And I thought music because you're the music guy... But that obviously fell flat... :lol:

I reject the premise that it's ultimately possible to verify that moral claims objectively obtain. — Baden

Ah, here we are. I...don't, I think. Yes, I definitely don't reject that.

How does "it not being possible to verify that moral claims objectively obtain" not matter? I think I can sense where we're going, but I'm asking in good faith, ready for the ride (but I know it's also a beaten horse; skip if you want).

All I'm getting at is...I can't even summarize it in a sentence, I guess.

Lemme try this: It's flippant to deny the possibility of life after death.

And Jeff is cool but over-rated. Typical 27 club shit. (And clearly I'm aware you didn't actually think that posting some stupid Jeff Buckley lyrics would make me say "oh yeah, exactly! That's exactly what I meant!")

Side-note: I don't want to disrespect those who are in extreme pain (though they represent a minority and not the "overwhelming majority" as javra claimed) and employ coping mechanisms to deal with it. That's a rational strategy. Though to a degree surface-level; there's a certain level of deliberate self-deception involved probably. Anyway, I'd jump on that bus too if I needed to.

How does "it not being possible to verify that moral claims objectively obtain" not matter? — Noble Dust

Because moral behavior is good in itself. The way to verify that is to experience it. If you experience it, then it obtains. Looking for some objective guarantee is futile and self-defeating.

Lemme try this: It's flippant to deny the possibility of life after death. — Noble Dust

My position, more precisely, is to deny that there is any reason, evidential or otherwise, to believe in life after death and that the concept is inherently contradictory.

And Jeff is cool but over-rated. Typical 27 club shit. — Noble Dust

The flippancy must be catching.

Because moral behavior is good in itself. The way to verify that is to experience it. If you experience it, then it obtains. — Baden

I don't think that's enough. Moral behavior obtains emotionally, ultimately. But emotions are fleeting. Experience is tied to emotion.

My position, more precisely, is to deny that there is any reason, evidential or otherwise, to believe in life after death. — Baden

I've had experiences to say otherwise, so I think the conversation ends here, properly speaking, via our two approaches. But I'm more than happy to carry on.

The flippancy must be catching. — Baden

Didn't mean to be flippant about his passing, my bad. Thought it wasn't too soon...

Side-note: I don't want to disrespect those who are in extreme pain (though they represent a minority and not the "overwhelming majority" as javra claimed) and employ coping mechanisms to deal with it. That's a rational strategy. Though to a degree surface-level; there's a certain level of deliberate self-deception involved probably. Anyway, I'd jump on that bus too if I needed to. — Baden

I'm just re-reading this, and is the suggestion here that religious feeling is a coping mechanism for "extreme pain" (whatever that is)? Or am I mis-reading that?

I've been quite drawn to Buddhism all my adult life. And contrary to popular opinion Buddhism teaches that there are hells - more than one! - into which beings are reborn due to their karma, where they remain for aeons of kalpas (= a very long time, Indian astronomers conceived of aeons in quite realistic terms).

Actually there are six realms into which beings are (constantly) reborn - hell realms, animal realms, hungry-ghost realms, 'demi-god' realms and heavenly realms. (None of these realms constitute Nirvāṇa which utterly transcends all realms, although in popular religion, Nirvāṇa is frequently imagined to be a kind of heaven.)

So what do I make of this? I don't claim to know, but I have a conviction that 'identity overflows physicality', as it were - that there is both a 'before' and an 'after' of the book-ends of this physical birth. This doesn't mean that the person I am now continues in another life. But whomever or whatever inhabits those other realms, they too are beings and they are born with an inherited past and what they do will propagate states of being into the future. I'm very vague on detail but I think something like Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' could provide an explanatory medium (see here for example.)

If you read into the early Buddhist texts very little is said about it in detail; it's simply the assumed cultural background and the Buddha is, among other things, 'lokavidu', that is, 'knower of worlds'. This means he is able to foresee where beings are bound, but he too is generally extremely reticent about the details. (Early Buddhism, on the whole, is noticeably lacking in 'believe it or else' kinds of dialogue.)

In later buddhist iconography, the 'six realms' are graphically depicted in for instance the Tibetan Bhavachakra paintings (meaning literally 'wheel of becoming'. In classical Indian culture, travelling panditas would carry one of these with them and then hang them in the hall as the subject for lectures on the fate of the soul.)

