The Knox Presbyterian church in our nearest city has a magnificent organ, as well as great acoustics. The church is often used for classical music concerts - far better than the college auditorium. I quite like the decor, too - clean, simple; big clear windows, white walls and lots of natural wood.

I don't consider myself an adherent to any religious system or practice, nor do i belong to any religious communities. But i think some claims which are often considered religious are true, for example, consciousness is ubiquitous, consciousness (but not self) continues after death. I also think creation myths should be taken seriously but not literally. I do wonder if they might reflect the phenomenology of the early universe in some way, or the psychological development of life, or something. I find the gospels to be extremely rich in valuable ideas. Likewise with other religions to the extent i am aware of them, which isn't much. So I'm not sure if in religious or not. I suppose i have beliefs which do affect my attitude to life and death, and how i relate to others, which are based on the ubiquity of consciousness.

anarcho-Marxism — Moliere

:up:

(i.e. libertarian socialism)

"Look at the fish swimming about,” said Chuang Tzu, “They are really enjoying themselves.” “You are not a fish,” replied the friend, “So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves.” “You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?

“You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?" — ENOAH

:up: :100:

Rock on! :meh:

I was a fish in a past life and I can tell you: some fish enjoy swimming about and some are unhappy and some are bored and one recalls having been a hookworm in a former life and therefore considers himself wise enough to comment on the mental state of hookworms - if only anyone would ask.

I was a fish in a past life — Vera Mont

Were you a flounder? :grin:

I do not believe in God. Only in Goddesses.

We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy.

We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"?. Does "our kind" refer to a species, or is it all fish?

It sounds like you have no "sole". :grin:

What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"? — Agree-to-Disagree

Our kind. We don't think in terms of species - that's another label humans impose; we think of those who are enough like ourselves to mate with and swim with; who are not our food and don't see us as their food.
Got any more lame puns?

I was a fish in a past life — Vera Mont

Got any more lame puns? — Vera Mont

Yes. Were you a Monta ray? :grin:

Hah. Yes.

Weird that freedom is opposed in the face of property. I'm hoping my kiddos get better than I.

You cut the story short:

Huizi [his friend] said, “I’m not you, so I certainly don’t know what you know. And since you’re not a fish, you don’t know what fish like. There, perfect!”
Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the beginning. When you asked how I knew what fish like, you had to know I knew already in order to ask. I know it by the Hao River—that’s how.

The word ‘how’ can also be translated ‘where’. In other words, he knows it relative to his own perspective, from a bridge above the water. That is, from where they are standing looking at the fish. But Huizi is also standing on the bridge. When Zhuangzi suggests going back to the beginning it is not just the beginning of their conversation but back to what it means to know something.

Elsewhere Zhuangzi says:

Only as I know things myself do I know them.

Knowing the limits of his perspective is to know things in a way that differs from him not knowing his limits. I discuss this in a thread I started on Zhuangzi

Thank you. I've never seen that "extended" (?) version. Zhuagzi, the Father of epistemology!?

I'll check out your thread!

Having read your thread, I like your take.

My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables."

I think you agree that while for the West, epistemology represents the intellectual desire to know (even the "how we know")which is prevalent since Plato seemingly ignored Socrates and went on in a futile pursuit of knowledge.

While Zhuangzi was more "Socratic." For Zhuangzi, the exercise is fully practical. You cannot know, so be always open to the endless changes (I.e., the existential possibilities), like an uncarved block.

My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables." — ENOAH

I am in agreement with Wittgenstein when he says:

The language used by philosophers is already deformed, as though by shoes that are too tight.

[CV, p. 47].

Just as shoes that are too tight make it difficult to walk, the language used by philosophers makes it difficult to think.

To read Zhuagzi in terms of the theories and problems of epistemology can put us in a bind - disputes over in what way he is or is not in line with this or that epistemological claim. An objection would be that he misuses the term 'know'.

I don't agree that Plato ignored Socrates. On my reading he is a Socratic philosopher. He too knows that he does not know and demonstrates to other that they do not know either. At best, as Timaeus puts it, we have "likely stories". If you are interested I have several threads of varying length and detail on some of the dialogues:

Timaeus

Phaedo

metaphysics

Socratic Philosophy

Euthyphro

Thank you. Informative. And I agree with you about Plato, ultimately. I am being hyperbolic owing to my appreciation for silence. . . And yet, I chatter on driven by my autonomous desire to know, and my autonomous desire to make known.

