Well, the individuals you refer to are philosophers and theologians. They purport to explain things, or justify claims. No doubt I should have been clearer, but the religion I refer to (including the ancient mystery religions) generated a profound feeling of understanding through very emotive rituals and dramatic revelations of sacred objects or displays. Art, also, shows rather than explains.

Chesterton is an amusing writer, but never careful in thought or analysis. He is, for the most part, glib. His writing is breezy and superficial, and sometimes witty. He would have been great fun as a conversationalist, particularly after a few drinks. He is first and foremost an apologist, and apologists very rarely engage in more than special pleading.

Those initiated into the ancient mysteries took their oaths of secrecy very seriously. That secrecy together with the intolerance of "triumphant" Christianity has made it very difficult to understand what the mysteries were and what they meant to their initiates, but it's clear their impact was profound, even on philosophers of the time. We know little of the Roman cult of Mithras beyond what can be inferred from archaeology, making it even more difficult to understand than the cults of Isis or of Magna Mater. Certain of their rituals took place in public; those of Mithras were secret except to members of the cult as all took place in the Mithraeum. I just read a book where the authors proposed that the reliefs of Mithras and the Bull that are found in all places where Mithras was worshiped (the tauroctony) actually depict a mind-altering mushroom used in the rituals. I'd find it unsurprising if some such substance was used, but why it would be depicted in the form of the god, the bull, Helios, Luna and the torchbearers which are shown in relief baffles me.

The mysteries are lost to us, but I think it likely that what they were and what they meant, and did, to their initiates cannot be described in any case through use of language. They'd have to be experienced, and by a believer.

Philosophy isn't religion, nor is it art, or so I think. We shouldn't look to philosophy or philosophers for any deep insights into life or the world or ourselves, because philosophy can only be expressed through language, and there are limitations on the power of language to explain. Philosophy is supposed to explain, not evoke or inspire. When we look to philosophy as we look to religion or art, we read into it and the language used by philosophers far more than that language can reasonably be construed to mean.

My opinion for what it's worth.

Hard to take this seriously if you haven't taken up Kant Critique of Pure Reason. — Constance

Again? Last time you claimed I couldn't understand you unless I had read Being and Time if I recall correctly. Now I must be admitted into the mysteries of Kant before I can grasp what you say. I admit I find the ancient pagan mystery cults and their influence on and interaction with early Christianity and Gnosticism fascinating, but am surprised to find a similar reliance on rites of initiation on the one hand, and claims of exclusivity on the other, in this context.

What are your thoughts in this? — Ash Abadear

First, if there is a question to be answered, it should be "Why is there something?"

Second, that's a question nobody will answer by thinking really hard. Leave it to the scientists to determine how the universe came to be, if they can. If they can't, so be it.

When I place my thinking before my awareness, I am not the thing I am aware of. Just as when I stop hammering and consider what hammering is about, or, while hammering I allow my attention to pull apart from the rote, physical process and "observe" the unfolding of the hand grasping the handle, the muscles squeezing, and so on, I no longer AM simply the act of hammering. I am doing something altogether different. — Constance

You're hammering and thinking about hammering as you hammer. We're quite capable of doing both if we want to, and without distinguishing ourselves from our thinking or our hammering.

When one thinks, one is doing something. Thinking is conduct resulting from interaction with the rest of the world. It's inapposite to say that we observe ourselves when we're doing something, as if we're watching ourselves when we, e.g., walk. When I walk, I don't observe myself walking, I merely walk.
I'm aware that I'm walking, but that isn't the same as observing myself walking. There is no me apart from the me that is walking, observing the walking me.

We can certainly think about what we do. We may also think about how we think. But in doing so we don't stand apart from ourselves, we're just thinking (something we do). Understanding this, we don't create entities out of metaphors, which is to say needlessly.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If something's ineffable, it can't be described in words. Are you asking for a description of the experience of listening to music? Then I think one can't be given. Are you asking if we think the experience of listening to music can't be described in words? Then, yes, that's what I think.

The Stoic teaching for instance does not imply you can’t have righteous indignation against injustice. The Stoic teaching is about shifting attention towards productive thoughts, it isn’t about deadening your emotions. — Saphsin

Quite right. Also, Stoicism encourages active participation in social/political matters--Roman Stoicism, in any case. That's why some Roman emperors, like Domitian, banished or executed Stoic philosophers and Senators who were Stoics and opposed imperial conduct.