As an inhabitant of modern culture, I don't want to interpret myth literally, but I also don't want to relegate it to the domain of 'mere mythology'. I'm sure that heaven and hell are more than 'mere' myth, although again, vague about the details (although also convinced enough to worry about them). But I also understand that rejection of such notions is one of the cardinal beliefs of secular culture, and so this forum is probably not the place to thrash it out.

Sorry, it's 6am, my COVID lockdown bedtime. I'll get back to this tomorrow.

I'm on board with the vagueness, but also, why not thrash it out here? What better place to play devil's advocate and challenge the boring, typical notions? I'll unleash the devil's scourge any day.

Eternal Return. Absolutely!!!

Discovered by Kierkegaard, popularized by Nietzsche.

I've had some extremely acrimonious exchanges in the past about these subjects, so I'm cautious.

Anyway - I think there is truth in the Buddhist teachings of 'bardos' which are the realms of being that the recently-deceased traverse (see for example this book although I found it so challenging I ended up donating it :fear: . )

Something stuck with me, which is that beings in those between states will instinctively follow or attach themselves to things they're drawn to, which are very much a result of the habits they've formed. So if you're drawn to the wrong things, you end up manifesting in bad states of being - meaning that habits will have disproportionately large consequences in such a situation.

Word, I'm cautiously with eternal return in the sense of reincarnation, maybe..?? Not sure what you mean otherwise. At least from what you quoted.

I've been quite drawn to Buddhism all my adult life. And contrary to popular opinion Buddhism teaches that there are hells - more than one! - into which beings are reborn due to their karma, where they remain for aeons of kalpas (= a very long time, Indian astronomers conceived of aeons in quite realistic terms).

Actually there are six realms into which beings are (constantly) reborn - hell realms, animal realms, hungry-ghost realms, 'demi-god' realms and heavenly realms. (None of these realms constitute Nirvāṇa which utterly transcends all realms, although in popular religion, Nirvāṇa is frequently imagined to be a kind of heaven.)

So what do I make of this? I don't claim to know, but I have a conviction that 'identity overflows physicality', as it were - that there is both a 'before' and an 'after' of the book-ends of this physical birth. This doesn't mean that the person I am now continues in another life. But whomever or whatever inhabits those other realms, they too are beings and they are born with an inherited past and what they do will propagate states of being into the future. I'm very vague on detail but I think something like Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' could provide an explanatory medium (see here for example.)

If you read into the early Buddhist texts very little is said about it in detail; it's simply the assumed cultural background and the Buddha is, among other things, 'lokavidu', that is, 'knower of worlds'. This means he is able to foresee where beings are bound, but he too is generally extremely reticent about the details. (Early Buddhism, on the whole, is noticeably lacking in 'believe it or else' kinds of dialogue.)

In later buddhist iconography, the 'six realms' are graphically depicted in for instance the Tibetan Bhavachakra paintings (meaning literally 'wheel of becoming'. In classical Indian culture, travelling panditas would carry one of these with them and then hang them in the hall as the subject for lectures on the fate of the soul.)

As an inhabitant of modern culture, I don't want to interpret myth literally, but I also don't want to relegate it to the domain of 'mere mythology'. I'm sure that heaven and hell are more than 'mere' myth, although again, vague about the details (although also convinced enough to worry about them). But I also understand that rejection of such notions is one of the cardinal beliefs of secular culture, and so this forum is probably not the place to thrash it out. — Wayfarer

Thank god. My favorite living filosofer is back. Did you achieve your goal? 20,000 words was it? In that case, I can leave. If not....

Dammit, still at it. Yesterday, I went to the trouble of methodically purging all browser history pertaining to Philosophy forum, but old habits die hard. I'll probably get reborn in some cyber-hell comprising constant circular arguments. :confused:

Word, I'm cautiously with eternal return in the sense of reincarnation, maybe..?? Not sure what you mean otherwise. At least from what you quoted. — Noble Dust

Eternal return is not necessarily reincarnation. Reincarnation implies some sense of externelly accumulated progress. That would mean each lifetime would be unique unto itself, a butterfly effect, as it were. Eternal return is identical in every aspect, externally speaking...but insofar as the existing one is concerned, internally speaking, that is infinite in all possibility. I can explain more if you need explanation.

