The idea that philosophy or metaphysics OUGHT to have utilitarian outcomes, is the basis of the criticism of the way modernity 'instrumentalises' reason. That reason should always be employed for some pragmatic outcome is surely a prejudice of industrial society. Traditional metaphysics has a much broader or higher outcome in mind. — Wayfarer

I don't stand upon firm enough ground to say what the emphasis upon "utility" may develop in histories of philosophy. What puzzles me is that the desire to narrow the terms of exchange ends up saying that things would be simple if all matters related to the issue were put in certain terms.

Well, sure. I could solve all the problems that appear if that was the only objective.

I say those words because I have tried so hard to raise awareness of what was done and why and I hit the wall of people being sure we must have the education we have and jumping on me for thinking public education should return to education for good moral judgment. — Athena

I understand you. Sometimes it is hard to meet someone who thinks like us. It is quite complex when we as a kid are taught since 3 years old how to do "things" but not question anything. Just do it if you want have a job. Doesn't matter if you are agree or not. You have to pass all the university exams doesn't matter if the classes and the content have quality or not.
So I guess these people are so brainwashed. But one of the things that triggered me the most is how the implanted us the "survive" method. You have to be "better" than the best. But what exactly means being "better"? We lead this meaning just to subjective people like our teachers.
They built a world in education/work of excessive competitiveness. What if an intelligent student cannot get a scholarship because he is just lazy and not feel motivated?
I guess these are different things. It is not the same being lazy or stupid. But our educational system always want the "proof" that we are really good.
As you perfectly said here:

We replaced classic philosophy with German philosophy — Athena

Yes, because German philosophy can lead us to be more practical. Ancient Greek evaluated the mind. This is why Ancient Greek philosophy is important to understand ethics, empathy, honor, etc... Where these basic principles have gone?

The idea that philosophy or metaphysics OUGHT to have utilitarian outcomes, is the basis of the criticism of the way modernity 'instrumentalises' reason. That reason should always be employed for some pragmatic outcome is surely a prejudice of industrial society. Traditional metaphysics has a much broader or higher outcome in mind. — Wayfarer

But suppose humanity is not human but just potentially human. Humanity needs an attitude by some to lead the way.

Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

What does it mean to become human and how can non-conformism and mysticism annoying the status quo help in becoming human? What is step one?

I think that you are pointing to an important question in asking what it means to be human. The whole question of conformism, mysticism and the whole question of truth emerge in this context.

The idea that philosophy or metaphysics OUGHT to have utilitarian outcomes, is the basis of the criticism of the way modernity 'instrumentalises' reason. That reason should always be employed for some pragmatic outcome is surely a prejudice of industrial society. Traditional metaphysics has a much broader or higher outcome in mind. — Wayfarer

I don't stand upon firm enough ground to say what the emphasis upon "utility" may develop in histories of philosophy. — Valentinus

But suppose humanity is not human but just potentially human. Humanity needs an attitude by some to lead the way. — Nikolas

I feel there's been some misunderstanding here. I was responding to this -

I have even had people suggest to me that philosophy is a complete waste of time and that practical matters, such as cleaning, are far more important, but I haven't given up the philosophical quest. — Jack Cummins

What I'm saying is that the study of philosophy doesn't need to be justified in terms of practical outcomes. First and foremost, it is a purely intellectual subject, something to be understood for its own sake. That was, I hoped, the import of those two quotations from Aristotle. In that, I was trying to reassure Jack that the fact that philosophy is not obviously practical is not an argument against studying it.

THAT SAID, most of us obviously have to make a living and form a career. But the point remains that philosophy is an adventure of ideas first and foremost.

I do believe that philosophy is the absolute adventure, beyond material and all other gains. We may stand back in trepidation, clinging on to what we have, for better or worse, but it brings us to the abyss of all possibilities. It can be seen as the cliff edge in front of us, looking out into the precipice below.

I understand and agree that practical outcomes are not the central concern of pursuing philosophy. My response was meant to say that if such was the case, what can be deemed to be "practical" is another problem with their own questions. Some of those questions are philosophical.

:up: Gotcha.

Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable!

