I'm praxis11 on chess.com, btw.

I can barely manage the personality that I'm aware of, much less an additional one. :grimace:

Have a babe.

I think Schopenhauer's understanding is nearer to that of the gnostics and to Eastern philosophy - which he acknowledges - which call for a kind of meta-cognitive shift, an insight into the nature of being and knowing. — Wayfarer

Do you mean emptiness?

Next time perhaps try not to make so much ado about nothing.

‘those who have ears to hear, let them hear’. That doesn’t apply to everyone, there are those whose minds are irredeemably made up already. — Wayfarer

You wrote, "To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing", and also seem to claim that Nietsche was incapable of seeing this meaning. What are you referring to? What's the idea or sentiment behind this meaning that you mention? Again I will point out that we're not aliens but all members of the same species, with the same sense organs, neurological structure, and even very similar cultural backgrounds. Also, many of us are familiar with Eastern religion, philosophy, and mysticism.

Just say what you mean.

To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing; it would be like an alien visitor from a planet where there's no sound arriving on earth and witnessing an orchestra. What are all those people doing? What are those things they're holding?. And how would you explain that to this visitor. 'Well, there's this thing called 'hearing'....'
— Wayfarer

So what does it mean?

You should be able to explain it to us because we’re not aliens. Even our cultural differences are not that great. You said there is meaning so tell us what that meaning is. What does it mean for you? Make use of simile if need be. I for one am all ears. — praxis

@Wayfarer

Nothing Waywarer? Have a smidgen of intellectual honesty and say what it means to you, please.

Sorry, I didn’t realize that we were talking about hiding away in a Himalayan monastery or whatever.

To those who've never been through the mystical looking glass it means nothing; it would be like an alien visitor from a planet where there's no sound arriving on earth and witnessing an orchestra. What are all those people doing? What are those things they're holding?. And how would you explain that to this visitor. 'Well, there's this thing called 'hearing'....' — Wayfarer

So what does it mean?

You should be able to explain it to us because we’re not aliens. Even our cultural differences are not that great. You said there is meaning so tell us what that meaning is. What does it mean for you? Make use of simile if need be. I for one am all ears.

I think in my later years it is appropriate for me to make a more determined effort to follow the path of yoga and deal with the fear that don't know shit! — Athena

Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin:

Primarily existential anxiety, I would guess.

I did a search for that quote and got a fuller quote:

What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience. We are Homo religiosus, not in our desire for creeds or institutions, nor in our commitments to specific gods and theologies, but in our existential striving toward transcendence: toward that which lies beyond the manifest world.

We don't need religion to pursue 'transcendence', and like morality, religion may hinder our development more than help it.

We are not Homo religiosus. We're a social species that can coordinate and form social bonds, via shared values, narratives, and norms, etc., with the help of concepts that are often fictitious.

If your point is that individuals have used religion as an excuse to do terrible things, I wouldn't disagree. However, I believe that says more about the nature of man than it does about the nature of religion. — Tzeentch

Whut??? :worry:

Allow me to refresh your memory. In my previous post to you I wrote “I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power.”

I offered an extreme example of this in an attempt to substantiate the claim.

That philosophy lacks this degree of influential power indicates, to me anyway, that the purposes of philosophy and religion are of a vary different nature.

Stop thinking! God did it!
— Faith
Stop thinking God did it.
— Reason
Punctuation makes all the difference. :mask: — 180 Proof

:lol:

I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power.
— praxis

The philosophical and spiritual concepts underlying religions are well-documented and accessible to all who would put in the time and effort, so I don't see how this is true. — Tzeentch

There are countless examples of religious authorities creatively adding a spin to doctrine, or just making shit up on the fly, in order to influence the gullible but the following is a favorite of mine.

[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way] — Daiun Sogaku Harada Roshi

Japanese war atrocities in China were particularly heinous.

Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics.
— praxis

That distinction is a quaint old notion with a long pedigree in Western thinking, but it has been discarded by a range of thinking that recognizes the grounding of philosophical and scientific reason in aesthetics. — Joshs

It's just a way of distinguishing them. There are all sorts of ways to distinguish them from each other, I'm sure, quaint as some of them may be.

I'm curious though, since you bring it up, in what sense is scientific reason based in aesthetics?

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying.
— praxis

I’m saying the same thing that Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche , Kuhn, Rorty and Merleau-Ponty said years ago.

Here’s one attempt to apply Kuhn to religious conversion.

