Know what a radar is right?

Radars detect.

Sympathy means you can detect the problem, because you understand what's going on... doesn't mean you give a damn about helping.

Empathy is more than just the understanding of, but rather more of the action of feeling another's pain and helping thwm overcome it.

Sympathy is more like social radar, empathy is sharing in the pain of those who show up on that radar.

Only two? Lol. Guess we ought to tell the vast and varied philosophers there are only two rigid ways to think. Very dialectical of you.

"The will" is a misnomer and it certainly isn't free. The will is a word which almalgamates a number or even all our drives and forces behind an action into a single easy to use word/idea. Freedom of will may perhaps come down to whether one is strong enough to overcome harmful compulsions.

the unit created for that purpose.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it.

make that 16 pages now, but it's pretty simple gender is a mental status like nationalism, male or female nationalism. Sex is a physical status.

The particulars here, seem to be in decisions made from past experiences. In your example the choice was made by a past decision. But perhaps something occurs that makes you change that decision. Like some Icecream is 400 calories per serving, some are 100 calories per serving. You may decide that from now on you want to try something with less calories. So you update a decision preference. To decide means to kill off other options.

One does lose in choice if they go with the predecided factors but the choice was already made at some point. But limiting yourself to safe choices because you know you like that 1 option is how limited some people are. Sometimes we make choices not at the precipice of the moment. Where as true spontaneous choice in the matter requires us to be free from preformed decisions.

This is reminiscent of Nan-In's Cup of Tea story...
How can one be taught anything when their head is already convoluted by preformed decisions about that something.

Consider this: even dream experience is "real" enough to impart knowledge to the dreamer.

Nah, the superficial reality is created from a profundity of depth which ultimately seeks to express itself. What you see is what you get, in a manner of speaking.

Every book, the superficial mask of its author... every painting and every song too.

We're not like a car that just uses a shell to look cool.

That's cause you think reality is the "true world," not the real apparent world.

damn dude, imagine having to explain to someone in 2025 that rape is the nonconsensual penetration of the anus or vagina/penis with any body part or object however small. You don't require a penis to rape. Woman vs woman rape is rarer obviously than man vs woman Which is reasonable when you consider that men and women tend to find the opposite attractive, but roughly 1/4th of rapes in all-women's facilities occur by women raping other women.
But in your favor, that statistic alone goes miles... it shows you that males in a position of power will abuse that power to rape women more frequently. At a much higher ratio than women on women. And a trans male to female may feel that way, but also so too could female to male who haven't even had a phalloplasty. What if they're much stronger and the what not via transitioning on gear and working out?

Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? — Leontiskos

Duh, women can rape women.

Sex is only factually binary at the most basic and lowest level of analysis (Gamete vs Ova producers). From there, every other trait generally tied in alignment to sex can cross that line in the sand: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, phenotypic.

Even then there are plenty of symptoms that render some people congenitally unable to produce any gametes and thus...

Those who feel threatened by the last bit are those who throw their arms up in declaration "there can only be two!" like some twisted version of Highlander. While there are those whose radars don't even pick up because they don't use science in a way to deny the lives of others.

Who cares about the binary of sex anyway in the discussion about gender?

People still arguing about this? It seems pretty simple to me faith is an overcoming of some lacking in knowledge, and uncertainty, with a blank check that bridges an abyss, regardless of truth.

Looks like there was something to see here after all...

and what are you a mouthpiece for now?

well, seeing as Shawn was asking for insight, they're the one doing the digging, nothing being bestowed. You coming here all "nothing to see here folk, I didn't create this thread," is probably the dumbest bit of reification here...

When someone is asking about X Y and Z the proper response isn't "nothing to see here" in an attempt to police the forums from someone asking a question. :lol: The Philosophy Forum's own Cartman. If there's nothing here, why do you need to say anything at all about nothing being here?

Ah because you took his abstract question and attempt to turn into a concrete waste of time. But If Shawn finds even 180's notion on it useful then there obviously is something to see here, as it's their question that they're asking. Somehow you forgot that you're not Shawn.

There's something there but not much truthfully. What OP doesn't seem to realize is they're just crowning one slave morality they're bias for in favor of another. Left or Right is merely a new age dogma for people who can't think for themselves.

A mind independent world is precisely that old mischief of a "true world," vs. the reality of the apparent world rearing its ugly head yet again. The "true world," is actually the make-believe, whereas the real apparent world is the one we live in. The "true world," the one that adheres to all our systems, is merely a world that reality doesn't give a damn about. Nature is indifferent to that world, and thus No, you can not have a mind independent world. That's what Heaven is.

@Fire Ologist what do you make of the following:

Prose, poetry, theater all have music as their model and origin. That is the point upon which The Birth of Tragedy insists notably in the 5th and 6th aphorisms....