I totally agree with you, except for your understanding of the power of faith. Faith healing is a proven reality even if is a witch doctor chasing out demons and doing the healing with feathers and rattle. This is very important if you want to oppose Christian belief in the supernatural. Consider the placebo effect. Placebos are proven effective. Consider Chopra a doctor from India who explains how powerful our thoughts are. This is scientifically proven and when we understand it is the power of our thoughts, no matter what religion we are, or what gods we pray to, that leads to our success or our healing, then we can argue it is not a supernatural being that causes good things to happen in our lives, but good thinking.

Our brains can chemically correct our problems, and good thinking can lead to good choices such as meditating, healthy eating, exercise, taking steps to avoid harmful stress, and good sleeping habits. And during a pandemic cleanness, wearing a mask, keeping our distance, and avoid gatherings.

:heart: I just bought a very old first-grade textbook on health to share with my 6-year-old, great-granddaughter, and to show people to convince them we need to return to some of the old-fashioned ideas about education. Especially now, I think our young children need to have more of a sense of community than they have with the isolation they are experiencing. The way old textbooks are written exudes a sense of community. Back in the day, we could not rely on medical technology as we do today, so Christians and non-Christians got the same lessons on avoiding the spread of disease and the disaster Trump and some well-meaning Christians lead us into. It infuriates me when well-meaning preachers argue in favor of ignoring the rules for stopped the spread of Covid. That is not how the old first-grade textbook explains our duty as citizens to avoid the spread of disease.

Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable! — Athena

Interesting idea. Christianity is an easy target in its limited literalist formulations. I have a soft spot for Christianity and unlike Nietzsche and other resentful thinkers, I consider its reverence towards the weak, the marginalized, the lost, the 'bungled and the botched' to be of profound importance to culture.

It's a pity so much Christianity - especially where it is growing fastest - is of a grotesque, materialistic fundamentalist bent. But it seems most religions and spiritual systems have their gross populist variations.

It is quite complex when we as a kid are taught since 3 years old how to do "things" but not question anything. Just do it if you want have a job. Doesn't matter if you are agree or not. You have to pass all the university exams doesn't matter if the classes and the content have quality or not. — javi2541997

My grandmother was a school teacher when we had one-room schools. Her generation of teachers thought that they defending democracy in the classroom because they became teachers as we entered the first world war, and it was the job to mobilize us for war and get us through the war years. I have a copy of the book of the 1917 National Education Conferences, and among other things, schools taught women to substitute cornmeal for flour so we could send our allies our wheat. Women knit soldiers' socks. School children used their lunch money to buy war bonds. When industry tried to close the schools, teachers argued an institution of making good citizens could make patriotic citizens and before the military technology of WWII our defense depended on the patriotism of every citizen. I want to make this point very clear, our defense today depends on technology and taxpayers to pay for that very expensive technology.

When my grandmother's generation was defending democracy in the classroom that meant giving everyone a well-rounded education for individual growth. This included teaching literary, music, and art appreciation because a well-rounded education means well-rounded individuals. That is a totally different human being than what we have today. Pericles of Athens spoke of how Athenians were different from Spartans. Athenians were well-rounded and enjoyed liberty. Spartans were highly specialized for war and their women had far more liberty than women in Athens, but overall Spartants had very little liberty compared to Athenians.

Germany was the modern-day Sparta and the US was the modern-day Athens. Hitler spoke of the New World Order and Eisenhower used the term Military, Industrial Complex. We have education for the Military, Industrial Complex since 1958. The US is now the strongest military force on earth and its democracy is in big trouble!

I am 15 credits short of a degree because I refused to play the game of flattering my professors and I stayed true to myself and I concluded I could not bow to the evils of a college education. I have continued reading and I listen to college lectures from The Great Courses company and love forums that for me, are like talking with fellow college friends. My life is devoted to an intellectual revolution and reestablishing the liberty we once had.

Interesting idea. Christianity is an easy target in its limited literalist formulations. I have a soft spot for Christianity and unlike Nietzsche and other resentful thinkers, I consider its reverence towards the weak, the marginalized, the lost, the 'bungled and the botched' to be of profound importance to culture.

