Well I have a quote for this

if you don't dissagree with me, how will I know I'm right?

----Samuel Goldwyn

Men of knowledge are those who appreciate the finitude of existence; it is our duty to ring the bell and awaken people.

This is specially true in our religion-soaked world; people are simply numb and deluded with dreams of immortality. It is our noble fight to make others aware of their finitude!

Of course, when the world dies, all of it will have not have mattered. But I'd rather have belonged to a species of warriors, who faced death standing up, than belonged to a rabble of cowards who kneel. So it is merely an esthetic choice.

This is specially true in our religion-soaked world; people are simply numb and deluded with dreams of immortality. It is our noble fight to make others aware of their finitude! — Louco

So philosophers, whom are still religious, are compacted to the finitude and are not capable to know the truth?

The only philosophical concept I find consistently important is related to: "Are you sure?"

As long as the person can admit that they might be wrong, then they are less likely to cause major harms based on their belief.

So philosophers, whom are still religious, are compacted to the finitude and are not capable to know the truth? — SethRy

To clarify: I would say philosophers who are still religious are compacted to the infinite (as in, they have a compact with the idea of eternity).

Just as anybody else, they can know the truth. A good indication they would be listening is if they leave the crack pipe be.

Also, truth is such a loaded word. It is more sensible to think like this: we can expect to be able to live and think for a few years, barring some accidental sudden death. We could waste all this brain time dreaming about immortality and spirits and voodoo or we can get cracking on our problems.

Sorry, all I could concentrate on was the word "crack", and I found myself overcome by an insatiable desire for it, so I ran and grabbed my Bible, and then my desire was satiated.

lol that attitude is exactly why people hate supposed intellectuals

Why do you feel compelled to "save the masses", as it were?

Why do you feel compelled to "save the masses", as it were? — yupamiralda

When you see a grown man sucking on a pacifier, slap him hard.

What makes you different from a crusader?

What makes you different from a crusader? — yupamiralda

Only secondary things. I would say that my social fight is secondary to my inner fight, but not being an expert on the crusaders, I find it presumptious to say that they were all unidimensional and dogmatic. Probably quite a few of 'em crusaders were fine thinkers. But as I said, I am not an expert.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ignore what you meant: what is the difference between me and a caricature of a crusader.

I'd say that my methods are only metaphorically violent: I try to convince people of atheism and about responsibility to the planet. So all my fighting is done with words. Also, my goal is to flexibilize minds, not stiffen them. Finally, I'd say I'd like to fight as fiercely as a caricature of a crusader.

What about you? What makes you different from a caricature of your choice?

joke's on you: I am a barbarian who hates civilization!

Look I mean seriously dude, a lot of people are already doing "condescending evangelizing atheist with a total lack of nuance in mission". Try another character.

When you see a grown man sucking on a pacifier, slap him hard. — Louco

Or just ignore it. Things that do not disrupt your oneness on ongoing journey of life should be neglected, unless it is morally good, or unless you would personally permit others to do so to you.

Knowledge elitism is arrogance and indirect discrimination.

You don't know anything at all. Even worse, you think you do.

You guys conflate being a fighter with arrogance.
Of course, being a man of knowledge requires an inordinate amount of pride: you notice the cutting edge of imagination and try to go beyond.
To do so is to fulfill the most creative role one can have, and heck yes you get a healthy dose of pride from doing it.
Humility is a vice, it is a chain that weighs down on men of knowledge, and to even hint at it being a virtue you are putting yourselves in the company of men who thought of their mental slavery as the highest prize they could aspire.

There are all kinds of people out there promoting preaching indoctrinating proselytizing their fancies every day.
When their religious faiths spill over into politics, public life, school curricula, impact others, etc, then it becomes a problem.
I'd say sometimes showing them wrong is called for.

