Revelation to my view was written in the peak state and conveys information about how to achieve the peak state - the state Maslow described 2000 or so years on. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I can see that Revelation may inspire religious feeling, but I can't see how it provides instruction as to "how to achieve the peak state". Anyway I did say earlier that if religious texts provide definite workable instruction for practice, then that would count as information. But that is not characteristic of most religious texts.

I cab see that Revelation may inspire religious feeling, but I can't see how it provides instruction as to "how to achieve the peak state". — Janus

(my bolds)



Not instruction - information - about how to achieve what Abraham Maslow called the 'peak experience': an experience of psychical ecstasy.

It's for the folks looking for that information. Seekers curious to desperate.

Not instruction - information — ZzzoneiroCosm

Information that can be used to eventually (at long last) create instructions for oneself. Sometimes you have to piece it together from maybe thousands of sources.

Ah, the 'labelmeister' strikes again. — Janus

If it walks like a duck….

. Is a feeling or a smile worth less if it's made of material? — Cornwell1

What material is your materialism made of? Wool? Iron? Silicon?

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid?

How much does your materialism weight, in kg?

Problem is you apparently have no idea how the purported duck walks. Can straw ducks even walk?

Your idea of information is too broad for my taste... but to each their own, I guess.

I just took a paraphrasing of your quoting Wikipedia — god must be atheist

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...)

Can you please be more specific?

just stated that you think there is more to it — god must be atheist

Where are you referring to? (What did I state exactly?)

It is an undecided question at this point. — god must be atheist

What question are you referring to? (I can't see any question involved here.)

All we can argue is what different schools of philosophy say — god must be atheist

What schools of philosophy? (Which school says what?)

What material is your materialism made of? Wool? Iron? Silicon?

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid?

How much does your materialism weight, in kg? — Olivier5

All matter is in it's fundaments massless. Interaction between the fundamentals gives mass. Interaction is the motor. Why is there interaction? Because of the will. All forms of matter have will and various degrees of consciousness. Some forms even wear smiles and speak! They can be annoying though... :smile:

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...) — Alkis Piskas

Strawman, again. You attribute things to others that they never uttered.

Can you please be more specific? — Alkis Piskas

Can YOU be more specific? or less specific? Or more or less general? You are not arguing in the philosophical sense; you are drowning your opponents by overinundating them with questions. Some of them are relevant, some are not, and if you were a careful reader, you never would need to ask them. I am avoiding answering your questions because I feel you ask things already covered, and if you NEED more detailed explanation, then I am not in a position to satisfy this need; you need to ask someone who is willing to tell you what it is that you don't understand. I am not that person. I say things in ways I find appropriate, and I do assume others understand me. If a basic understanding is missing, then I don't hold myself responsible to be understood by those who do not understand me; they should seek outside help.

I am not my brother's keeper; if a person needs clarification, they should find their own resources to do so. This is not an educational platform; it is a social / cognitive platform, and as such, we can't cater to each other's every need, but only on a voluntary basis.

Where are you referring to? (What did I state exactly?) — Alkis Piskas

What you said exactly is precisely what you said.

It is an undecided question at this point.
— god must be atheist
What question are you referring to? (I can't see any question involved here.) — Alkis Piskas

Jesus. You are really lost in this aren't you.

What schools of philosophy? (Which school says what?) — Alkis Piskas

Now, in this you got me. I don't know any schools of philosophy, and I never attended one. I meant the different convictions we, as philosophers, subscribe to, when I said "different schools of philosophy". Thanks, finally this question of yours I could answer with a straight answer. Good question.

Of course, if a Wiki article offends you, you ought fix it. I'm working on Philosophical Investigations. — Banno

Rather than add my own personal opinion to the melting pot of Wikipedia, I'd rather just be skeptical of its high degree of subjectivity. But I've heard about some fun games the youngsters play with editing Wiki. Be aware, what you read might be the product of a silly game.

