And now, I need to pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar otherwise the Gestapo will act on their veiled threat. Filling in the right paperwork is often sufficient to escape their wrath (though not without causing annoyance). A pity that the legalists have always dealt with the letter of the law, but not also with its spirit. — Agustino
Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O (if so, it seems that your habit of asking that kind of questions hasn't changed)Are you still angry at the fact that I pointed out your abusive remarks towards women that you claimed to have almond brains, clearly exposed once again by your Ayn Rand picture that exemplifies nothing but a very angry person? — TimeLine
Was that when you asked me if I'm still beating my wife? :D >:O — Agustino
When people yell or raise their voice, they are either trying to beat the other person by being louder or they are subjectively fighting something unknown at conscious level. Calm down and be specific rather than make assumptions or generalisations. Say, the "Lutherans interpret such and such in this way" and others can easily respond to that. — TimeLine
When you eliminate the emotions, your disdain due to these former connections is gone and you can just read for the pure sake of reading, where you learn to make your own interpretations, rather than getting all pissed at what other people think. To do that requires one to become a rational, autonomous being. To be rational is someone with standards, the categorical imperative, the way in which you observe your own motivations and intentions and ensure objective clarity - autonomous - despite your feelings and emotions and the connections you have in both your past and present as you separate yourself and become the author of your own being or someone morally conscious where your sole motivation is to continuously will to improve yourself. — TimeLine
You are quite simply fighting because you haven't cut your umbilical cord. — TimeLine
— TimeLine
:’( Boys everywhere. I want a King Solomon. And no, I don't mean the actual King Solomon considering you seem to take everything literally, but a man who has wisdom. — TimeLine
I know. That is the point, it is my interpretation because I am completely removed from mainstream religion, I am completely removed from mainstream anything and in my own autonomy choose nothing but God and no, not a man on a cloud, not Jesus or the trinity, not whatever the heck people think, but reaching epistemically toward what is perfect. Through authenticity - that is, being downright honest to myself and eliminating all the illusions - my goals are ideals like virtue, righteousness, honesty, charity that I practice in real life in order to perfect. So, in Aristotelian terms I have transcended from the need for philia to the need for philesis by having a strong, emotional attachment not to people or institutions or communities, but solely towards the perfection of philia itself; thus my will or prohairesis is to only perfect love through my love of God which is, well everything and nothing. — TimeLine
Sorry buddy, but I am afraid I will disappoint because my interpretation is to view these stories as symbolic and not literal. I couldn't give a toss about how other religions interpret biblical referents. But if you want to discuss biblical hermeneutics independent of religion, than I am all for it. So geographical locations are often symbolically expressed through individual representations. — TimeLine
The suggestion that Abraham is the father of the monotheistic religions implies that the lines of his progeny - Ishmael being a referent to Arabs or the Ishamaelites as their prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael and thus Ishmael represents Islam. Isaac being a referent to Israelites as they are decendents of Jacob, changing to Israel and thus the Israelites are references to Judaism. Isaac, being birthed really late by promise to Sara who represents the mother of good in comparison to the troublesome Hagar (troublesome Muslims?) and the "mother" represents a community of people, the fruits of ones labour, and as such the community is the promised land suggested to the Israelites who will live on through faith in God. The binding is a process historically used when slaughtering a lamb and a lamb represents innocence. — TimeLine
When Jesus said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," he is not talking about him bringing violence but that if you follow his preaching about finding your conscience and being loving, you will be outcast, ostracised and despised by the 'herd' or by conformists of any kind. You will run the risk of being persecuted and indeed the first several hundred years after Jesus' death there were many that turned to this preaching that were killed and persecuted. — TimeLine
The absolute core is Love. — Agustino
"Asceticism" (if by this one means restraining greed, lust, selfishness and the like) is part of Love. — Agustino
Morality and virtue are also parts of Love. — Agustino
You missed me? :Doh, THERE YOU ARE! So glad you reappeared. — Bitter Crank
Actually I was protesting against the Three Stooges who have "liquidated" one of my friends. If you make a little bit of a search through some of my last comments, you'll see what I'm talking about.Have you been unwell, in prison, recovering from a car crash, or just too busy to be a piston of debate here? — Bitter Crank
Not yet, but I might land there given my financial illiteracy, and reliance on incapable accountants - I've had to change 4 so-far. For example, one conversation:in prison — Bitter Crank
To care deeply about others / someone and find existence meaningful. An openness of the soul towards others.What does Love mean to you? — Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering.But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms.I really don't know how you formulate your categories, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that love is a virtue, rather than to say that virtue is a part of love? — Metaphysician Undercover
Since I'm making a point about general Christian belief I have no option but to generalize to do so. You keep telling me to calm down and suggest I have been raising my voice, but why? — VagabondSpectre
Holy fuck... :D — VagabondSpectre
It seems to me that 'boys' typically use ad hominem attacks to reinforce their non-existent arguments. You and I would never resort to such intellectual drudgery though, right? — VagabondSpectre
...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre
So, you're defending biblical parables because you follow nothing but god (which is a placeholder term for "reaching epistemically toward what is perfect"?). How do you know epistemic perfection exists and that this is what you're reaching for? Why call it god?