“Thomas Kuhn's theor of paradigm-shift can be used as a methodological tool in the study of religious conversion. The same way that the scientist is limited to work wvithin a scientific paradigm, the believer can be said to exercise religion within a theological paradign. And as anomaly can lead to science crises and a change of worldrew, anomaly wilhin the horizon of the believer can lead to existential crisis and religious reorientation.”(TOMAS SUNDNES DRoNEN) — Joshs

Again, I have no problem with this. Why would I?

You said this is a necessary condition because religion requires faith and authority. I’m not clear on the difference between religious faith and the metaphysical faith at the core of philosophical thinking. — Joshs

The former is held to be true, simply.

To believe in something you have to have a something to believe in, a way of thinking about the world. — Joshs

To a large degree, science is responsible for the way we think about the world, literally the world, that it's spherical and revolves around the sun, for instance. You may say that some of us require faith to believe what scientists claim about the world, but unlike religious authorities, scientists can answer questions about their claims and provide evidence. Also, there's no hierarchy of authority, no 'great chain of being', and in fact depends on peer review and independent validation.

One can choose one particular faith over another in the same way one can choose one philosophy over another; on the basis of how well it makes sense of the most important aspects of life. People move from one religious structure to another all the time on this basis. — Joshs

When not merely inculcated into religion and people seeking it out, what are people looking for? In a word, I think they're looking for meaning, and meaning can be found in religion. Does philosophy offer meaning? Philosophy has been accused of causing nihilism, by undermining existing values and beliefs and failing to put anything useable in their place. Among the less reflective, this has been one of the most objectionable aspects of philosophy as a whole.

I don’t see this supposed difference between philosophy and religion as any more coherent than that between philosophy and science or between science and the arts. — Joshs

Religion is based in faith, philosophy and science in reason, and the arts in aesthetics.

Each new era in philosophical history brings with it a new approach to religion that is throughly intertwined with the new philosophical worldview. This intertwining is only possible because philosophy and religion are just different styles of articulating a belief and value system. — Joshs

Again, I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying. I can see a religion as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem. I can also see philosophy as a style articulating a belief and value system. No problem.

No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion.
— praxis

Perhaps not, — Tzeentch

We agree! :party:

... but no one can answer the questions at the heart of philosophy either. — Tzeentch

Both a theist and an atheist can philosophize about the existence of God til the cows come home and in the end, their positions are unlikely to change. One difference is that the theist relies on authority and has faith in that authority. Has any theist alive today come up with the idea of God, and a whole belief system that surrounds it, themselves?

Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power.
— praxis

This is not necessarily true. If the esoteric teachings are of a philosophical nature, as I said, authority and faith would not be a part of them. Esoteric means nothing other than "hidden" (from the common eye). There is no element of faith or authority, or even religion in there. — Tzeentch

I'm not following. I'm saying that religion requires hidden ultimate "truths" and it's that inaccessibility that gives the religious authority their power. If everyone could talk to God, preachers and popes would be out of a job.

Many authors, from Caputo to Sheehan and Critchley, look at religion in terms of the philosophical ideas they see at its heart, which has no necessary ties to structures of authority. — Joshs

I’m not sure that you realize what you’re saying. Anyone can review core religious philosophical ideas. No problem.

These ideas are implicit in the religion, and made explicit in philosophical explication. — Joshs

No one can fully explicate these ideas. Again, this is a necessary condition.

Clark was admittedly being provocative in the OP and has been duly chastised for his choice of words and loose terminology. I’d feel sorry for him if it wasn’t so fun to watch. :lol:

Sweet dreams.

Nice post.

Going back to the different approaches that we talked about, they may each have their strengths and weaknesses, and for whatever reason, we may have a preference or natural aptitude for one and tend to favor it, but I think different combinations can offer the types of value that you mention.

Is it wineoclock yet? Almost. :razz:

Go to the heart of any religion and you will find philosophy. What we have come to know as religion is simply an exoteric representation of a philosophy, because the nature of philosophy is such that it cannot necessarily understood by everyone. — Tzeentch

Sounds reasonable except for the fact that no one understands religious philosophy. No one can answer questions at the "heart" of any religion. That is a necessary condition because religion requires faith, and ultimate authority to have faith in. You cannot have an exoteric religion because it would not require faith and religious authority.

The issue is that religion is thereby also vulnerable to being tainted by the less luminous, being used as a tool of power, etc. — Tzeentch

So why is philosophy not vulnerable, or less vulnerable, to abuse and religion is vulnerable? Esoteric knowledge requires faith in authority, and because they are final answers it requires ultimate authority. Ultimate authority = power.

