Ah well, that explains why you read a "not" there :PAh, shoot. I read a "not" that wasn't there. To be honest, I was expecting you to answer that Mithras does not exist. — Thorongil
Well I find it strange that you expected me to answer "no", when I've been saying all along that the Romans had an experience of a spiritual reality that they identified by the name of Mithras. I wouldn't be saying they had an experience of nothing would I? The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc.That you think he does is even more bizarre. Explain yourself. — Thorongil
Mid 20s.How old are you if I may ask? — Beebert
No, I'm a civil engineer by degree. I've worked in it briefly, but I'm working in IT/marketing at the moment. So I'm not a professional philosopher - although I have been studying philosophy for a long time, since I was 14-15 probably, or even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy.Have you studied philosophy at University? — Beebert
The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc. — Agustino
>:Olittle trick — Thorongil
even earlier if you count certain mystics as philosophy. — Agustino
Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner. — Agustino
Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? — Agustino
No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic. — Agustino
The reality of the transcendent doesn't only include God, it would obviously include other spiritual forces - angels, demons, etc. — Agustino
Number 2 isn't just an idea. An idea is always an idea OF something (an idea of a circle, an idea of a man, an idea of God, etc.). Number 2 is a being, an entity, which is of a different kind than material entities in this world are.You couldn't verify whether the number 2 exists in and of itself because, as you say, there is no coherent conception of numbers in material. However, the number 2 does exist as an idea. That it represents this and that. It's definition, in other words, makes it real, in that one can interact with it in one's mind, but not real in the way one interacts with a keyboard. — Buxtebuddha
What do you mean that "something isn't true"? Again, you're asking these questions, but you don't take into consideration how truth applies to different types of beings - you presuppose it applies in the same manner.Where does anything that isn't true come from? — Buxtebuddha
Our human experience.Where did the idea of a "transcendent being/force" come from, eh? — Buxtebuddha
Only if we limit ourselves to the "scientific" world.At some point your argument requires a pure understanding of a thing in itself, which isn't possible. You end up with infinite regression of things coming from other things which came from another thing which... — Buxtebuddha
Irrelevant. Those don't claim to be transcendent as Mithras, the gods, and other spiritual realities claim to be. Instead they are empirical matters, which are indeed a matter of verification.And flying spaghetti monsters, and unicorns, and......... — Buxtebuddha
On this point we can take entities like circles too. Perfect circles don't actually exist in material reality, and yet we have knowledge of them and their properties. The field of Being is much larger than just what can be scientifically or empirically investigated, and we don't always derive things from the empirical towards the conceptual, spiritual, or otherwise non-empirical, it can also be the other way around, as in the case of circles. We derive our equations from perfect circles which we conceive apart from empirical reality, and then we apply them back to real objects (imperfect circles).the number 2 exists — Buxtebuddha
Sure, he would even admit to that probably :P But look at his ideas. You'd agree with them. You'd agree with him that society kills the individual, destroys creativity, and enforces conformity. You'd agree that man is free, and must express his freedom. You'd agree on the cruelty of hell and eternal punishment. You'd agree on the cruelty of moralists (such as the 14 year old girl example I gave you). And so forth. His favorite book was afterall "Thus Spake Zarathustra" (here's his reading of it) and his second favorite was Brothers Karamazov.he seems like a charlatan — Beebert
Well, no, I don't think rape, etc. are okay towards the guilty. This doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche is saying at all either. — Agustino
This is just a non-sequitur for example, confusing an is with an ought. — Agustino
Yes, but not in the sense of raping them, and so forth. It demands cruelty in that the immoral are told that they must change their ways, repent. In a certain sense this is a cruelty. One is even being cruel to themselves when they demand that they change. But this is absolutely not the same as the cruelty of violence, being raped, etc. — Agustino
No, this would be wrong. Moral greatness - even according to Nietzsche actually - comes from strength, and is not a reaction to the weakness of others. It is a self-affirmation of one's own greatness, it is not being cruel and possessing the immoral. — Agustino
It would be strange to find a prominent historical figure that Osho doesn't refer to. He speaks, at times quite extensively, about Steiner, though not quite so admiringly. Even his admiration for Gurdjieff is limited, much like his admiration for Buddha, Christ, etc. The only figure that he seems to have only admiration and adoration for seems to be the Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma.Rajneesh is more akin to Gurdjieff than to Steiner. He avows a deep admiration for the former, I'm nof aware of him ever referring to the latter. — Janus
I have just heard others talk about him and he sound like a "rich lazy people pleaser" basically — Beebert
Not really, very little. Steiner has a lot of writings, I've only had a look at Philosophy of Freedom.Have you read Steiner too? — Beebert
Well I obviously think they're incomplete (and very likely to lead one astray), but they are on Nietzsche's level.I felt that both seemed scary. — Beebert
I'm not quite sure Nietzsche is that great either. There's a lot of things he was blind to.In terms of greatness, depth of thought, honesty etc. Nietzsche goes far beyond what Osho does, and Steiner just tried to grasp everything so to thé degree that he grasped almost nothing.
It is almost like comparing Chopin to Salieri. Or Tolstoy to JK Rowling ( in the case of Osho), and perhaps to Tolkien or CS Lewis in the case of Steiner. — Beebert
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.