I don't know because then I can question everything, and it open up room for discovery lol. Fun fact I don't think those who follow a religion know either. nerd:

At best, as Timaeus puts it, we have "likely stories" — Fooloso4

More on that?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12008/shaken-to-the-chora/p1

My prior response may have been more than you were looking for. More briefly:

We do not have knowledge of such things as the gods and the arche or origin of the whole of what is. At best we have stories or myths, ton eikota mython. that is, likely accounts. Timaeus proposes it is best to accept likely stories and not search for what is beyond the limits of our understanding.
Now, a philosopher, someone who desires truth and knowledge, but is aware that there are things that are beyond our understanding, will not accept such stories as more than at best what seems likely. But if the philosophers are the city's educators it is best that they tell some version that the people will accept as true and complete.

Forms are a likely story, but however likely it may seem, it is inadequate and problematic. The account is at best only part of an account of the whole. Timaeus' whose account, takes the Forms or intelligibles as part of his story, attempts to do what Socrates' cannot, that is, give an account of motion, of change and chance. But one of the most striking features is just how unlikely it is!

We should not expect more.

Thank you.

I believe in the atheist sect of the religion Flawlessism (yes, a real religion, not a secular one). I believe in it because it's internally consistent, and because believing in it has more positive benefit than not believing in it.

I'm Jewish (because my mom is) and raised conservative and reform. Now I'm drawn towards reconstructionism but it's a small movement and not particularly well established. I am not particularly observant and have not stepped foot in a synagogue for years. I'm drawn towards this movement because I read Robert Alter's biblical translation and Alter is likely in the reconstructionist camp. There's a greater emphasis on literature than on theology in his commentary.

I tend to get the sense that every Jew (or every believer) is a little heretical in their own way. Some just don't believe in God, some believe the Bible is all fabricated, some believe in a different form of God like Spinoza's pantheism. For me it's being weirdly drawn to Jesus.

I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. He is downright bizarre in a way that makes him either very good or very bad. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like Jesus and I'm drawn to many of the parables and lessons (I truly believe internalizing his lessons will make one very attractive!). But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. It's like if doing one of Jesus's teachings gets you killed quickly it's like "oh well, he died in Christ!" Jesus burns bright but dies young in proper accord with his teachings.

I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. — BitconnectCarlos

He (if he existed and there's any truth in the gospels) was not interested in other nations - his teaching was exported years after his death. He was concerned with reforming the Judaism of his time. Something like Martin Luther with a state of Christianity that he considered corrupt. Jesus is a singularly Jewish character, no matter that Paul and Christian proselytizers co-opted him and European artists systematically lightened his complexion.

But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. — BitconnectCarlos

Or his own, for that matter. Asceticism was a well established practice among the many prophets of the time, as it was also in India, among Buddhist monks.

Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations. Jesus is concerned with man’s salvation and the kingdom heaven as well as various scriptural matters debated among the rabbinic teachers of the day. Jesus emerges from the Israelite/Jewish tradition (he is Jewish) but his message is drawn from universalism within that tradition/civilization/their holy texts.

I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19.

Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations. — Moses

After he was dead. Not much indication of universalism in the gospels. Some tolerance, yes: even a centurion's servant is worth healing; (though it sounds as if this particular Roman had gone native - "Luke 7:4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.) that even a lowly Samaritan may be charitable - and there's Mark 7:28, which puts Greeks firmly in their place under the table.

I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19. — Moses

That's more an accusation that he consorts with the common people. I make it two actual instances of indulgence: the wedding in Cana and the farewell supper. Not a strict ascetic, I agree, but mostly they seemed to be as the fowls of the air, trusting God to feed them, or fasting in the desert or subsisting on a few loaves and fishes or plucking corn along the roadside - on the (gasp!) Sabbath. Cursing the fig tree sounds to me as if he were hungry and pissed off that it had no fruit. (Makes him sound less than divine, that bit.)

I read Robert Alter's biblical translation — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Though it's been years since I've read his books, I'd always found Robert Alter's scholarship excellent (i.e. rewards rereading), especially e.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative ... Necessary Angels: Tradition and Modernity in Kafka, Benjamin, and Scholem ... The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Btw, have you read Spinoza's Tractatus, Theologico-Politicus? If so, BC, what did you think? And what about God In Search of Man by Abraham Heschel? Two more masterworks which have also helped to exorcize the last dregs of my latent Catholicism (re: Pauline Christianity). An 'irreligious atheist' through and through, the scars throughout my psyche of a dozen years of parochial schooling have never left me such that I'm still haunted by the Jewishness of "Christ" (read the Aramaic-English verson of the New Testament AND The Gospel of Jesus According to The Jesus Seminar) and thereby fascinated with biblical (or ancient) Judaism.