If you think religious texts can be informative, give us an example. And of course the fact that people presumably believed what is written in religious texts is not an example of being informative in the terms I am asking for. — Janus

Let's start with the basics then, The Bible. Surely you cannot say that there is no information in there.

Take the gospels for example. How can you say that this description of the life of Jesus, and the society within which Jesus lived is not informative? You might reject it as completely and utterly fictitious, but that does not remove the possibility of it being informative. Compare the description of Jesus' life in the gospels with Plato's description of Socrates' life in The Dialogues. One might argue that Socrates is completely and utterly a fictitious character, but that does extremely little toward negating the value of the information found in Plato's dialogues.

So I'll repeat what I asked. Is the history of belief not a real part of your world? Do you exclude information about what people are believing at the current time, documented, and maintained for an extended period of time, from your category of "information"? Can you propose a better, more direct, and accurate way to access the ideas and beliefs of people who lived thousands of years ago, than through what they themselves recorded? Or does this not qualify as "information" to you?

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...)
— Alkis Piskas
Strawman, again. You attribute things to others that they never uttered. — god must be atheist

I didn't say that you said these words. These words are from Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster, resp/ly. The second one is close to what you said:

"Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. For instance, consciousness, feelings, emotions, beliefs. — god must be atheist

And since you didn't mentuion what the paraphrase was, I assumed that that was it. Don't you notice that I also added in parentheses "If this is the paraphrase ..."?

I think that all this is a waste of time. Thanks for your contribution to the topic.

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid? — Olivier5

The materialism is watery and bloody. It uses energy by ATP reduction to ADP. Hemoglobin transporters grab up oxygen from the lungs and release it in the brain to promote ADP to ATP again. The electric currents on the neural lightning form an idea of materialism.

One might argue that Socrates is completely and utterly a fictitious character, but that does extremely little toward negating the value of the information found in Plato's dialogues. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. It matters not one jot if Socrates was fictional. What we have in Plato's literature is a method of enquiry that transcends the potential truth value. Plato is not dealing in 'revealed' wisdom. The New Testament, by contrast leaves us nothing but myths - a series of whoppers written about an itinerant preacher, produced for the most part decades after he lived by mainly anonymous sources. Not all ancient writings have the same status.

Rather than add my own personal opinion to the melting pot of Wikipedia... — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not how it works, but for the benefit of all I think it a good idea that you stay away from editing Wikipedia.

↪180 Proof
Whenever I say something you don’t understand, which happens a lot, you call it a ‘non sequitur’. Is thinking reducible to neural matter, or is it not? If that is not an intelligible question, then say why it is not, instead of reverting to your usual codified nonsense, if that is even possible for you. — Wayfarer

I suspect that 180 is using Mohamed Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy, trying to wear you down by chasing his shifty position. He doesn't often hit you with a real argument, but merely throws accusatory jabs & jibes at you. He may think of his strategy as Socratic gad-fly, but it comes across as annoying-gnat. I take the bait sometimes, when I need the exercise. :joke:

To jibe means to say something rude or insulting that is intended to make another person look foolish.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/jibe

He doesn't often hit you with a real argument — Gnomon

(some serious irony going on here, I must say... 180 is the one who "doesn't often hit you with a real argument"? You sure about that?)

So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning in talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" That is, it is something self-evident for them. You can see this also as a paradox: "Materialism has no meaning for a materialist"! — Alkis Piskas

I agree. Self-evident axioms are a good starting point, but if not off-set by new input, they will go full circle, back to the original position, nothing learned.

An uncompromising materialist-physicalist seems to think of his worldview, not necessarily as Materialistic, but as Realistic. It's a Black versus White position, that makes no allowance for anything Idealistic or Non-empirical. Hence, their posting on a philosophy forum is not necessarily a search for Truth or Meaning, but for Superiority or Dominance. They may feel superior because they have Science on their side ; just as some aggressive Christians act condescending, because they have God on their side. Both prefer Assertion to Argument. For the haughty, two-way Philosophical dialog is for losers. :joke:

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Superiority Complex : an attitude of superiority which conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure.
Note -- I don't often quote Freud as a philosophical or scientific position, but he was good at making memorable metaphors.

(some serious irony going on here, I must say... 180 is the one who "doesn't often hit you with a real argument"? You sure about that?) — Seppo

It may be ironic, but "science says" assertions are not arguments. They leave no room for dialog. :smile:

:rofl:

Cite ONE instance (not taken out of context!) in several thousand posts where I have based a conclusion or objection on "sciences says" and leave it at that rather than citing "science" to either clarify or corroborate my conclusions and objections. Go ahead, sir, I'll wait ... :yawn:

They leave no room for dialog — Gnomon

Well, call me "nitpicky", but I find it's 'dogmatic pseudo-science rationalized by sophistry' that tends to "leave no room for dialogue".

Superiority Complex : an attitude of superiority which conceals actual feelings of inferiority and failure.
Note -- I don't often quote Freud as a philosophical or scientific position, but he was good at making memorable metaphors. — Gnomon

The inferiority and superiority complexes come not from Freud but from Adler. :smile:

Exactly. It matters not one jot if Socrates was fictional. What we have in Plato's literature is a method of enquiry that transcends the potential truth value. Plato is not dealing in 'revealed' wisdom. The New Testament, by contrast leaves us nothing but myths - a series of whoppers written about an itinerant preacher, produced for the most part decades after he lived by mainly anonymous sources. Not all ancient writings have the same status. — Tom Storm

Plato's literature may display a method, but so do those "whoppers" which are called the gospels. These so-called "myths" demonstrate a method which created a massive following, a hugely influential religion. To me, that's an awesome method on display, and its significance far outweighs, Plato's method of enquiry "that transcends the potential truth value" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Plato's method of enquiry "that transcends the potential truth value" (whatever that's supposed to mean). — Metaphysician Undercover

You're right, poor wording. So I'm not surprised you went in the wrong direction. :wink:

I wasn't suggesting Socrates is superior to Christianity. That kind of hierarchical game I leave to zealots. My point was Plato's literature doesn't depend on historicity for its success. The method is what matters, not the biography. We can't really say the same about the Jesus stories. But whether Christianity (or The Rolling Stones for that matter) had a massive following and were hugely influential is scarcely the point.

The electric currents on the neural lightning form an idea of materialism. — Cornwell1

Okay, so materialism is some kind of electric current in your brain. Fair enough. But why should my brain's electric currents care about your brain's electric currents? Maybe your electric currents are malfunctioning, or maybe they mean nothing whatsoever. If materialism is a sort of electric glitch, why does it matter?

If materialism is a sort of electric glitch, why does it matter? — Olivier5

It doesn't matter. It's just the way it is. Matter is charged. Charged with thoughts and feelings and has a mouth to speak and fingers to type.

wasn't suggesting Socrates is superior to Christianity. That kind of hierarchical game I leave to zealots. My point was Plato's literature doesn't depend on historicity for its success. The method is what matters, not the biography. We can't really say the same about the Jesus stories. But whether Christianity (or The Rolling Stones for that matter) had a massive following and were hugely influential is scarcely the point. — Tom Storm

I see what you are arguing, that it's a different type of information then. I acknowledged this already, it's information relevant to the history of ideas. Would it be correct to call this ideological information? What I objected to, is Janus' claim that religious texts are not informative. So I think this is the point.

The method is what matters, not the biography. We can't really say the same about the Jesus stories. — Tom Storm

Of course we can. The historicity of this or that philosopher is a matter for historians to debate. What matters to the philosopher is the message. One can read the Gospels for their message only.

We agree that materialism doesn't matter, then.

Although one could perhaps stress its historical significance as a standard element of Marxism and other 20th century ideologies, and therefore indirectly as a cause of many deaths.

The inferiority and superiority complexes come not from Freud but from Adler. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, I know. Adler formalized it, but the general notion probably came from Freud. :smile:

Freud thought that a superiority complex was actually a way to compensate or overcompensate for areas in which we are lacking or failing
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/superiority-complex