But it wasn’t just a moment. It happens everyday, — Fire Ologist
It wasn’t bad to put clothes on. It wasn’t the knowledge itself. — Fire Ologist
Yes. Uncanny, eh? It's tragic that art can be admired universally in pretty much any form except religion. Has Christianity been an influence for good? Maybe the pith of the question is too obvious to ask, it has been an influence, period. Like DaVinci or Einstein, but on a much grander scale. We write good and bad, regardless of the influence.The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now — Fire Ologist
lest I misrepresent my angle, I'm approaching this particular segment of this thread as mythico-poetry, not theologically (not saying you are/aren't). But, yes. I do think so. He says, "wake up," and turn your attention. The "Thing" we're all looking for, because we lost it, is not where you're looking. God's world is the birds in the sky, the flowers in the field, who neither reap nor sow, labor nor spin. It's not in the gathering nor the knowing, it's in the living. Dont believe your constructions from time to time, believe in that eternally. Find your soul. What profit is in gaining the whole world but losing your living soul. And not only did his contemporaries kill that in order to remain with their attachments to knowledge, repeating the mistake in Eden, but the moment he died they constructed a fiction in his name, Christianity and we have pretty much been lost in that and its antitheses (heresy, atheism, secularism, science, Islam/Eastern "paganism", hedonism/materialism, communism) ever since.we killed him, we still want to hide. That’s just like us, don’t you think? — Fire Ologist
Thank God, 'cause I've wandered so deep into "my" imagination here that science is a faint echo in a remote corner of--by the way--the same system, functioning to find truth, in the end, in the same way, settling upon what is most fitting/functional given all competing factors.misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime. — Fire Ologist
insofar as I see no reason why the human cognitive system in itself, in its synthesis of conceptions to each other, have not in effect described the conditions by which an experience is given, without ever expressing a single linguistic representation of those conceptions or the cognition which follows from them. — Mww
Question: of all that supposedly attributable to lesser animals, in your opinion which is the primordial consideration such creature must attain antecedent to all else, in order for him to be afforded meaningful experiences? — Mww
like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. — Fire Ologist
This marks a wrong turn in the history of philosophy that fails to strike us as odd and out of touch because we have become so accustomed to philosophers making such claims, as if thinking and feeling are two separate, independent things. — Fooloso4
Being that the fact of the propositions comes to be once I start believing in them, something is causally connected to itself, which I am confident is not desirable. — Lionino
where do you disagree with my assessment here? — Bob Ross
C1: Therefore, a belief cannot make a proposition true or false. — Bob Ross
P1: A stance taken on the truthity of something, is independent of the truthity of that something. — Bob Ross
seems that you hypothetically want to perform greater than others in such a way it would reflect as 'hardness', — Barkon
isn't this just reaching the same conclusion, aren't you being malleable to be hard? — Barkon
Easiest thing in the world to bring someone down, a literal dried piece of excrement on a sidewalk can do that. — Outlander
I subscribe to the idea of a fallen world or society, at least. Not necessarily in the Biblical sense, — Outlander
In fact, Heidegger protests against not only the idea of a world independent of our models of it , but the very idea of a subjective or intersubjective scheme, model, narrative , theory that we impose on the world. He wanted to get away from a subject-object dualism entirely, and the accompanying assumption of a normativity or conventionalism within which we view each other and the world. — Joshs
Here, I diverge. But no worries, armed with the info above, it is clear to me, how and why.in authentic Being, which is not a subject representing a world to itself, but a self continually changed by ‘coming back to itself’ from its world. And this world , for its part, changes reciprocally with self. — Joshs
in both cases what ‘is’ is already organized on the basis of prior expectations and anticipations. — Joshs
The role of moral structures can be seen most clearly not within a community closely united by shared understandings, but between communities divided by differing intelligibilities. The individual deemed in violation of one group’s moral norms has found themselves caught between two communities, just as is the case with scientific heretics. It is unfortunate that the very bonding around shared intelligibilities that forms a unified community inevitably leads to alienation from those outside of the community. It then becomes necessary to protect that community from foreign ideas and actions which threaten to introduce dangerous incoherence into the normative culture. Thus the need for moral codes and structures. — Joshs
our ethical norms aren’t conventions in the sense of optional fashions that we put on or take off as reasonable members of a consensual community — Joshs
But I disagree if the quote from Amadeus means the good never forms. There is an object, a definition, that forms, from our experience, called “good.” — Fire Ologist
I think Plato was pointing to what is formed once the good is developed in the human (so he was wrong to point to an eternal form). — Fire Ologist
I agree. But because let's not ignore, our constructing of good serves a functional end, [survival and prosperity. But ignore that if its distracting]. Not because there is an innate thing, "Good", in Nature.We still need to glean a definition of good if we are to leap into judgments of better and worse. — Fire Ologist
Yes we doBut nevertheless, like letters, we fix good in our lives everyday. — Fire Ologist
Couldn’t you say that the innate in conscience is where the good is gleaned, where the good is constructed?
— Fire Ologist
I can see some sense in which it's a 'construct' but I also believe there is an innate good, although not everyone will agree. — Wayfarer
I agree. But I also assumed the word wasn't used to denote the contradiction, but rather, in tge sense of "belongs" to experience, "is derived" from etc.Inherent" and "experience" are incompatible concepts. "Inherent" is something we have by nature, we are born with. — Alkis Piskas
fallacy is in thinking we can separate out the natural from the moral, the ‘is’ from the ‘ought’. — Joshs
since it was precisely Heidegger’s point that a science presupposes as its very condition of possibility a set of metaphysical assumptions about how the world ought to be understood, which implies an ethics. — Joshs
And that's when you finally see the good in the world?First, you see the evil in the world.
Then, you see the evil in others.