But all talk of droplets, masks, breathing, are nugatory when it comes to people not carrying the virus. — NOS4A2

It seems we can't know whether they do or not without testing them, and my guess is you don't think testing should be required (I think it's likely it would be impossible to achieve, in any case). And it seems someone carrying it may be asymptomatic. So, wearing a mask is a not unreasonable way to avoid transmission which doesn't require that we simply assume we, and others, don't carry it--an assumption which seems unwarranted.

I would be interested in hearing stories or ways that others have dealt with episodes in life that have been particularly difficult from which to move-on, as I do believe this is the most important lesson we can learn from our journey into philosophy and through life. — synthesis

It's a very Stoic point of view. As Epictetus said, there's only one way to happiness, and that is to cease worrying about things beyond the power of our will.

My understanding is Covid may be transmitted through breathing, and there's good evidence that the nose is used in breathing with some frequency as well as the mouth, so the lips themselves don't suffice as a prophylactic. But it's good to know you use a mask. I know others who don't, even when it's been requested/demanded by the owners of premises being used. Another example of how "rights" may conflict; property rights versus the right not to wear a mask.

You're view of what constitute "human rights" seems extremely broad; so broad as to render some of them, at least, trivial. "Give me the right not to wear a mask in public or give me death!" strikes me as a less than inspiring expression of a love for liberty.

Tell me, though--if not because of any law or regulation, do you nonetheless wear a mask in public because of your "personal morality", or do you merely doubt it will have any benefit to others? Another possibility, I suppose, would be that you think if the failure to wear a mask will endanger others, that's not your problem.

Do you believe a government should be able to force you to wear clothing you do not like? — NOS4A2

Come, that isn't at issue.

The law is quite clear that governments, federal, state and local, have what are called "police powers"--by which they may exercise reasonable control over persons and property within their jurisdictions in the interest of general health, safety and welfare. Traffic laws and regulations represent the exercise of police powers; so do laws regulating the practice of medicine, licensing; so do laws imposing requirements to assure general health.

The requirement that masks be worn in certain circumstances during a pandemic is an example of the exercise of police power by government.

Of course, what's of greatest significance is the requirement of reasonableness. It happens there's a huge body of case law dealing with when the exercise of that power is reasonable. Determining what's reasonable requires investigation of evidence, and a balancing of the interests of individuals and those of society in general (i.e., those of other people).

So, we consider the interests of individuals who don't want to wear masks because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable, and make a decision regarding what is more important--their convenience or the possible spread of a disease that in some cases at least may be deadly, and which is burdening the health care system to the extent it's difficult for patients with or without the disease to be treated effectively. That's the nature of the question to be addressed, the judgment to be made, because there is, alas, no legal right not to wear masks nor (I would say) is there a natural or moral right not to wear them.

I'm one of those who would say the interests of the individuals who don't want to wear masks are far less important than the interests of people/society in general in such circumstances, and exercise of police power is reasonable even though the resulting law would require people to undergo the titanic effort of wearing a mask sometimes.

There are those who deny there is a pandemic, or deny that masks are needed, or deny that vaccines should be given, but then the issue is whether the exercise of police power in this case is reasonable. We're not considering whether there's such a thing as a right not to be inconvenienced in these circumstances.

Such choices are best left to personal morality, whether derived from religion, philosophy, tradition, etc. — NOS4A2

When people think, e.g., that being required to wear a mask is a violation of their "rights" I don't think we can expect much of them in the way of personal morality, if that includes any sacrifice or conduct on their part for the benefit of others.

I think I've mentioned before that I find the inability of so many Americans to think in terms of a common wealth... puzzling. — Banno

The people of our Great Republic are convinced they have what they choose to call individual "rights" by virtue of which they may do as they please, even when what they do or decline to do may result in harm to others, with certain limited exceptions. Our citizens have no conception of a common good. The result is they don't believe they (or their government) have any obligations beyond those necessary to the preservation of those rights. They may, if they choose, do something to benefit others, but they have no obligation to do that, nor do they have any obligation to refrain from taking any action which may harm others except to the extent that involves a violation of the rights they believe themselves to have. They object to their government doing anything to benefit others if doing so means a limitation of their rights (to property, for example). We owe each other nothing, provided certain "rights" are honored which don't infringe on our individual "rights." Nothing at all.

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

Better yet if it causes them to kill themselves, thereby assuring they won't procreate and disposing of themselves to boot, resulting in less people in the world. Two birds with one stone, as it were.

Well. Heidegger was a Nazi. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it is a difference.

As pointed out previously, the forum has a rash of Sovereign Citizens. — Banno

Oxymorons, you mean. I've had a few brushes with members of the Posse Comitatus in my time. I particularly enjoy the statements such folk make about the law. It gladdens my heart to know there are people who can contrive such lunacy from it.

What was it Patrick Henry said? "Give me convenience, or give me death!" right?

No, that was the Dead Kennedys. But I'm sure Patrick Henry would have said it.

That damn Evil Demon just keeps messing with us.

In that case, I'd say you don't know of a reason why I should have to justify my moral principles to others. Welcome, then, to the world in which at least the two of us don't think it's necessary to do so.

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in. — baker

You don't know whether I should kill some random stranger? Or you don't know whether I must have a reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so?

I don't see how one would be in a position of not feeling compelled to justify one's morality. — baker

Why must I justify the fact that I won't kill some random stranger? Do you believe I should do that? Do you think I must have some reason not to kill some random stranger to refrain from doing so? If so, explain why. If not, don't ask me for a justification.

There once was a — Banno

Dammit, I was hoping a limerick was in the offing. Well, I'll try one then.

There once was was a species called human,
Who thought God cared what they were doin',
But the truth is He said that "For me, they've been dead
Since the Garden of Eden stopped bloomin'."

What need is there to justify morality, by the way?

Questioner: "Prove that you should be moral, Ciceronianus!"
Ciceronianus: "Why should I do that?"
Questioner: "Well, if you don't, then you haven't proven you should be moral!"
Ciceronianus: "Okay."
Questioner: "But if you don't prove you should be moral, you don't have to be moral!"
Ciceronianus: "Why shouldn't I be?"
Questioner: "Because you haven't proven you should be moral!"
Ciceronianus: "Why should I do that?"

Person: "Kill that person, Ciceronianus!"
Ciceronianus: "No."
Person: "Then prove that you shouldn't kill that person!"
Ciceronianus: "Why?"
Person: "Because if you don't, then you may kill him!"
Ciceronianus: "Why should I do that?"

I'm curious about your choice of title for this thread. It seems to have no relation to the question you pose, unless you assume, but neglect to explain, that you believe "religion" (whatever you may mean by that) provides a basis for an objective morality and doubt that anything else can. Alternatively, you may be trying to establish that if religion provides no basis for an objective reality, nothing else does either, thereby making the religious view of morality no less subjective than any other. Just curious, as I said.

Was Descartes reasonable in trying to doubt every last belief of his? — khaled

Descartes never really doubted anything. He was engaged in an exercise which he thought necessary
because, for reasons not entirely clear to me, he thought it appropriate to explain why he didn't doubt what he didn't doubt. So, he pretended to doubt what he didn't doubt, and by pretending to doubt what he didn't doubt he claimed to discover that he was right not to doubt what he didn't doubt in the first place.

I'm curious, though not curious enough to read through all posts, but assuming the linguistic turn is over (I don't think it is, but what the hell) has anyone given an opinion on "what next?" I did, assuming perhaps unfairly that Being and Nothing and the Horror associated with their contemplation will once again inspire and fascinate philosophers. But is there more to come?

Although I cherish the hope that his father's name was Naughtius Maximus, in my less silly moments I'm quite willing to accept as probable the claim that Pantera was the father of Jesus. The evidence supporting the claim is certainly far more extensive than any evidence that there was such a person as Joseph.

As for Mary, as I'm sure you know it wasn't uncommon for gods to be the product of miraculous, even virgin, birth at the time. In one version of the birth of Mithras, for example, he was born of a virgin. There were so many sons of gods. I suspect Mary's virginity was something acquired by Christianity as it gradually acquired other pagan beliefs as it spread across the Empire, just as she acquired the titles and aspects of Isis (as worshiped in the Roman version of her cult).

I know too little of Eastern thought to comment. I'm of the West by birth, upbringing and education. But I know there are similarities between Stoicism, which I admire as a guide on how to live, and some forms of Buddhism, and often wish that the culture of the West in antiquity had been allowed to grow unfettered by institutional Christianity, though I don't think East and West would be any closer than they are now had that been the case.

If you read Heidi and others and thereby see the light, like Paul on the road to Damascus, let me know.