It's a pity so much Christianity - especially where it is growing fastest - is of a grotesque, materialistic fundamentalist bent. But it seems most religions and spiritual systems have their gross populist variations. — Tom Storm

I really do not believe Christians are doing such a good job of being tolerant and compassionate people when compared to Hindus and Buddhists. Until Bush Jr. took us to war with Christian support I did not argue religion, but that was the last straw. Trump and his Christian supporters are even worse. Christianity without education in the classics is what Germany had and we have had that since 1958.
To be clear, Germany was a Christian Republic not so different from ours and our enemy. The US replaced the classics with German philosophers, and adopted Germany's models of bureaucracy and education. We are now Christian and what we defended our democracy against.

How do you come by your opinion of Hindus and Buddhists and other Asian people living with Eastern philosophy?

↪Tom Storm Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable! — Athena

First we would have to agree on what Christianity is as opposed to the well known Christendom functioning in society. Kierkegaard was aware of a difference but obviously is in in a minority.

People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.

(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.

ibid p.295

One of my ancestors was an archbishop in the Armenian church and was friendly with Helena Blavatskia the founder of Theosophy. When they discussed Christianity it would be different from what you hear today

How do you come by your opinion of Hindus and Buddhists and other Asian people living with Eastern philosophy? — Athena

I don't really have a strong view on this. I am attracted to some Buddhism ideas - but isn't everyone? I don't see any Asian cultures that I would swap for mine. I am always most interested in how cultures manage poverty, illness, work and law and order.

First we would have to agree on what Christianity is as opposed to the well known Christendom functioning in society. Kierkegaard was aware of a difference but obviously is in in a minority. — Nikolas

I hear you but I don't think you can get agreement on this so readily. We don't have a mechanism to discern who is a true Christian and who is not. Generally, if someone calls themselves a Christian, we have to take them at their word unless we have sufficient evidence to the contrary (whatever that might be).

One aspect which I think is important to consider is the whole way in which Christianity developed as a mainstream religion and may have, at many times, have not really expressed the whole message which Christ taught. I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. In addition, so much of what Christ taught may have been lost in the way the Bible was put together. A lot of the teachings which were established were based on the ideas developed by Paul. Another underlying tension in the development of the Christian tradition was the conflicts over Gnostic thinking, and the role of teachers, especially Origen, in deciding what writings were put into the New Testament, and this is critical for thinking about how the way Christian thought developed.

It's a pity so much Christianity - especially where it is growing fastest - is of a grotesque, materialistic fundamentalist bent. — Tom Storm

they're often the ones who make the most noise and attract the most attention. So much for the ‘still, small voice’.

I really do not believe Christians are doing such a good job of being tolerant and compassionate people when compared to Hindus and Buddhists. — Athena

Generally speaking, Christian charitable and missionary organisations have been well ahead of Buddhists and Hindus when it comes to actually doing stuff.

I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. — Jack Cummins

David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions is a salutary reminder of how and in what way the Christian message was revolutionary in the ancient world. The idea of the equality of souls and the command of universal compassion was entirely foreign to the Classical world.

I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. In addition, so much of what Christ taught may have been lost in the way the Bible was put together. A lot of the teachings which were established were based on the ideas developed by Paul. Another underlying tension in the development of the Christian tradition was the conflicts over Gnostic thinking, and the role of teachers, especially Origen, in deciding what writings were put into the New Testament, and this is critical for thinking about how the way Christian thought developed. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that's all a given. I think all we can go by in assessing a religion in the world is living traditions.

David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions is a salutary reminder of how and in what way the Christian message was revolutionary in the ancient world. — Wayfarer

I greatly enjoy Hart's work. It interests me that he has identified the problem of evil and the suffering of innocents as the one which has capacity to shake his faith.

It is interesting that one of your ancestors was an archbishop who was friendly with Madame Blavatsky. I have read some of her writings and also, another writer called Alice Bailey. I did attend a few lectures at The Theosophy Society centre near Baker Street in London.

I am interested to know how you think the discussion between you relative and Blavatsky may have been focused in relation to Christianity. I have often wondered whether the basic understanding of reality of early Christianity may have been more in line with Eastern metaphysics. This does appear to be particularly true of the ideas in the Gnostic gospels, which were excluded. However, I have wondered many times if part of the way ideas about Christianity don't work for many is because they are being viewed through a Western picture of metaphysics.

↪Nikolas
It is interesting that one of your ancestors was an archbishop who was friendly with Madame Blavatsky. I have read some of her writings and also, another writer called Alice Bailey. I did attend a few lectures at The Theosophy Society centre near Baker Street in London.

I am interested to know how you think the discussion between you relative and Blavatsky may have been focused in relation to Christianity. I have often wondered whether the basic understanding of reality of early Christianity may have been more in line with Eastern metaphysics. This does appear to be particularly true of the ideas in the Gnostic gospels, which were excluded. However, I have wondered many times if part of the way ideas about Christianity don't work for many is because they are being viewed through a Western picture of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

I would have liked being a fly on the wall during some or their talks but I urge you not to bring Gnosticism into it. Gnosticism speaks of the duality between spirit and flesh with flesh being evil. Christianity is ONE and three. Outside time and space God is ONE but intentionally divides into the trinity at the beginning of creation. "Let there be light" refers to this division and God is simultaneously ONE and three. Dualism os opposed to the structure of creation..

The Russian Orthodox tradition is far deeper than what is practiced in the West. Consider this discussion between Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh and Jacob Needleman from his Book "Lost Christianity"

Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open."

The intense attention being spoken of is rejected in favor of excess emotion. Emotional energy replaces spiritual energy. As you can see the logic and practice of Christianity is hard to discuss.

I greatly enjoy Hart's work. — Tom Storm

Well, I'm surprised by that. I was given Atheist Delusions as a gift although i didn't finish it. I did read Experience of God, and aside from finding it overly polemical in places I generally find it congenial, especially in the sense that he shows why many of the atheist criticisms don't have a proper conception of the God they claim doesn't exist. I haven't delved into his thoughts on the 'problem of evil'.

The Russian Orthodox tradition is far deeper than what is practiced in the West. — Nikolas

I've been impressed with those Orthodox theologians I've read. I used to serve a Greek Orthodox scholar when I was a university computer reseller, we had some brief conversations on Orthodox philosophy. I wish I knew more like him, there's nobody like that in my orbit now. Oh, and I have that Needleman book also. Small world.

This included teaching literary, music, and art appreciation because a well-rounded education means well-rounded individuals.

My life is devoted to an intellectual revolution and reestablishing the liberty we once had.

@Athena

Yes. Of course it is. When you have well-rounded education you not only have well rounded individuals but more empathy and lack of violence in the streets. We both are agree that everything that can create beautiful things need a previous solid educational system. You in the US are not only. Here in Europe is the same. They do not teach you how to be a well-rounded person they teach how to work.
Also, I am focus in a search of freedom/intellectual revolution with education. To be honest sometimes it is difficult find persons who wants to improve their knowledge like you or the members in this forum. Because it is so easier not asking anything when you are being paid for someone. They (the State) are clever because they developed an interesting leviathan: if at least we can make you an employee you will be happy because salary is everything. Without it you are not longer in the capitalism era
So, most of the people ask for a job not how to be a good person in society or the pursuit of happiness. We are not longer in the Greek era that's true. Spinoza is guilty for changing everything back in the overrated period of time called as enlightenment

But... Here we are someone like us. Nothing is totally lost. We can change for better. This is a properly use of internet and its data. We can do it but it takes a lot of change.

I think that I am familiar with the attention to such practices as holy days and prayers, as certainly that was the Catholic background I was brought up in. My father grew up in Ireland and following the catechism was very important. I was taught to kneel down and say prayers every night. Lent and fast days were seen as being of extreme importance.

I think that it is only a minority who hold on to these ideals now. I remember as a child that, when I explained about my own religious background, some other children seemed a bit shocked. I don't adhere to the specific practices but do still hold onto the central principles, such as attention. I think that it is true that emotionality may have replaced attention and, this may mean that psychology has taken over in filling the void left by the meaning which religious beliefs used to provide.