Want to Become an End Times Prophecy Scholar? (Christian Newswire) :roll:
Brunei to punish gay sex and adultery with death by stoning (Ben Westcott; CNN; Mar 2019) :death:

Of course, being a man of knowledge requires an inordinate amount of pride: you notice the cutting edge of imagination and try to go beyond. — Louco

Pride is not arrogance. I agree with you there, knowledge does involve pride. Take it from Aristotle's mean measurement of extremes; too much pride, is arrogance, equally, a scarcity of pride is cowardice.

The way you developed a conclusion from premises that has no moral basis, can be really misinterpreted. Just because you know the truth, although it can still be subjective, does not give you any right to degrade other human beings. You're not educating them; you're unjustly showing extravagant superiority that is not justified. Such hypocrisy, a man of knowledge would respectfully present his opinion, not assert to the latter.

Humility is a vice, it is a chain that weighs down on men of knowledge, and to even hint at it being a virtue you are putting yourselves in the company of men who thought of their mental slavery as the highest prize they could aspire. — Louco

Before anything else, humility is a value, it's intent is morally, objectively, good — if you would understand it as a vice, then it's not humility, it has got to be something else. Secondly, humility, as I define it; won't weigh you down from opportunity to knowledge, instead it's a decision to not show your knowledge, not having to prove yourself, for you know it only leads to invaluable justification. The thought that your actions are not influenced by your thinking, so you have to emphasize that thinking to verbal communication. Consequently, that verbal communication can perpetrate the people around you, it builds humanly adversaries to happiness: false superiority, elitism, and bigotry.

Analyzing your point, Only just because I so fervently think it is a virtue, makes me just a man so foolish only on the basis that you disagree with me? only because you think I am mentally enslaved, I am indoctrinated? Because inadvertently, that gives me an analogy. I think humility is a virtue, you think otherwise, does that make me somewhat by your terminological premises, mentally enslaved?

Pride can be arrogant, thus

their religious faiths spill over into politics, public life, school curricula, impact others, etc, then it becomes a problem. — jorndoe

Pride can be cowardly, thus

Humility is a vice, it is a chain that weighs down on men of knowledge, and to even hint at it being a virtue you are putting yourselves in the company of men who thought of their mental slavery as the highest prize they could aspire. — Louco

But if pride were to be balanced, it is the actual form of humility. Humility as objective moral standards would define it.

If pride was monotonously endowed to arrogance, I would be

a barbarian who hates civilization! — yupamiralda

"You're not educating them; you're unjustly showing extravagant superiority that is not justified"

Well the effectiveness of the method should be measured on its results. I have never been accused of being brutish by my interlocutors, so I think that on the one hand people are actually flattered someone is engaging with them at the belief level and on the other hand I am exaggerating here because it is fun.

About humility; I would say humility is a vice because it is a defense mechanism that prevents you from telling truth to others, and vice-versa. That is a great disservice to us: we should be relentlessly attacking each other's beliefs, so as to carve out everything that is untrue or secondary in our minds. It is a vice because it is easier to remain silent about things which would lead to awkward or pathetic conversations. It is a vice because it defers to our mental status quo.

"does that make me somewhat by your terminological premises, mentally enslaved?"

I don't think someone can be mentally slaved by a single idea. I think mental slaves are those who defer uncritically to authority, and those who have a set of rigid ideas that they adhere to. The nature of knowledge and life are such that we are capable of continually discover new aspects in every concept, and therefore to affirm stuff with rigidity is to deny either the fact or the potential of other meanings in the ideas one has "spoused".

I feel a fundamental irony towards everybody who wants to "change the world" or thinks "if we got rid of X, the world would be paradise". Very universalist, very Christian. It's incalculable how much the modern world owes to the christian tradition but I would say Luoco's missionary zeal is very old-fashioned. It also seems to be in poor taste.

I almost exclusively deal with people who are christian and have a much smaller speaking vocabulary than I do. I don't try to come off as of superior intelligence to them, that would just make them resent me. Most of my day to day affairs can be settled without coming to an agreement as to whether or not there is a god.

A lot of this seems like politics with a slightly higher IQ. I'd like to see some truly original thinkers.