned white people and certain northern Europe countries, you know, so I thought you were going there. As for Italy, which one? Most regions have their own dialect, and hate those others who don't speak it. Most of my ancestors come from around Potenza. I don't know if a Genoese would let me in the door.

Those swarthy, southern Europeans aren't quite white enough, are they?

Which particular non-or-un-Americans/Europeans are the targets of your ire? Who are they who sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?

I'm uncertain whether any thread so entirely devoted to claimed non-legal rights is an appropriate place to respond to your posts. That's because it should come as no surprise that such supposed rights have no place in what I think is moral conduct.

I favor a kind of virtue ethics, together with consideration of what conduct is appropriate to achieve eudamonia. It's based on ancient views concerning what is right conduct on our part rather than demands we be treated in certain ways by others. Hope that suffices for now.

Ah, but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. I don't make the all too common mistake of equating one with the other, though.

You seem to want me to declare whether I believe rights I don't think exist ("human rights") include certain rights which, if they are "human rights," I would likewise believe don't exist. That's an odd request. I'm not sure how to respond.

To the extent I can understand the OP in its enumeration of various so-called "rights," those said to be claimed by transgenders involve drivers licenses and other documents, use of bathrooms, use of certain clothing, and medical treatment aligned with gender identity.

Unless some legal right applies, I don't think that I have a right to use a bathroom I prefer. I don't think I have a right to be identfied in a particular way in any license or other document. I don't think I have a right to dress as I please, for any reason. I don't think I have a right to medical treatment of any kind.

Unless a legal right right applies, I don't think anyone has such rights. I don't care whether they're called "human rights" or anything else.

And as you may have noted, my observation was that your concern over this "cultural phenomenon" is hackneyed.

I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance.

Regardless, if natural law as conceived of by the ancients is considered the basis for morality I don't believe it provides for a morality based on entitlements. Instead, it provides that we have obligations towards one another. For example, the Roman jurist Ulpian considered a slave to have a status contrary to nature. That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others.

Good Heavens!

Breaking Bad ended 12 years ago. Will we be learning that someone is appalled by The Sopranos next (it ended in 2007)?

The anti-hero has been a fixture in "modern cinema" for decades. A fixture in literature far longer. It's difficult to take such "what's wrong with people these days?" complaints seriously.

Only that if there is an answer, it will be determined by science (physicists probably, or cosmologists).

There doesn't have to be a reason. Nor does the question have to be considered.

I don't know what "insuperable immersion in being" means. But as I said, I think the only meaningful question is "why does the universe exist?" No purported inquiry into "nothing" is needed to address that question.

My disappointment doesn't apply to you personally. I find us disappointing, in this case, for considering this question as if it can be answered through philosophy.

I agree with those who've noted "nothing" isn't an option. So the actual question would seem to be--Why does the universe exist?

This seems to me to be a question which science may answer someday, if the question addresses how the universe came to be. But I don't think philosophers will no matter how hard they think about it.

There are moments when I find "something" disappointing, I'll admit. This is one of them.