I hear you but I don't think you can get agreement on this so readily. We don't have a mechanism to discern who is a true Christian and who is not. Generally, if someone calls themselves a Christian, we have to take them at their word unless we have sufficient evidence to the contrary (whatever that might be). — Tom Storm

There are three degrees of Christians: Non-Christians, pre-Christians and Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Non Christians have no interest. Pre-Christians may want to be Christians but are unable. They are like students.

I am a pre-Christian so wouldn't call myself a Christian. Not many can follow in the precepts of Christ which is why there are so few Christians.

[

here are three degrees of Christians: Non-Christians, pre-Christians and Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Non Christians have no interest. Pre-Christians may want to be Christians but are unable. They are like students. — Nikolas

Interesting - you raise many questions. On what basis do you arrive at this Trinitarian model? When you say precepts of Chris (I am assuming you mean teachings of) does it matter if they are the purported original teachings or ones with theological additions? Is it enough to say 'I follow Christ', regardless of quality control? The term pre-Christian is interesting. Why Pre? Generally pre-Christian means Iron Age faiths. Do you perhaps mean nascent-Christian? I am also curious about your use the word 'unable'. Unable to what? To believe it, or is there some other barrier - such as commitment to the purity of the teachings? I think you may have left one out - cultural Christians.

I am not sure that your three degrees of Christianity are definitive. I don't feel that I fit into them, and probably would consider myself as post Christian. I think that this has some connection with your idea of pre Christian, more than non Christian because it is more a case of feeling unable to follow the original pathway. However, that is not rejection but more of a feeling of wishing to embrace the truth underlying all religions rather than one. I think that this is probably more in line with the theosophical tradition.

↪Nikolas
I am not sure that your three degrees of Christianity are definitive. I don't feel that I fit into them, and probably would consider myself as post Christian. I think that this has some connection with your idea of pre Christian, more than non Christian because it is more a case of feeling unable to follow the original pathway. However, that is not rejection but more of a feeling of wishing to embrace the truth underlying all religions rather than one. I think that this is probably more in line with the theosophical tradition. — Jack Cummins

I don't think Christianity is a matter of tradition but of desire. Can we follow in the precepts of Christ? Do you believe that at one time you were able to follow in the precepts of Christ but have abandoned the effort in favor of embracing the truth underlying all religions?

Man made sects of Christendom would deny the truth embracing embracing all religions or its transcendent unity but Perennial Christianity is a part of this transcendent unity. I don't understand what you mean by the original pathway. Perhaps you are attracted to the the original pathway which at one time you mistakenly associated it with Christendom. Sensing the truth in Christianity rather than the interpretations of Christendom seems like spiritual growth to me.

That is why Simone Weil became the Patron Saint of Outsiders. Many have felt the same thing and have the desire to return to the source of human meaning which the depths of the heart craves

Interesting - you raise many questions. On what basis do you arrive at this Trinitarian model? When you say precepts of Chris (I am assuming you mean teachings of) does it matter if they are the purported original teachings or ones with theological additions? Is it enough to say 'I follow Christ', regardless of quality control? The term pre-Christian is interesting. Why Pre? Generally pre-Christian means Iron Age faiths. Do you perhaps mean nascent-Christian? I am also curious about your use the word 'unable'. Unable to what? To believe it, or is there some other barrier - such as commitment to the purity of the teachings? I think you may have left one out - cultural Christians. — Tom Storm

Maybe this would be more understandable when compared to becoming a classical pianist. The first thing a person needs is the wish to be a classical pianist. If they don't have this desire then they are non-pianists. Yet some have heard the performance of a superb classical pianist and are inspired to become one. They sit at a piano and soon learn they are not able to be a pianist. Their minds, hands, and heart don't work together. They need talent and practice to become a classical pianist. Some become part of a music school which teaches piano by a competent instructor. This was the role of the original Christian church. It was an esoteric school. It would teach how to be rather than what to do. When we learn how to be, then doing as a human being becomes obvious.

Of course it is hard to become a Christian. The world is against it and prefers imaginary life in Plato's cave

I thought the rationale of Christianity was that it was open to all and any who believed. That it's not a path for spiiritual adepts, like Tantric Buddhism.