movement — SophistiCat

Of Course... It is among The best music ever created

Plus, you have there Only two Christians basically to choose from from a list of philosophers. Do you seriously believe that a bunch of Christians who seem to understand nothing about philosophy will choose Kant, Nietzsche or Hume above Aquinas? It is enough that one says "Aquinas was a christian" and they would automatically prefer him.

Perhaps they do. But do you find me saying your view on Aquinas among laymen is unique? And do you find an orthodox forum to be an authority, especially a thread started by a catholic? A thread I have read btw. I give you that Aquinas is to prefer over other medieval thinkers like Anselm and Ockham. But it is Clear that Aquinas didnt quite get the human psyche and how it really worked. He wasn't even close to the depth of Augustine. Nor of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. He was a great intellectual and a brilliant systematic thinker and theologian. But imagine Aquinas going out for a run. Imagine him actually doing anything that intensifies the Will and thereby proves the reality of things within us that he seems to have neglected.

The orthodox Church doesnt talk about virtue ethics, as far as I know, that is my Point. I would like you to show me if they do.

Also, I know what you mean about Aquinas, but his theology/philosophy, just like most other early theologians are also influenced too much by Athens, whether it is Plato or Aristotle, and thereby their theology is dependent upon their time in many ways it seems to me. Catholic thinkers and theologians of to day take their inspiration from different thinkers like Aquinas, Eckhart, Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger and even Nietzsche and Feuerbach. In the East, we see that the great russian religous renaissance was inspired by mainly Dostoevsky and Solovyev, but also Kant and Nietzsche(and Plato to some extent).

Look at the greek fathers though. It was almost exclusively Platon that influenced them, not Aristotle. Aristotle came with Aquinas and others thanks to the arabs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, your Church does NOT adopt virtue ethics. Perhaps it does in practice, but it simply hasnt defined it. What you seem to talk about is the catholic church.

So then we are back to square one? Using your argument about the view of the churches doesnt prove anything?

"You are aware that this is not the position of either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox church with regards to morality right?"

Is Dostoevsky 's view on morality Orthodox? If so, then this statement is either false or a lie. Unless Dostoevsky's view is ''heretical''

Christ says quite clearly though that if you say you don't know, that is, it you dont know, you are without sin(without blame in this case), but if you say you KNOW, your sin remains.

"Does a man bathe quickly (early)? do not say that he bathes badly, but that
he bathes quickly. Does a man drink much wine? do not say that he does this bad-
ly, but say that he drinks much. For before you shall have determined the opinion,
how do you know whether he is acting wrong? Thus it will not happen to you to
comprehend some appearances which are capable of being comprehended, but to assent to others" - Epiktetos

You say choices are not free, but the opposite is false too.
That is, "choices are unfree" is not true either.

"Why else do you think we sentence people to prison if they accidentally - say while building a house - kill a co-worker? That is a barbaric practice that we should eliminate or what?"

I agree with Thorongil
Anyway, it is simple reason and fact to know that someone who is blameworthy because of having caused something bad without having done something immoral per se, often has a much greater tendency to learn something, benefit from and accept a sentence to prison or something similar(because he knows he has for example been neglient and thereby been the indirect cause of something horrible) than someone who has intentionally done something horrible. Why? Because of the difference of the attitude towards the one and the other from the judges.

You dont understand what thorongil says

"Because being the cause of something isn't the same as to be morally blameworthy. That ought to be a simple distinction to understand."

Yes, especially a Christian should understand this. Because God is "the first cause".

Only if you answer my 10 posts or so that you have not yet answered in the other thread.

Ridiculous.

"so let's see - if we're in a chemical laboratory, and due to my negligence I forget the gas on after I leave, and there is a big explosion later killing many people, have I done no wrong because I didn't intend to?"

Of course you are to blame for having Done wrong but if you are healthy you Will blame yourself. But morally blame? If it was a mistake? Dont be ridiculous. You have Done wrong, a mistake that had fatal consequences, but to call it a moral wrong is primitive. That is What people thought 8000 years before christianity.

Regarding Aquinas; he explains man in the world but not the world in man

There is no doubt. Unless I/we have misunderstood, which agustino will probably claim. Anyway, agustino seems to view God more as a God of raw and pure power/a God of pure will rather than a God of love etc. God actually is defined one time in the New Testament. St John says; "God is love". Not "loving", but "love"! A God like agustino's I dont understand how one can have faith in. Does he at least agree that if God says one thing He doesnt Change it? Or is he so unpredictable that he can break promises? Jesus promised to save those who obey and Believe him. Now; if one does Believe and obey, agustino's God seems to give no guarantee that he keeps his promises. So where does Faith come in to all this? Faith in what? In God's unpredictability?

" If your are treating women as lesser, that is an objective expression of the world. If you are specifically attacking women who criticise you, that it an objective expression of the world. "

So then perhaps the true sexists are also those who call others sexists then. Yes so it must be.

"We aren't the one's who define what's sexist. At least, no more than we define what's a tree, a house or a falling rock. Any of them are logical meanings expressed by the world. It's not popularity or whim that' define them, but rather there logic itself."