I think the bare minimum would be to deal with problems philosophers deal with and do so in a way that can stand up to scrutiny by others. — Tobias

No disagreement, though it’s unclear to me what value this may personally provide. I wonder if it’s possible to have studied these problems, have a solid foundation in logic and critical thinking, be able to express thoughts and ideas well, and perhaps be unsatisfied in some way. The shoemaker gets money for his footwear. What does the philosopher get? We know it ain’t much money.

Incidentally, I don’t meet that bare minimum and that’s why I try to ‘stay in my lane’ on this site and not interfere in discussions that are over my head. And besides fiction, I tend to read books on science rather than philosophy. For the most part, I like this site because I can practice writing, critical thinking, and am exposed to interesting ideas that I may not otherwise encounter.

But if you include your history then you err. — Ken Edwards

What is a handful of years compared to 350 million? Practically nothing, but feels very important because that facilitates gene propagation.

It is a bit like saying, "I ain't repairing no goddam shoes, but I still consider myself a shoemaker". — Tobias

My take is that it’s more like claiming there are different approach’s to shoe making & repair, such as a more rational approach or a more intuitive approach, and if our way is satisfactory, asking what we may be missing by not taking the other approach.

Your balls manufacture future yous, ie Sperm. — Ken Edwards

I had noting to do with the 350 million years of evolution and genetic information carried in the family jewels. If I’m any part of that, it’s so negligible as to be nonexistent in any real way. Our feelings about family and offspring are part of the design to continue the design, nothing more.

We are all, in a very real sense, 350 million years old. … Perhaps a single, tiny piece of you will travel down to your testicles and will live forever. — Ken Edwards

I’m no biologist but I don’t thing anything needs to travel down to my balls for them to be fertile other than blood and stuff. I’m blood? And if I’m just an infinitesimal fraction of 350 million years of evolution it hardly seems like anything to get excited about. “I” am all but nothing.

Just trying to be helpful and give you something to complain about.

I voted yes for the simple reason that insight, an understanding of the true nature of something, can inform judicious action.

Ironically, if you bothered to do the reading all of your questions should be answered.

Ugh, I thought all ya blokes dawnunda we’re all wise and shit. Turns out you’re cunts like everyone else on the planet.

“A stitch in time saves nine.”

Oh yeah? what are the odds of that? Should be “A stitch in time saves several, if not many, stitches”.

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”—Albert Einstein

I would never attempt to explain women to a six year old.

“A good beginning makes a good ending.”

Maybe for her but I don’t need foreplay.

“A penny saved is a penny earned.”

Not if it’s stolen.

“A picture is worth a thousand words.”

Technically true if it’s a picture of a thousand words.

“A watched pot never boils.”

Of course, just looking at water won’t make it boil.

“All Roads Lead to Rome.”

That’s a hard No.

I just made that up. — Joshs

Please stop doing that. :grin:

Kuhn used theory and paradigm interchangeably. — Joshs

:brow:

I’m not at all religious, btw, but still feel moved in the midst of religious rituals.
— praxis

That's cause it triggers our a priori transcendental need. And the feeling coming from that is indeed overwhelming. Happens to me also. — dimosthenis9

:lol: No, lots of things move me, for different reasons and in different ways. You just moved me to laugh internally. If people actually have an "a priori transcendental need" they are generally astonishlingly piss-poor at satisfying it, and that truly is a shame.

What kind of situation would be an example of irrationality and social delusion — Joshs

Jonestown comes to mind.

what about it does not make use of social agreement? — Joshs

I didn't express my thoughts well, there was certainly social agreement in Jonestown.

All I'm saying is that there are fictions (institutional truths) that are based on social agreement (rational) rather than social delusion (irrational).

I don't know how the scientific method could be construed as having a privileged role among all cultural disciplines. I don't know how scientific theories could be construed as belief systems.

If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth — Joshs

Not at all. People believe in countless institutional truths and it's not delusion but practical agreement. Money, for instance, is one the most widely accepted fictions there is.

I was curious about your use of the phrase 'the secular age'. Subtraction theory or something else?

the secular age — Jack Cummins

In a determinedly brilliant new book, Charles Taylor challenges the ‘subtraction theory’ of secularization which defines it as a process whereby religion simply falls away, to be replaced by science and rationality. Instead... The result is a radical pluralism which, as well as offering unprecedented freedom, creates new challenges and instabilities. — London Review of Books

I would not use the term "divine status", and even if I believed in the concept of divinity, I cannot understand how an "elevation to divine status" might apply to a ritual. — Michael Zwingli

Etymology: dyeu- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to shine."

Make washing the dishes shine, babe! :halo: