God is accepted as the moral agent by most believers. If God says "Take your son up that mountain and cut his throat." then the true believer goes up that mountain and kills his kid, because it's the right thing to do, because God said so. — Vera Mont

Yeah, that's the really sad part. Kierkegaard says that this is the essence of Christianity, and that it is irrational and unethical. To be a true Christian, a knight of faith, in Kierkegaard's terms, one must be irrational and unethical. Blind faith, absolute fideism. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. It's really sad stuff when you think about it rationally.

What about the "hate" though? Didn't you agree that this is what it is all about? And isn't this a feeling? Aren't the form of those cool guitar riffs, scales and effects, an expression of that hate? Don't you think it's possible to be a poser in relation to this feeling? — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to be under the impression that heavy metal has some Profound, Complex Theory of human emotions. It doesn't. It's just loud music for drunken assholes. There's not much to it in terms of conceptual sophistication. There's instrumental sophistication, sure, but that doesn't necessarily entail profound philosophical thought. I mean, not to throw Dragonforce under the bus here, but I'll definitely do it because they suck in a conceptual sense, even though they're great in an instrumental sense. Simpler: Heavy Metal sounds cool but it has poor lyrics.

I was thinking along the lines of Eric Church maybe, or someone like that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not my cup of tea, honestly. Like I said: it's Outlaw country for me, or classic Honky Tonk. Or someone classy, like Shannon McNally. I don't listen to garbage, for example I don't listen to Hank Williams Jr.

Anyway, the mention of "poser" has to do with the matter of "feeling". The feeling of hate, though amplified by the guitar riffs, is best expressed by the vocal quality. Any band can mimic the instrumental sound, — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really. That's kinda what sets metal apart from other genres that derive from classical Rock n' Roll. It's the exact inverse case of Pink Floyd, for example. Pink Floyd has superb concepts and lyrics, but from a purely instrumental standpoint, they're not doing much, really. Whoever thinks that David Gilmour is a better guitarist that Yngwie Malmsteen is simply deluded. And whoever thinks that Malmsteen is a better lyricist than Gilmour is simply deluded. It is what it is. Rock in general has a rather hard time being excellent in both concepts and instrumentation, you generally have to specialize in one of them. If you specialize in concepts, your instrumentation will probably suck. If you specialize in instrumentation, your concepts will probably suck. There's very few bands that can do both.

the feelings expressed by the vocal quality are difficult to imitate — Metaphysician Undercover

Metal sucks as far as vocal quality goes. Pink Floyd is a million times better in that sense. But Pink Floyd sucks as far as the instrumentation goes. Gilmour looks like a clumsy beginner when you compare his guitar skills to Malmsteen's, for example.

That's why the whiney country voice doesn't quite cut it for heavy metal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, Pantera tried a sort of country-metal fusion, but it's just rednecks shouting stupid things. Anyone who likes Pantera probably likes Metallica as well, and I say that as someone who likes both of those stupid bands. They're stupid bands, let's be real about this. There's many more metal bands that are infinitely more talented than those clowns.

Maybe Johnny Cash could've made it in the metal scene. — Metaphysician Undercover

He did make it in the metal scene. Trent Reznor said that Cash's version of the song "Hurt" is the official version, even though Cash just did a cover of Reznor's song. If that's not making it in the metal scene, then I don't know what is.

BTW, here's a cool take on Slayer:

I already answered that. It is contrary that God/Jesus is changeable and changeless simultaneously. Even if we accept this, according to the Bible God does not change so Jesus could not lose His divine nature. Therefore Kenosisism is wrong. — MoK

So Jesus can't walk from here to there, just like you and me, for example? He doesn't undergo change of location?

Speaking of country:



And here is Afroman's version of that song. Afroman's version is way better:

Well, isn't that what heavy metal is all about? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, unfortunately that's what it's all about. That, and cool guitar riffs. And long hair. That's basically it.

If you can define the key features, "the essence" of heavy metal, then we could judge the material as to how well it fulfills the criteria. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm... the "essence" of heavy metal? I don't think it has one. Some things have essences, but not necessarily all of them. I don't think that heavy metal has an essence. It just doesn't seem that way to me. But I could be mistaken, of course.