Why do you feel the need to defend biblical parables and their mainstream interpretations if you're removed from mainstream religion? — VagabondSpectre
Whoever wrote about Hagar certainly didn't know that one day Islam would form and then millennia later someone would find them troublesome. — VagabondSpectre
You're free to take whatever you want from it, and I won't condemn it unless I find it morally repugnant somehow — VagabondSpectre
You think having unconditional love for other people gets you persecuted or outcast from society? I don't. It makes people want to reciprocate; that's the golden rule. — VagabondSpectre
Foucault suggests that to bridge the gap of understanding between the reader and the author, you need to move closer to the language and intentions of the author rather rather than to force the text to conform to your own. You're creating your own meaning entirely. that's fine and all, but I don't know what's useful about the binding of Issac as a tale of innocence and geography. — VagabondSpectre
Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino
I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino
Yes and no. Love is rather that which makes virtue possible in the first place. And just like the eye which makes seeing possible isn't itself an object in the field of vision, so too love isn't exactly a virtue like any other kind of virtue. Rather all the other virtues depend on it - it plays the role that Agathon played for Plato's Forms. — Agustino
we know that virtue is dependent on the intellect, it requires clear reasoning, and rational decisions. Virtue does not require love, love requires virtue, which requires intellect. Intellect brings about rational decisions, which brings about virtue, and virtue brings into existence love. — Metaphysician Undercover
What I am trying to say is that it is best to avoid that otherwise you look just as bad as the religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue. You should see the PM's that I got :-# It is up to us to stand above the screamers who are really only defending their religious beliefs tooth and nail. — TimeLine
Comparatively, and upon reflection, you were angry and you missed my points on numerous occasions where suggestions that I never made were said to have been made, but you were never really angry at me, so I will have to agree here and apologise in a thankful way for your continuation of the conversation. But again, for instance the following: — TimeLine
...you're overly defensive because of your emotional love for Christianity? — VagabondSpectre
I do not want to say this again. I am not religious. I have no affiliation to Christianity and have never been to a church service. I appreciate the testimony of Jesus, but I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. I have a high respect for some of the other prophets and saints in the bible too as their stories are beautiful, Jonah for instance, Joseph and the story between Solomon and Sheba. I read it historically but also analyse what the moral of the story is too and that is what I take from it.
Every person has the capacity to be genuinely moral people but history and religion has turned normal, moral nuances into mystical mysteries in order to solidify the highly imaginative illusions that the masses seems to rely on, but these are myths that take no literal place with me. People are not 'special' because they are trying to be good, in fact, religion intentionally creates moral hierarchies; being a virgin does not make you a saint just as much as meditating for a thousand days won't enable enlightenment, and these types of coded rules turn ordinary people away from believing they are capable of being moral because the suggestion is impossible to reach. That's bullshit. — TimeLine
That is a good point historically but Arabs were, so perhaps I will concede to the latter and the relationship between these "brothers" (Abraham is the father of monotheism) of different "mothers" (laboured a community) has always been rocky and distant. — TimeLine
But, you can't call it the "Isaac parable" if you are interpreting it literally. Otherwise, it is no longer a parable. — TimeLine
It depends on where you are from; if I were a Yezidi girl, I would have been stoned to death by now. Giving unconditional love within within the restraints of social customs is the only way it is approved, but stand outside of that and you will be outcast and despised. It is easy to put on a 'show' of kindness, saying the right words, selecting the right approach by adhering to the right things that you know other people would appreciate, generally just putting on a false facade of goodness when the endeavour is solely to receive the love from others and not actually giving love, in the end there is never any actual reciprocation and thus they never actually produce anything. — TimeLine
It is exactly right but I personally have no use for the story apart from something like having faith in the promise. But with regards to geography and people, this is a historical approach of the time; when you read ancient texts, you cannot compare it with today but you need to understand how they viewed the world back then in order to facilitate a more accurate interpretation. — TimeLine
I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. How many are willing to die for their children? Quite many. How many are willing to die for the man/woman they love? Quite many. And note, that eros is not only sexual. It's a much deeper and stronger desire for that particular person (which does include sexuality). Do not confuse eros with its corrupted form (lust).Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. — Bitter Crank
Well, okay, but that's not pleasure as generally understood. That's why I made a distinction between joy/pleasure.It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agápē. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agápē. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agápē, should be that kind of pleasure. — Bitter Crank
I have actually said nothing about religion until now, so I have no idea what you're on about.religious morons screaming insults before spouting the philosophy of love and virtue — TimeLine
I appreciate the testimony of Jesus — TimeLine
Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals :PI see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. — TimeLine
Is this the testimony you just said you respect?Jesus answered, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. — John 14:6
I largely agree with this up to the last statement that "virtue brings into existence love" because "love" seems to be a primary phenomena, not coming from something else. Also, how would virtue bring love into existence? — Bitter Crank
I haven't affirmed that joy is a form of pleasure. Pleasure could lead to joy, but they are definitely not the same. Suffering for that matter can also lead to joy. Does it follow from there that joy is a form of suffering?I don't understand this. You are separating joy from pleasure. But isn't joy a form of pleasure? How can joy be separated from pleasure if joy is a form of pleasure? So if love is related to joy, and joy is a form of pleasure, how do you separate love from pleasure? Your claim that pleasures and pains cannot co-existence is meaningless, because we can experience pleasure in one respect while simultaneously experiencing pain in another respect. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams. — Agustino
I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. — Agustino
So I believe that the attitude which is required for virtue is an apprehension of the good, not "love", which is one (a very important one) of the virtues. And "love" itself, if it is to be understood as necessarily good, must follow from an apprehension of good. To put this in perspective of Jesus' message, I would say that true love can only follow from, after, apprehending God, as the apprehension of good. It is not through loving that we apprehend God, but through our apprehension of God that we behave lovingly — Metaphysician Undercover
I agree, it can also lead to a lot of suffering. Society is generally responsible for a large part of that suffering though. "Well-meaning" friends, family, etc.And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering — Bitter Crank
Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough? — Bitter Crank
Yeah clearly! Your understanding, as illustrated by this and many other instances in this thread is clearly superior to us mere mortals — Agustino
But I understand love as being very closely related to pleasure. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is wrong. Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.