Would you then call the apostle Paul sexist? Back in his days nobody would. Rather the opposite. These days though, he is considered one by many post-modernists. What does that tell you about what you believe to be the universally understood concept 'sexism'?

+1

"You defended that as not sexist."

Where? If it came out that way I would like to apologize, but first I must see a quote of mine that can be understood that way, so that I might see if it is true or if there are some misunderstandings here. I believe I quite clearly have claimed that agustino's statements were sexist or could be understood as such, while believing that he in fact didnt intend them to be but rather wanted to prove a Point about human behavior, irrationality etc.

For example, I see the following as a human tendency which I thought agustino was trying to talk about; in the thread called 'sexism' my last post contained: "They perhaps dont want the war, but the prattle and babble before (That actually helps leading to catastrophy) almost all want", which I think sums up quite a lot of the behavior of People in modern times. Including here.

"I also stand by my claim that I have never heard a traditional Christian theist make your claim"

The closest would be calvinism. Though agustino doesnt like calvinism...

"You'd best stop using it and remain silent, a la Wittgenstein."

I am not sure he has understood or appreciated Wittgenstein. If he did he would be silent long time ago, which I have told him a few times.

If that is so, he should admit it. Which he Will not, because he is too proud. People seem to think I defend agustino and that I take his side. I dont. I take no side. I questioned why agustino even created this thread because I found it pathetic. This whole thing is quite pathetic. But some People here are too blinded by their ideologies.

So I act like you have been acting since this thread started then. I pity you.

Sure they were sexist or rather could be understood as sexist, and I havent said anything else. But you dont understand that agustino's underlying intention when making his post was most likely something else, something about the human nature, about how human beings often irrationally function. BUT I agree that he used a very bad example, and I also agree that he should have apologized and then dropped it. Where did I defend a sexist view? You make me laugh. And cry at the same time.

"And don't tell me to shut up when you didn't shut up and opened your mouth to wrongly tell me I handled things poorly. So start the shutting up on your own end. And my understanding of Agustino's posts is a correct personal understanding. If you don't think saying women on TV secretly want to be groped by Trump and are a bunch of lying hypocrites isn't sexist, you are sexist yourself and have real problems."

I am not going to comment on this, but you may understand my posts as you like. I am not a sexist and I dont have to prove that to you, nor do I care what your ressentiment thoughts are about me. Sorry if I sound rude, but if you are Always going to go on like this when discussing, you shouldnt do philosophy because this is something else.

If agustino hasn't apologized, he should, Though I thought he had. And mind you, look at my posts to him in this thread and see if I defend him. Hardly. I questioned Why he created this thread and Said:

"Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. And then you End with "Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines."... Sure, but seriously, what did you expect?"

I did mean that "attacking" was my own invention. I Said I didnt mean to attack you, not that you said I did.

Yes that is in fact a point. And as he claims to be a Christian, trying to repent and Change himself should be his Only concern and something he knows a lot about.

I apologize if you feel that I used this thread to 'attack'(a bit strong word) you, it was not my intention. What I would want is for all of you to shut up and leave this. I dont support agustino, nor you. Now you say what my personal opinion is, while not understanding that your understanding of agustino's posts are also personal opinions. Anyway. I apologize, I dont intend to make enemies here.

Sure I dont need to justify anything, nor prove a point, nor be concerned. I leave it. I have already said where I stand; I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous. Agustino is not a sexist I believe, but she took it as if he was. Her intention might not have been to slander, but agustino took it as slander. And if Mongrel was offended it was good she addressed it, but she didnt have to make such a gigantic scene out of it, unless agustino refused to apologize and instead continued to make sexist comments. Anyway, this is all quite childish.

Supported? You all attacked him and accused him of being a sexist. That is something far different from making a sexist comment, something which he appeared to have apologized for in that very thread.

"Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation"

It took quite a while before you did though. Neither you nor Mongrel handled the situation well.

I dont think Mongrel slandered you more than I think you made a sexist comment. In other words, I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous. You are not a sexist I believe, but she took it as if you were. Her intention might not have been to slander, but you took it as slander.

Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. And then you End with "Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines."... Sure, but seriously, what did you expect?

Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting.

What is the point with this?

"Why do you think I treat man like an "it" or a "muppet" (or better said a puppet)? That God is incomprehensible in His essence is true, and asserted by several mystics/saints. Lossky in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church also asserts it if I remember correctly. Now what does this have to do with man being an it or a muppet?"

I explained this in the above post. It is the natural consequence of how you take from the mystics without really caring about what they intended to achieve.

"I've read quite a bit of Augustine, which passages are you referring to and which works?"

Confessions. He speaks about how for God, evil doesnt exist. Not for God, nor for his creation when viewed as a whole. Because nothing outside or within can break his order. Something can only be "counted" as evil for another, because two parts might not fit each other. But that which in this is evil, it is wrong (perhaps blasphemous, at least a sin) for us to call evil according to Augustine, because that which is evil in one way, harmonizes with something else and is in itself therefore good. And all parts that doesnt harmonize with each other can though harmonize with the "lower part", which is in harmony with something greater. This is part of what you dont quite seem to grasp.