You need to define "the feeling". — Metaphysician Undercover

I need to define "the feeling"? Of heavy metal? It feels heavy, and metallic. And somewhat pretentious, of course. And in very bad taste, if we compare it to, I don't know, jazz or whatever. But jazz is just as pretentious as heavy metal, if not more. So, there's that, I guess.

If you just go on how it sounds, then we'll get all sorts of shape-shifting, genre-crossing posers, pretending, just to cash-in. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't really use the term "poser". It reminds me of Heidegger's nonsensical difference between "authentic existence" and "impersonal existence" (what he calls "das Man"). It sounds like a fallacious rant to my ear. No True Scotsman, No True Dasein, No True Metalhead, yadda yadda. Heavy metal is just loud music for drunken assholes, there isn't really much "Trueness" to it. Like, if you're worried about "posers in the scene", then you kinda need to get an actual life, you know what I'm saying?

You know, like the way the country guys do. Then we have sex-starved, cry-in-my-beer, crossed with a-ton-of-hate. What's your favourite "country-metal"? — Metaphysician Undercover

My favorite country metal? I like country, not sure about country metal. I like The Highwaymen, for example. Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, all of that stuff. I like the stuff that leans more on the Honky Tonk side, like Waylon Jennings for example, instead of the stuff that leans more on the pop side, like Dolly Parton. Outlaw country, I guess you could call it. I'm not sure what to think of the Dixie Chicks, I'm kinda on the fence there. The best country that I've heard in recent years Shannon McNally:

I hope you don't mind — Amity

I do not. Your contributions to this thread are substantive and greatly appreciated.

God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...). — MoK

So what's your answer to the following question? Is it a "yes", or is it a "no"?

Does the following explanation involve a change in God/Jesus' nature, yes or no?

Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature. — Arcane Sandwich — Arcane Sandwich

Look up the definition of "be" and you will see the definition is "exist". :roll: — Harry Hindu


Does the Merriam Webster dictionary have the final word in matters of first-order predicate logic and the ontology of fictional entities in general, and of mathematical objects in particular? That sounds like they have the Foundations of Mathematics all figured out then. I wonder why professional mathematicians don't read the Merriam Webster dictionary more often. I will contact them and I will tell them to read it. — Arcane Sandwich

I am contacting you here, to tell you, that you, as a professional mathematician, must read the Merriam Webster dictionary in order solve the unsolved problems in the field known as Foundations of Mathematics. They have already solved everything, the people that wrote the Merriam Webster dictionary. Source: Trust Me Bro.

Look up the definition of "be" and you will see the definition is "exist". :roll: — Harry Hindu

Does the Merriam Webster dictionary have the final word in matters of first-order predicate logic and the ontology of fictional entities in general, and of mathematical objects in particular? That sounds like they have the Foundations of Mathematics all figured out then. I wonder why professional mathematicians don't read the Merriam Webster dictionary more often. I will contact them and I will tell them to read it.

I find it much easier and simpler (Occam's Razor and all that) to simply say that numbers exist as ideas, and to assert that numbers exist as anything other than ideas is a category mistake. — Harry Hindu

But ideas are fictions. They're just brain processes. We pretend that they have some sort of autonomous existence, but they don't. Do the rules of chess exist as ideas, with causal efficacy, in your view?

The same goes for Santa Claus. Santa is an idea and to assert that Santa is anything more than an idea is making a category mistake. — Harry Hindu

But Santa Claus is a fictional character. He doesn't exist. Real people just pretend to be him, just like a professional actor pretends to be a character. Batman doesn't really exist, he's just a character played by different actors (i.e., Adam West, Christian Bale, etc.)

You are being too literal. That mathematics is real does not mean every mathematical object is real. It means that real fundamentals can be understood in mathematical terms. — EnPassant

I have a theory about that (but I have no evidence to support it, sadly). Here's my theory: integers might exist. Fractions might exist as well. Negative numbers don't exist, I don't see how they could. Imaginary numbers don't exit (where is the square root of minus one apple? I don't see it on my kitchen table), and complex numbers in general don't exist.

