FWIW, I have insulted philosophers without having really looked into them myself, and I always ended up regretting it when I finally read them. Even if I didn't find them convincing, I also discovered that they weren't what I projected on them. — norm

So, I've read all of these rascal philosophers. I've done a degree in philosophy, I've read all of the books on the library shelf when I was in College, even now, though I know what they say, I still listen to them. I listened to Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty just recently.

I don't deny their sincerity in pursuit of truth, but their belief system is the blind leading the blind. If truth is not real, then their position is untrue by their own admission let alone mine. Hence, I don't consider it worth serious philosophical consideration.

Philosophy is about Absolute Truth, Absolute Reality, and the nature of the Good. If you are denying the very possibility of those things, I consider that anti-philosophy. Not philosophy.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then it's based on a misconception. I am not saying "I am God" the self is not what I refer to as God.

"The Self" so-called is merely the Divine Spark. God is the Absolute, the all-Pervading Infinite Consciousness. So, private self-verification, is not what I am speaking of.

Though, self-realization is necessary, it's not the end. Knowing the Absolute is the end.

And if we want to play the skepticism game, then we're not actually doing philosophy. This is philodoxy, love of perspective, of theory, of opinion, of belief, rather than love of truth, love of wisdom. Technically, there is no access to anything whatsoever. If we want to play the nihilism game, then we're not playing the philosophy game.

In the end, though, I found myself in the Groundless Grounds camp. Personally I think the mind-matter-etc. is a dead end and that metaphysics builds castles in the sand. IMO, we can't play chess with language. Instead we have a poetry of high stakes, ultimately driven by spiritual-political concerns. — norm

Yes, Postmodern linguistic philosophy is not philosophy. It's what Socrates and Plato rightly derided as philodoxy. Lover of opinion. Philosophy is about the truth, about wisdom, about reality. Not about language games. If philosophy is about language games, then it's a waste of time. We can do something more productive with our time.

This is why I am not arguing metaphysics. It's not a logical, conceptual point. It's an experiential one. You can verify for yourself if God exists or not, you do the experiment, see for yourself. No metaphysics needed.

That seems unverifiable. And Scientologists, say, would argue the same point. What method do we use to determine which occult system is true? If someone doubts matter on epistemological grounds, how can they accept 'knowledge of God' as a sound premise. — Tom Storm

You have to do the experiment. That's the only way. Scientologists would not argue the same premise. All of these fools and rascals of other religions would say "because my Scripture says so" and when it comes to Scientology, it's founder was an admitted fraud. So that's a very tenuous thing to claim.

Our system is an epistemology. Not based on authority or hearsay.

Empiricism is about verifying empirical things via empirical means.
Rationalism is about verifying rational things through rational means.
So, it follows, that the only way you can prove "God-thing" is through a similar methodology? Do you disagree?

Yeah that's pretty much my view. There are some good points against this view (primarily directed against the intelligibility of concepts like reality-in-itself) but it still seems roughly right to me (or one of the least misleading or errant ways of talking/thinking.) — norm

Well, that isn't my view. My view is the idea that one can have access to reality is a genuine idea. It's the method that is flawed. Materiality is not the end-all-be-all of reality. Consciousness is. Namely, the Absolute Infinite Unoriginate Primeval Consciousness, what's called God.

But we need to use the proper methodology. In the same way we use logical means to prove logical things. Empirical means to prove empirical things. We need to use conscious means to prove conscious things.

Hence, through the yoga system in the Vedic philosophy, we do the experiment, we purify our consciousness, we self-realize our own true consciousness and from that point, we realize the Divine Consciousness. That's how we know reality per se.

In my system.

I think the best we can do is say this - as soon as someone can find a way to acquire reliable knowledge outside of what we call methodological naturalism, let's hear it. Until then we have no choice but to assume that physicalism is all we have access to and can measure. It serves us well. — Tom Storm

The Vedic Scriptures give us a method.

We prove logical things via logic. Empirical things via empiricism. Consciousness "things" (i.e., God, gods, spirits, demons, whatever) via consciousness.

If we follow the yoga system, and have proper predisposition, then one can "know" God, and other entities too theoretically. But you have to do the experiment. That's the requirement.

So, I would say all things exist in the Mind of God. The only things I in particular have access to is the things in my personal mentation. But I'm not a Solipsist. God's Mind is what underlies the energetic flux of reality we experience.

Maybe there's no direct access to 'Reality' at all, but that would take us into the metaphysical quagmire — norm

Correcto. Our access to reality is conditioned by our material nature. Making it limited, ultimately. But since people don't want to hear that, I guess we can just keep saying a Theory of Everything is right around the corner. Trust us. :wink:

I said elsewhere that where philosophy is traditionally about the nature of truth, reality and good, Postmodern philosophy is the abolition of philosophy.

Take that how you will.

That's right. We only can speculate. There's no proof.

No. Because you are not the body. You are the spirit soul. The body is just a suit. A costume. A shirt. It's a throwaway. The true person is the spirit soul.