Eventually, you see the evil within yourself. — Scarecow
Do you agree with this, namely that the notion of good in inherent in the primacy of experience, and not something that can be learned by simply looking up a definition and analyzing it? — Shawn
moments.
— Fire Ologist
I told ENOAH the same thing not long ago. — Patterner
Ofc I'm on some fantasy rant here. But I enjoy dabbling in wild metaphysical speculation — Benj96
it is impossible to produce a complete representation or simulation of Mona Lisa.
Yet many people seem to believe that the whole universe, or at least our experienced part of the universe, is or could be a simulation. — jkop
I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism — BitconnectCarlos
Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos
Knowing what philosophers do in the academic field is a first criterion to separate cheap mysticism, pseudoscience and youtubers from serious philosophy. — David Mo
Philosophy is not based on authority but on the exercise of personal reason. — David Mo
If it used to be the love of wisdom, I guess it's now the love of the analytic brain. — Noble Dust
Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question. — Pfhorrest
Ones way of thinking or consciousness is indeed "ones philosophy". You get where I was coming from though. :D — Outlander
what is your (or anyones) thoughts on saying it is the act of questioning the inherent views, conclusions, mechanisms, or observations of ones consciousness in a way that can be logically expressed? — Outlander
But is a reflection of ones conciousness necessarily philosophy? I could be young and never question anything with my deepest thoughts — Outlander
We must eliminate those who are intent on the murder of innocents. Killing them is not murder. — BitconnectCarlos
Practicing a religion could gain you divine favor in the afterlife.
However, atheism couldn't possibly gain you any divine favor, and therefore it is irrational to hold atheist beliefs. — Scarecow
you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus
I don’t see it as a fork in the road, you going one way, me another. I think we are standing around a table looking at the same object from two different sides, each conjecturing or dabbling in the other viewpoint. — Fire Ologist
Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus
How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker
Distinguishing “beliefs” from the objects the beliefs are about (such as a self), and distinguishing these from “illusions” are all just illusory “distinctions” not to be “believed” and therefore you give me nothing to go on. — Fire Ologist
The only way to ponder about objectivity is to posit a mind or a self, but the only way to posit a self is to be able to distinguish identity at all, and the only way to talk about identity is with metaphysics about bodies, which becomes a battle between being and becoming, which leads to question language and logic, etc… — Fire Ologist
Compellingly enough put that you opened my mind up to how, I think, I can agree.The mind is a chameleon, a whisper of a fleeting thing, sure, but for flash instant moments, as real as anything else. — Fire Ologist
and, therefore, you give me nothing to go on.The paradox IS! — Fire Ologist
Self (the one that speaks and is spoken of), to me, is neither body nor body part.Self is still something distinguishable from the liver, the lungs and other parts, if it is body at all. — Fire Ologist
regardless of what the self is, the paradox is that it certainly exists, and certainly cannot exist — Fire Ologist
No need to dispense with any part of this as mere illusion. — Fire Ologist
But further, by saying this, it is a fact for you, me and all minds - so we know something objective about minding. We can’t escape the objective either - argument twists again - again the paradox rears its ugly head. — Fire Ologist
I disagree that knowledge needs to first pass any test. — Fire Ologist
Yes but take out the world and think about when mind 1 connects with mind 2 (as we sometimes do on this forum). Maybe we don’t know if what we say here reflects the mind independent world when we speak of some third thing, but when mind 1 agrees with mind 2, then mind 1 knows the object in mind 2’s mind. So mind 1 knows of two things: mind 2 and the object it expresses in agreement. — Fire Ologist
The very fact that we can disagree or agree means that to each of us, there is an objective world that we each measure ourselves and each other against. — Fire Ologist
Even if the objective world is constructed by minds, this world can be shared which means it isn’t only in one mind, and therefore, the objective world is still there, has to be there. — Fire Ologist
hoping the above explains why I amOr you think you are possibly totally alone, not event meaning anything you say to yourself. — Fire Ologist
Good foresight. I do think that I cannot "know" any objective world. But I do not deny that I have "access" to it. As I say, I have access to that real world by being. It is just that the instant I contemplate it, I seek to know it rather than be it, thereby displacing "my" truth with my projection.If you reply to me that you deny any objective medium is known, and I acknowledge back to you that I disagree with you, you’ve proven to yourself that my mind is out there in an illusion as an objective fact - which then means you can’t honestly say to yourself that all you know is an illusion. — Fire Ologist
We only know the self inasmuch as we have a sense of self, and a consequent idea that there it is an entity with an identity. When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus
If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, — Janus
When we try to determine the nature of that identity it eludes our grasp. — Janus
That is true when trying to grasp the identity of anything. Everything is moving. — Fire Ologist
That said, experience itself (:wink:) is determinable only in terms of identity, and anyway what do we mean by 'real', so where does that leave us? — Janus
I agree here too. It is a pickle to be a real self that can’t be by itself, fixed and distinct as everything real is moving and dissolving any attempt at staying a unified identity.
We selves are living paradoxes. — Fire Ologist
The paradox of being a human: the self is, AND the self cannot be. Or with more texture: my sense of self is a sense of something that is already sensing and therefore, is real, AND, nothing I sense has a clear enough structure to be identifiable to be known as “real”, such as a “self”. — Fire Ologist
but what I subjectively know is that my mind is in a larger world apart from my mind, so I have knowledge of objective facts.
So I don’t see why we need to assert fact 3 (no accurate connection) — Fire Ologist
You have mind one over here, and mind two over there. If they are to share anything at all between them, they need some object to share. — Fire Ologist
The denial of objectivity (mind independent reality) in itself makes all speech and thought meaningless. — Fire Ologist
Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96
Facts are great. Sure. But they're easily dispensed with little incentive to understand from where or why they arise — Benj96