There is no way to coherently justify this theory of mine, BTW.

Presumably, they will have seeds. All you need, is patience. — Wayfarer

There are two apples on my table. But actually there's three, because one of them is a negative apple. It just so happens that it's invisible to everyone, including myself, because it has a negative number (-1) associated with it.

I don’t really go in for such comparisons. I will sometimes post graphics or videos to make a point, but rarely, and usually when their direct. — Wayfarer

Thank you very much, Wayfarer.

Let's try the following, simply as a working hypothesis:

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order — Borknagar

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection — Borknagar

Being great, it flows
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold — Borknagar

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete — Borknagar

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Notice the Norwegian flag.

Eternal, endless, indefinite — Borknagar

And what does that "look like", from an Anthropological Point of View? It looks more or less like the following:



EDIT:

Armored horses,
gloves of steel.

Silver blades,
time to reveal.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Servants of the great ancestors
Who guarded the gates to infinity.

Once kings of shadows
on these blackened fields.

All the might and domination ruled the realms of the above

Inconquerable walls.
Weapons of might.

Splendor and nobility.
Barbaric times.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Kings remain
at their thrones.
Immortal and invincible, the mighty live on.

Armies hoovered across the land, here roll the Rivers of Red, beyond that has no man been.

Moments of time roll
Deep within the mind
Thoughts roam free and endless
Remembering the tyrant's time.

We're the tyrants. — Immortal

As the author of the Original Post (OP) of this public Thread, I have the authority to put this Thread back on track. And that is exactly what will happen now.

However, we are so, sooo far away from the Main Topic (Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching), that first and foremost, some ambience is required to get back to the Main Topic.

Therefore, I share the following song with the intention (I intend it as such) of getting back to Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching:



And here are the lyrics to that:

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete

Nothing but the process is infinite
Nothing but the process is infinite
Eternal, endless, indefinite — Borknagar

@Wayfarer, is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to relate the lyrics of this song, to the first part of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching?

Arcane Sandwich :roll: — Janus

That is another example and instance of a qualitatively impoverishing comment. Emojis impoverish the quality of any serious conversation. And the Tao Te Ching deserves better. It demands seriousness.

Principally because the Aristotlean
premises used by Aquinas (& other Scholastic apologists) are metaphysical generalizations abstracted from (his) pseudo-physics (e.g. universal telology, absolute non-vacuum, absolute non-motion, etc) which are not factually true of matters of fact (or nature). Consider the following further objections to "the soundness" of Aquinas' Quinque viæ (by clicking on my username below) ...
...from an old thread concerning Thomistic sophistry:

[ ... ]

And [another] excerpt from an old post objecting to the soundness, etc of "the cosmological argument":
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

This went way over my head. Can you explain it to me in a simpler way?

I have no desire to engage further — Janus

Then why do you keep doing it?

if you insist on misrepresenting me then I feel compelled to correct you. — Janus

Then why do you need to state that you have no desire to engage further?

And your interpretations are infallible? — Janus

I don't know. Are they? You tell me.

I guess not — Janus

"Guessing" is not a valid methodological element of any philosophy worth it's salt.

my attitude was never one of wishing to disrupt the thread. — Janus

Who cares what you wished or didn't wish? Right now, you and me are both disrupting it, because we're detracting from the Main Topic, which is Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching.

the fact that others disagree with you about my attitude shows your idea of an "observable attitude" to be false. — Janus

So you just state that as a sound methodological thesis? Seems a bit flimsy to me. Is your observation or experiment repeatable? Do social scientists use that concept in their actual scientific work? Or do you just freestyle it in the sociology department?

You may believe that. It is not the way I see it. Call in the mods and let's see what they think. — Janus

I don't need to follow your orders. I will call in the mods when, and if, I see fit to do such a thing.

What views are you referring to and why do you think they are mistaken. Answer that, and if I think you are right, I will change my views and if I disagree, I will defend the views in question. — Janus

I'll let you choose. Pick some view of yours, and I will explain to you why that view in particular is mistaken. Or, like I said, just tuck tail and run away.