Yes. But the critique of Celsus, who is one of my favorite philosophers of the ancient world because he didn't buy Christianity, is way late. That's like middle of the 2nd century.

I don't deny the possibility, there's just no sources to actually check it out.

Right, but the problem is justification. What we know is, gravity functions and operates. What we don't know, and what the problem of induction is, is whether there is a law underlying that function. That's the problem. There's no "string" holding together the "pearls".

If you say there;s a law, then where is it? That's the problem.

This is a point that I never heard. Could you give me your sources so I can go a little deeper? I'll be grateful. — Gus Lamarch

There's a lot of interesting stuff on this that I haven't read. Much of this is my own theorizing. But there's Pagels' the Gnostic Paul, Robert Price's books, Richard Carrier's books, the Dutch Radical critics. I read the Greek New Testament, and I study this stuff for fun, also for academic reasons. Even though I'm not a Christian.

Currently, we have historical evidence - from sources contrary to Christianity - and archaeological that yes, probably someone named Yeshua - Jesus in Aramaic - would have lived in the province of Judea within the span of time in which the biblical Jesus would also have existed.

We actually don't have any sources outside of the Gospels. This very common, but false, statement has been debunked pretty thoroughly in David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All" where he deconstructs Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius etc etc. and Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" does this also.

Well, I don't say it isn't. I say it is, but pure empiricism cannot justify the claim that laws of nature are truly real. That's the problem of induction.

I'm not a pure empiricist. Pure empiricism is based on nominalist philosophy, which rejects the idea of natural law.

To make it clearer:

You've never seen the law of gravity. You've only seen particular cases and time periods where gravity has operated. That's the crux of the problem. How do you go from particular cases to a universal law?

There's no smallest particle.

Because reality at it's smallest is qualitative, not quantitative.

No. It's Adharmic.

I'm against the whole notion of Hedonism.

Anti-Hedonism. :)

Well, this can also be said of Islam, however, my point with this discussion is to show that Christianity did indeed destroy the classical world, however, it did build the contemporary world. — Gus Lamarch

Yes it can.

No, Christianity did not build the contemporary world. The contemporary world was created by the Renaissance Humanists, that is to say, the movement which returned to Greek Pagan philosophy, pagan art, pagan history, pagan literature.

Then, the Enlightenment philosophers disagreed with those pagan philosophers recovered after millennium of the Dark Ages where Christians were in a total state of savagery, ignorance and barbarism, and created new philosophies.

Some of those new philosophies, such as those of Descartes and Francis Bacon, became the backbone of modern science and technology.

Paganism created the modern world. Christianity killed the ancient world, and didn't create anything. If Christianity created anything, it only created nominalist pseudo-philosophy during the late Medieval Scholastic period which has caused society to devolve into a world which is free from the notion of the numinous, of meaning, purpose, the sacred, inherent value, nature, etc. to the world, to our own lives and to the universe at large. That's had massive negative consequences, the destruction of the environment, the totalitarian coup d'etat of the money-power over all of society and politics, the existentialist and nihilist angst that results from that philosophy. You can lay that at the foot of Christianity.

I have reason to believe otherwise, but believe otherwise is different than know otherwise. But my hypothesis is that Jesus was a literary fabrication, used to sell the Gnostic-Hellenistic Judaism of the Pauline sect. It was sort of a clever metaphor to hide their secret mystery teachings, theological, metaphysical, cosmological and otherwise, from the eyes of the unlearned and unsophisticated.

2nd Peter, an epistle forged by a Christian sect responding to a different Christian sect, has the opposing sect claiming Jesus was just a "cleverly devised myth" in 1:16. Which seems to fit the story. Aside from that, Clement, Origen and other Christian Church Fathers were saying there were secret teachings that were only passed on orally. And we unfortunately can never know what those were.

What you're saying is true. Kant is the turning point in modern philosophy, for all kinds of philosophers and schools.

I'll answer without using a religious response. I'll preface this by saying, though I'm religious, I don't believe God "created" anything.

Now, the response is this:

Dr. Roger Penrose and many other physicists while admitting that "time" in our conception didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, it is possible still to talk about a "before" the Big Bang. Even though our precise conception of what that means breaks down the further back we go.

So that's a secular response to the problem, that could theoretically be used. However, Christians probably don't want to use this because his model of the Universe is an eternal cyclic model. LOL And that contradicts Biblical Cosmology. But that's one way the problem could be addressed. Could be.

I'm not denying there are differences between him and Kant, but there are clear continuities also.

I also believed faithfully that Jesus Christ could have existed, and that he was just an apocalyptic prophet from the province of Judea. However, after a more in-depth and detailed study of the very figure of Jesus Christ, I do not believe it is possible to affirm any characteristics about his life. — Gus Lamarch

What many people forget is that Christianity was not created and invented by Jesus Christ. The Christian message that reached the roman "gentiles" - elites -, had been the one rewritten by Paul of Tarsus, and therefore, it was not the exact message of Jesus, as he wrote only what would appeal to them. — Gus Lamarch

^

I believe Jesus Christ existed. He was just a prophet who wanted to change the reality in Roman Empire. — javi2541997

Oh, I don't believe that. The book "Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed" is the best book on New Testament Studies I've ever read.