I've had some extremely acrimonious exchanges in the past about these subjects, so I'm cautious. — Wayfarer

I've had acrimonious exchanges about lots of things here, which doesn't detract me from posting, but maybe it should? Or maybe not. I'd rather cut my teeth right in, when I feel the urge, and bandage the wounds later.

Bardos I only know as a phrase from reading about the Tibetan Book of The Dead (I think?). Which interests me for sure. I haven't gone there, but have been attracted to it.

Something stuck with me, which is that beings in those between states will instinctively follow or attach themselves to things they're drawn to, which are very much a result of the habits they've formed. So if you're drawn to the wrong things, end up manifesting in bad states of being - meaning that habits will have disproportionately large consequences in such a situation. — Wayfarer

Oof, I hesitate to be too specific (now I get what you mean about being cautious) but this is exactly what Robert Monroe talks about in his "Journey's Outside The Body" series of books. Which, if you "there's-no-life-outside-the-body-LMAO" strong bois can fathom, is actually an extremely logical and scientific description of OBE's that are something similar to @Sam26's descriptions of NDE's.

Yeah, that was not a cogent explanation, so I would need one, in order to respond.

Dammit, still at it. Yesterday, I went to the trouble of methodically purging all browser history pertaining to Philosophy forum, but old habits die hard. I'll probably get reborn in some cyber-hell comprising constant circular arguments. :confused: — Wayfarer

You are already here, slowly becoming what you are, and slowly becoming aware of where you are...simultaneously. It never ends, know what I mean. :wink:

But, don't quit. Finish the 20,000. And send me some of your philosophy writing rather than deleting it. I always love the Wayfarer wisdom.

Give me a fucking break, who moved this to the lounge? @Baden @StreetlightX @jamalrob @Michael @Hanover@fdrake

What a fucking disgrace to philosophy.

Yeah, that was not a cogent explanation, so I would need one, in order to respond. — Noble Dust

Well, you did not specify that you required a cogent explanation. And in all reality, I'm really not qualified to offer anything cogent, whatsoever. So sorry.

Lol, a cogent argument is assumed. But that's totally fine, I'd be happy to hear a "non-cogent" argument if you have one to give. I'd probably respond in a similarly non-cogent manner. Non-cogency is sort of my speciality...

r

Give me a fucking break, who moved this to the lounge? Baden @StreetlightX @jamalrob @Michael @Hanover@fdrake

What a fucking disgrace to philosophy. — Noble Dust

Chill out dude. The lounge is the only place any real philosophy happens on TPF. It's an honor

Not at all; as the mods well know, the lounge is where threads go to die. Hell, everyone knows that.

I'd be happy to hear a "non-cogent" argument if you have one to give. I'd probably respond in a similarly non-cogent manner. Non-cogency is sort of my speciality... — Noble Dust

Now you are putting me in a corner, I feel the pressure of producing a non-cogent argument, so if you insist further I will try my best. Until then, I will say that I look forward to seeing your specialization in the artform of non-cogent argument.

Not at all; as the mods well know, the lounge is where threads go to die. Hell, everyone knows that. — Noble Dust

Fuck what everyone knows

No, fuck the mods, in this instance. i.e. @Baden @jamalrob @StreetlightX @Hanover, etc. Fuck them for moving a thread that deals with universal problems to the lounge where no one will see it, and it will happily die. Fuck that shit.

No, fuck the mods, in this instance. i.e. Baden @jamalrob @StreetlightX @Hanover, etc. Fuck them for moving a thread that deals with universal problems to the lounge where no one will see it, and it will happily die. Fuck that shit. — Noble Dust

I mean, why do they get such special treatment....fuck everyone equally. If anything, fuck me most... know what I mean? And fuck "universal problems" most, those create more trouble than they're worth...its masturbation at best.

But give me a bit, I will explain more about eternal return, at least how I interpret it. Standby...

Word, I'm just waiting here in the lounge, where no one else will hear what you have to say. :ok:

Fuck everyone else too. Most of them are brain fucked. :wink:

I don't know who moved it. You could start a feedback thread if you object.