In my experience if people can't tell in their own words what they just read, then they either did not read it, or read it and did not understand it. There is proposition by Heimleitslaufen, "Anything that can be said can be said clearly." If it is beyond the reader's ability to say clearly what they read, then they can't say it at all, and if they can't say it at all, then they have no clue what it is about. — god must be atheist

Mirabile dictu!

It's my experience as well, with this caveat: If something just read can't be related clearly by the reader, it may also be the case that what was read makes no assertion of any kind which can be the subject of argument, analysis or explanation. It may instead evoke or inspire certain feelings or insights. Great poetry, for example.

Happily (in my opinion, in any case) philosophy isn't poetry, (nor are many other things), primarily because philosophers aren't poets and shouldn't pretend philosophy is poetry. When we treat philosophers as if they're poets we forgive them a great deal, and try to explain their vagaries away by claiming it's necessary to know certain things about them or the way they express themselves or the words they use which their critics don't and perhaps even can't know. It's what initiates do--they maintain they have hidden or superior knowledge because they've been initiated, and you must be an initiate yourself to understand.

Call it a theory.

It's interesting that among the documents found at Nag Hammadi are portions of treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. That suggests there was a good deal of "mixing" of mystical traditions going on, at least until orthodoxy was relentlessly imposed in the Christian Roman Empire.

Horror! Being! Nothing! All the horrible speculation and pontificating on Being and Nothing that preceded the Linguistic Turn, slouching towards whatever passes for Bethlehem in philosophical circles now, to be hopelessly and pointlessly reborn!

But perhaps I exaggerate.

I much prefer the Odd Fellows, as the name of their society seems more honest and appropriate. I don't know much about the history of such organizations prior to the 18th century. I suspect modern Freemasons are mostly concerned about lining each others' pockets (which it's said they do quite well), but for some reason feel it necessary to do so by first donning silly articles of clothing and engaging in absurd rituals they think are centuries old. From what I hear, they may have borrowed some symbols of Hermeticism. Some have speculated even that the little we know of the cult of Mithras, with its seven degrees of initiation into its mysteries, may have inspired them or speculation regarding the nature of the Illuminati, and a case is made that the cult of Mithras was more like a social club than a religion--being limited to men, I suppose some of us feel it must be similar to the male fraternal organizations of more recent times with their curious ceremonies and hierarchies.

Where I live, the state and business apparatus is controlled by Italians, who I suppose are white, most of them in government anyway. Many Italians are casually racist (including between themselves, ie regional sentiments are strong) but the level of racial hatred is not as high as in the US. There isn't much history in terms of ideological racism in Italy; it's not engrained in politics like it is in many other places. Even Mussolini was not much of a racist. — Olivier5

I'm of Italian descent (mostly), not Italian, but what you say rings true even among those of us whose ancestors came over to the U.S. Northern Italians dislike Southern Italians, Southern Italians look down upon those Italians further south, and all look down upon Sicilians. Those from Naples seem to hold a special place, judging from a phrase I've heard spoken since I was a child, "Va fa Napoli!", literally "Go to Naples!" but broadly meaning "Go to Hell!"

So, that kind of casual contempt carried well over the ocean, although being of Italian descent generally became a problem, thus resulting in insulting names of universal application, e.g. Guinea, Wop, Dago depending on where you live in America.

The Stoics revered Socrates, but that Socrates wasn't the Socrates of Plato.

The Stoics conception of an immanent divinity also sets them apart from Plato, and served to prevent them from flying off into the Never-Never Land of Platonism and Neo-Platonism and their offshoots and, of course, Christianity to the extent it borrowed from Plato than Aristotle and others of the ancient schools.

I think a Nazi is necessarily Heidegarrian, but a Heidegarrian is not necessary a Nazi — Gregory

That's a sensible conclusion.

(1) Nazis after World War 1 were really into Fitche, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, but those thinkers weren't Nazi. — Gregory

Well, one of them was a party member, and stayed a member until the bitter end, in 1945. That makes him a Nazi, I'm afraid, the silly goose. Guess which one?

Heidgger had anti-Semitic moments — Gregory

You should read the Black Notebooks for examples of those "moments."

The problem is not the conspiracy so much as conspiracy theorist. — Banno

According to the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, “The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts.”

It happens to be the case that P.T. Barnum, or whoever it was who claimed a sucker is born every minute, underestimated the frequency with which suckers are born. Suckers abound. But it comforts all those of us disappointed in life for one reason or another to believe our disappointment is the result of a conspiracy, and we're not to blame. And disappointment has become something of a habit, or even a way of living, in these dark times.