If Jesus existed, all of the sources about him are fabricated and not historical.

I think they're complimentary. Kant and Schopenhauer, same with Husserl.

Arthur Schopenhauer formulated his philosophy after reading the Vedic Scriptures. It's also based on Kantianism which all German Idealism is ultimately predicated on.

That's also incorrect. There's a book called "the myth of persecution" that dispels this idea. As well as the book I recommended also deals with it.

Christians forged, fabricated and falsified most of the stories of their alleged persecutions because they, and their religion, glorified persecution and martyrdom. But the stories were lies, and frauds. There was no pagan persecution of Christianity. On the other hand, there was not only persecution of pagans by Christians but actual cultural genocide, if not OMNICIDE against not just Greco-Roman paganism, but Germanic, Indian, Aztec, Mayan whatever that Christians have been committing for eons against us.

That's fine. You have the freedom to disagree.

"there comes a point where the balance sheet shows more suffering than happiness, and then it's time to leave"

But I'd still be careful with what you're saying. Does it have to be 51% suffering and 49% happiness to end it all?

If there's no hope in sight, I understand, but something that general has dangerous implications. I agree, if the suffering is unbearable, I think the person is justified and I sympathize and understand their position. However, if it's something that can be remedied in the foreseeable future, then it shouldn't be taken that way.

Or, you should still wait and see if it will get better. Maybe you don't see any light at the end of the tunnel, but wait a few weeks. Maybe a couple months.

See if things change first, before you end it all. And if you decide to in the end, you have my sympathies. I definitely understand the suffering of life isn't easy to come to terms with.

But I recommend heeding a quick thought:

All suffering in our lives is caused by our sense perceptions, and our sense perceptions are caused by the impermanent states of affairs we find ourselves in. If we just let go of these impermanent things, then our suffering goes along with them. The pain might very well not, but the suffering does. There is a mountain of difference between suffering and pain.

If you are interested I'd recommend reading chapter 2 of the Bhagavad Gita, and reading up on the teachings of the Buddha Siddharta Goatama. As well as the Stoics, Daoists and others who said very similar things.

Anyway, that's my final say on the issue.

We made up our minds that we should live our lives separated from God. Since God loves us, he created this world for us to reside in.

And by "us" not humans, but all organisms with spirit soul. So, even a blade of grass has spirit soul.

He created it for our enjoyment, because he attends to our desires. But we have utilized it to our detriment, our suffering and our doom.

Because nothing can make us happy. Except being with our most sublime love, God.

Well, because we chose to live our lives outside of God. If we didn;t choose this material nature, we'd still be with Godhead. We decided to choose materiality over Godhead, and evil is a result of finding ourselves in the material nature.

In our system, God is pure and absolute love. So, he cares deeply and truly for us more than we can even care for our own selves. So, he respects us thoroughly. If we decide to exist apart from Him, he obliges our request.

So, we chose to live in this prison, and God loves us, and respects us deeply, so he gave us what we desired.

Um, agree with all of that except that pagans weren't intolerant towards Christians. The intolerance was all one direction. Pagans are inherently tolerant of religious, philosophical views. The proof that the intolerance was all one direction is the book I mentioned, and the term 'pagan' itself, which is an insult which means a country hick, an uneducated yokel. A fool.

Sattva: Existence in the mode of purity and goodness.
Rajas: Existence in the mixed mode of both aspects.
Tamas: Existence in the mode of corruption and evil.

Our true nature is sattva, because we are carriers of the Divine Spark. But our illusion of being material beings and only material things existing leads us to follow the modes of Rajas (passion and hedonism for material things) and Tamas (indulging in unhealthy, vile, evil or insane phenomena).

yes, roughly correct. The mathematical metaphor is imprecise, but if you intend it to mean, how one relates to materiality, then yes. You could say sattva is the "up" and tamas is the "down" within the "ups and downs of life" if that makes sense.

And Rajas is mixed nature, so yes you could see it as tamasic. Or as a middle point. Both are correct.

If you haven't read "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" I believe it's called, HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend.

No, it's not that everything is illusion. That's a very common misunderstanding. The illusion is our identification with what is false. Materiality, our false sense of self, and all misunderstandings which arise from the three aspects of material nature: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.

That's all. It's not saying reality itself is an illusion, it's saying reality is something greater and the illusion is thinking it is "as is."

Also, you don't have to be sorry. I had a dialogue with someone who really truly didn't understand or care to understand for many hours on this point, and at least you're honest about your understanding being limited. That's good enough. Even many Hindus are ignorant of the orthodox Vedic understanding.

We recognize the illusion of materiality, and we go beyond it to the absolute truth of consciousness. Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

Do we start in illusion? Of course.