Among all experiences musical jubilation is obviously privileged, not because this jubilation privileges and distinguishes musical reality among all other realities, but because it has as its effect, in Nietzsche’s opinion, to arouse the approbation of all things indifferently. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty, pg 36&37

You're a musician to the core, what say you about the above on how music affirms all life indifferently and thus an exception for use as a method for philosophical discourse?

Not sure why you imply that 'metanoia' must involve only positive emotions. — boundless

It didn't say that it did, but it shows Jesus doesn't demand one to be repentant, but rather to achieve metanoia, a transformed mindset vs a bad conscience.

The bad ruminant cannot achieve joy because they're stuck with undigested feelings of shame and guilt.

Jesus has nothing to do with shame and guilt.

Thus... repentance is not a feeling Jesus demands of his followers.

Hence the "glad tidings" of Jesus.

I believe that repentance is also a process of healing and such a healing might involve potentially suffering — boundless

Suffering isn't an absence of joy or sadness...repentance is different from suffering also, attempting to equate the two as the same, well, of course we won't see eye to eye.

One doesn't need to repent in order to change ones ways...

The repentant criminal is none other than Nietzsche's "Pale Criminal" who hangs his head in shame and is now defined as the doer of one deed that not defines his identity, some deed that is an externalized anchor of the past...

Metanoia (μετάνοια) in Greek literally means a change of mind or a transformative rethinking. It implies an internal shift in perspective—almost existential—a turning toward a new way of being, seeing, or living. It’s often active, forward-facing, and creative.

Repentance, from Latin paenitentia (root of penitence), is soaked in guilt, punishment, and moral debt. It implies sorrow for wrongdoing, often linked to confession, penance, and shame. It's backward-facing, tied to regret.

Jesus seeks to transform through the Beatitudes, which are connected with Joy, not shame and guilt, as he didn't come to pass any judgements.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Then I highly suggest you begin to understand the secrets of Nietzsche's invention of the Dionysian Dithyrambs... as Metaphysical Poetry is what Nietzsche details as his magnum opus, his greatest gift to mankind...

In my lifework, my Zarathustra holds a place apart. With it, I gave my fellow-men the greatest gift that has ever been bestowed upon them. This book, the voice of which speaks out across the ages, is not only the loftiest book on earth, literally the book of mountain air — Ecce Homo

Added the above to showcase Nietzsche details TSZ as his greatest gift to mankind and magnum opus. The below details some about his artists metaphysics.

Already in the foreword to Richard Wagner, art—-and not morality—is set down as the properly metaphysical activity of man; in the book itself the piquant proposition recurs time and again, that the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. Indeed, the entire book recognises only an artist-thought and artist-after-thought behind all occurrences,—a "God," if you will, but certainly only an altogether thoughtless and unmoral artist-God, who, in construction as in destruction, in good as in evil, desires to become conscious of his own equable joy and sovereign glory; who, in creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the contradictions concentrated within him...

I am convinced that art is the highest task and the properly metaphysical activity of this life, as it is understood by the man, to whom, as my sublime protagonist on this path, I would now dedicate this essay....

But, my dear Sir, if your book is not Romanticism, what in the world is? Can the deep hatred of the present, of "reality" and "modern ideas" be pushed farther than has been done in your artist-metaphysics? — Birth of Tragedy

Nietzsche's Dithyrambs are poems with metaphysical side-effects, their whole purpose is to take a self abnegated reader through a journey that overcomes their bad conscience and loathing of mankind. The dithyrambs are detailed by Nietzsche quite extensively, but nobody even takes this discussion seriously because "Nietzsche."

The Dionyso-musical enchantment of the sleeper now emits, as it were, picture sparks, lyrical poems, which in their highest development are called tragedies and dramatic dithyrambs... — Birth of Tragedy

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb...

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude...

Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery...

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Ecce Homo

The Gospels is longer than a page. And what do you got you panties in a twist for? I literally learned something here from you. Metanoia vs Repentance is even better than Penance vs Repentance.

Everything else is reified through Judaism.

I get what you mean but I do not know* of any Greek (or even Syriac) Christian author according to whom some kind of remedial suffering is not needed for salvation. — boundless

Doesn't make a difference what people think, unless they think they know better than Jesus, which goes to show they're fluffing their own ego at that point.

The text is the text, and well, we see that the authors of the original Greek Bible chose metanoia, so saying that you don’t know of any writers or authors... well, you're glossing over the facts of the words in favor of a poor translation through reification.

If you have children, here's hoping (facetiously) they don't learn a poor version of mathematics all because someone wanted to put their own spin on the concepts of math... 7+4 = 11 regardless of how you may want to twist it to some other value.

The only hell a person might go through is their own bad conscience, if they ever stoop that low to feel a bad conscience to begin with. Not by way of Jesus, as Jesus does not judge, for he was sent into the world as God's undying Grace. One need not feel any torment over past actions.

Here's the point: metanoia, is the Greek word where as the Latin translation is purposefully altered to mean something vastly different:

Metanoia (μετάνοια) in Greek literally means a change of mind or a transformative rethinking. It implies an internal shift in perspective—almost existential—a turning toward a new way of being, seeing, or living. It’s often active, forward-facing, and creative.

Repentance, from Latin paenitentia (root of penitence), is soaked in guilt, punishment, and moral debt. It implies sorrow for wrongdoing, often linked to confession, penance, and shame. It's passive backward-facing, tied to regret.

Repentance creates the "Pale-Criminals" Nietzsche speaks about in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

The shameful doer of a single deed that defines them.

In repentance shame defines.

repentance is a feeling of much sorrow and torment. Which has nothing to do with the Greek word Metanoia. Which the Romans poorly translated into re-poenitire. The Romans frequently adapted Greek concepts, but translated them through their own cultural, political, and moral lenses, which altered their meanings. This is especially true with philosophy and religion.

Jesus doesn't demand repentance for sin though. Why keep bringing up Judaism as if it matter anything to Jesus?

We're speaking of Christianity, and thus Christ. Not the Judaism he rejected.

What are the rational grounds for deeming someone or something beyond the pale and dismissing them or writing them off? — Leontiskos

Why does it have to be discussed as if there's a universal truth behind the will to ignorance? I dismiss people when I know they're an absolute waste of time.

Like discussing the Bible with people who aren't familiar with it. They've never taken a discerning eye to it. It's why most Christians dont know wtf they even believe. It's why they follow the apostles rather than the most Christian of Christians: Christ. If you follow Christ, then you don't get to see others as sinners or as beneath you, which is what most Xtians bank on. The objective slave morality that allows them to deny the lives of others is their poppy and poison... but all these quacks don't realize:

 11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake.

These idolaters of the apostles end up blessing us, as the Beatitude goes.

Dissing the obstinate as beyond the pale is fine because they're only looking for the answers the satify their confirmation bias. Thus they're not actually here to learn anything, and thus a waste of time in general.

Anything one needs is in the Bible itself. Specifically the Gospels. If it doesn't align with that what good is it?

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him.  2 And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying:  

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  
4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.  
5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.  
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.  
8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.  
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.  
10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake

These 8 lines is how one becomes blessed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nothing more, Nothing less. Any one of those according to Christ.

Noone here can debate this. And they are the only lines that pertain to what it takes to become blessed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven under Christ.

If you want to do your Judaism, go for it. But that doesn't matter to Jesus. Only his beatitudes.

Certainly not the Judaic traditions of Sin, Repentance and Atonement.

Sin puts distance between man and God under the laws of Judaism, where as Jesus EMBRACES even the sinners to bring them into his fold. Hence why he sits with them unjudgingly. To lead by example of his beatitudes and TEACH them a better way of life through SHOWING his example. To AWAKEN and bring them into the LIGHT.

That Christians here don't understand that is wild af.

That you thought Jesus was a judging cunt to toss bitches asunder into God's angry wrath... that's you all projecting your own hate as if that's what Jesus stands for. BUT some how you apes forgot Jesus represents God's UNDYING GRACE and TRUTH.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

TRUTH didn't come by the Apostles, TRUTH isn't in the LAWS OF GOD which MOSES brought...

Jesus brought TRUTH AND GRACE...

So let the sink in for a moment...

All the JUDAISM before Jesus is not the TRUTH.

Sin, Repentance and Atonement, and all the other Judaic traditions are UNTRUTH to the BEATITUDES OF JESUS CHRIST.

The BEATITUDES are the TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. Nothing else. Not what the Apostles like Paul say... he's the resentful cunt most of you Christians worship...

And yall make a whorship out of Christianity by worshipping Paul rather than taking in the lessons of Jesus Christ and his beatitudes.

It’s pretty simple:

The Bible breaks down into sections.

The only section I'm concerned with are the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which primarily focus on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Acts, on the other hand, chronicles the actions of the apostles and the growth of the church...

I know this may be hard for you to rationalize because you're quite poor at following anything outside of your prejudice...

Just because you find the word sin or repent in the Gospels doesn't mean that Jesus is passing Judgement.

And I already destroyed the poor accuracy in the interpretation and translation of the Greek word Metanoia, into the word Repentance. Which you yourself are too poor of a mind to even counter.

Meta = a change with and among, to move beyond, and has nothing to do with the sorrow or shame of repentance. Repentance is an improper translation of metanoia.

Or do you think Facebook changed its name to "Sorrow and Shame"? :roll:

No, you're just poor at reasoning in general.

You're trying to assert a different meaning for the original word within the Greek Bible (metanoia, a change of thought towards the Beatitudes [the teachings] of Jesus) to your dumb understanding (repentance, a feeling of very much sorrow about ones actions).

Which is why you ought to use the Douay-Rheims Bible. The Douay-Rheims translation was produced by translating the Latin Vulgate, which was the official Bible of the Catholic Church for centuries. The Vulgate was translated from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) by St. Jerome in the 4th century. 

This is why PENANCE is used rather than REPENTANCE in the Douay-Rheims Bible. And the Latin Vulgate because St. Jerome understood that METANOIA doesn't equate to REPENTANCE but rather PENANCE.

You're the idiot pointing to some poor translation of the Bible and saying "see this shit translation says repent."

That you didn't know the Beatitudes are the teachings of Jesus Christ, but thought the Apostles opinions on Christianity were, is fucking wild also...

Just goes to show you don't know shit about your own belief system.

Okay, fair, and a good catch, but my biggest problem with that is repentance Etymology doesn't come from Greek, but from Latin. Re (very much) poenitire (make sorry). Which is still different than To change one's mind towards the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ. Here's why that matters imo.

As Clément Rosset discusses in his book Joyful Cruelty on Joyous and Melancholy thinkers.

Generally the interpretation goes like this: the melancholy ruminant does not have access to bliss because he is the prisoner of a thought devoted to misfortune; the joyous ruminant (those of Beatitude) accedes to bliss because he has surmounted the thought of misfortune and succeeds in disgesting it. — Joyful Cruelty, pg 30

Jesus the Glad Tidings, and Beatitudes describes the latter. This is why Jesus seeks to change their mind. Not so that they can express melancholy through sorrow and regret, because that defeats the purpose.

Repentance is the Latin translation of metanoia.

But let us look at the difference between Meta and Para in Greek, which are closely related, but Meta connotes: after, beyond, with, and among something, where as para connotes: beside, alongside, beyond, against.

The latin translation of metanoia (one towards the light) into repentance (very much sorrow) is more akin to the Greek paranoid (the mind turned against itself).

Furthermore:

Just as the joyful person is incapable of expressing the reason for his joy and the nature of what overwhelms him [because it is with/among him], so also the melancholy person does not know how to identify the reason for his sadness or the nature of what he is lacking. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty pg 5

Thus we can see metanoia is a change of the mind towards Joy because metanoia is a change with something, not towards regret and sorrow (a change against the mind from lacking) and again considering the Beatitudes (Joy) is what makes one blessed under Jesus' Equation then I can't accept the Latin Repentance for Metanoia. It's the same way the Latin mistranslated "Public" for "Social."

Jesus isn't there to judge and make people feel bad... he's there to wake them up, to see the light of his beatitudes, his mental architecture.

Fair enough. Was mostly playing devil's advocate anyhow to give a little food for thought.

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32 — BitconnectCarlos

It's actually penance... not repentance.

Quite a difference. We can see in 30 Jesus is more just than the Pharisees and Scribes as the Beatitude dictates by still dining with publicans and sinners. He doesn't exclude them.

30 But the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying to his disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? — Luke 5

Penance is a duty, an action in Christianity that's like prayer, alms giving, or as we can see in the very next few lines... Fasting.

Repentance is a change of heart and mind, a feeling of sorrow for your actions.

 

31 And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick.  32 I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance. — Luke 5

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible.

No, Judaism does. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus require any of that. Nor can you produce a pasaage that shows it. Everything else in the bible other than the Gospels, are the DISCIPLES take on Christianity. Where as the Gospels discusses Jesus's life and actions. And as we can see by Pope John Paul II teachings: that equation of Jesus Christ.

God punishing sinners, God's Angry Judgements, are brought to man under the law of which Moses portrays. And ANYONE BREAKING THOSE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

John 1

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5: 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  

Breaking any of the 10 Commandments of sinning and guess what you're still IN the Kingdom of Heaven.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ.

I think you're not very good at connecting dots then. There is no tradition of repentance and atonement with Jesus Christ, it, like sin is abolished by Jesus Christ's equation of being the ultimate example of God's grace. One merely has to follow any of the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ to make it into the Kingdom of Heaven, which more or less, every human falls under these Beatitudes.

I don't think "intelligent" design is even a correct saying to even get at a notion of God creating something (at least in so far as the etymology of intelligent). Intelligent design really just means something that understands it's own (idiocy) to the point it follows its own instructions.

Which doesn't exactly get at the notion of God.