I am merely defending myself against your personal attacks. — Janus

And I am merely defending the Quality of this Thread against your qualitatively impoverishing comments.

You are disrupting your own thread. — Janus

Gee, I wonder who should take the blame here? Any ideas, Doc?

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I have said nothing against it. I have merely questioned assertions you have made about its correct interpretation and asked you to explain them, which, as I see it, you have to do. I question the very idea of a correct interpretation. — Janus

And I do not, for there is indeed such a thing as the correct interpretation of a written text.

I'm not claiming to know that. I only know how it appears to me—hence "apparently". Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully. — Janus

Perhaps you should learn how not to derail a public Thread, to say nothing of also learning how to get a public Thread back on track.

If my "interventions" that is questions have impoverished the thread, then how much more have your ad hominem attacks on me done so? — Janus

I explained to you why the statement "ad hominem = insult" is false. An ad hominem is not identical to an insult. An insult is just a statement. An ad hominem is a series of statements. The fact that I have to explain something so basic to you is an example of the consequences that your disruptive behavior brings to this Thread.

Shall we leave it here? — Janus

Do you whatever you want. I'm not going to "shut up", if that's what you're implying. If you say something, then I will probably say something back. Simple as that.

Or if you want to answer my questions about precisely which views of mine are mistaken and why you think they are we could resume a civil discussion. It's your call. — Janus

See above. Pick a view of yours that you believe that I disagree with, and I will explain to you why your view is mistaken. And relate it to the Tao Te Ching in some way, specifically to Chapter 25.

Otherwise, yeah, you're just impoverishing the quality of this conversation, which happens to be about a noble book that deserves better.

(Edited for quality)

They will never make an effort to understand us. — javi2541997

They will never understand us, friend, even though they have made many efforts, and will keep on making them. They will never understand people like you and me, Javi : )

And that's fine. There are many people in this world that I will never understand. Perhaps I will never understand you, perhaps I will never even understand myself. That's why I philosophize. And until philosophy can settle any debate, in any capacity, there's just poetry. Until then, people like you and me will have eternal treasures of Music and Literature, that will never be stolen, because their Truth shines, such as the following example:



But there is hope, Javi. I have hope. Identity does not stop at the national level. There is such a thing as continental identity, I believe. And there is such a thing as human identity, above that. The following video expresses my political sentiments in a better way than I could ever hope to achieve:

There's easier examples. I have two apples. But I want to eat three. I eat the two apples. Two minus three is negative one, right? So, where's the negative apple? Do negative numbers exist? Blah blah blah..

The Catholic Church has many secrets — Gregory

Right, like the Opus Dei, for example.

You know only my questions, you don't know my attitude. and it is presumptuous of you to think you do. — Janus

False. Your attitude is observable in the way that you choose to express yourself and communicate yourself in your written text. Lawyers and judges have no problem identifying the intentions of a person in a written communication of theirs. Nor, for that matter, ordinary people like you and me. So, stop lying.

It is an ad hominem because instead of addressing my arguments on their own terms — Janus

False. I already addressed your arguments on your own terms, many times.

you presume to know my character and dismiss what I say on account of that — Janus

False. I actually know what your character has been throughout this conversation, in the same sense that a Lawyer could, and in the same sense that any ordinary person can.

which is of course absurd. — Janus

False. It would be, if such was the case, but such is not the case, as I have already explained in my previous post. You don't understand the concept of what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's not identical to "just an insult". It is instead a type of fallacious reasoning. It requires at least two premises, and a conclusion that is deductively obtained. Ad hominems are not fallacious in account of their logical form, since they are indeed deductively valid arguments. That is why they are informal fallacies. It is their unsoundness that makes them fallacious. There you go, a free class on what an ad hominem fallacy is. Do you really think that this is the best use of my time, and of the Thread's attention? You could have learned this all by yourself.

Did you really think my views were not mistaken? — Janus

Your views are mistaken. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Simple as that. Or, just tuck tail and run away. Or are you going to say that saying such a common saying is also a fallacy on my part?

I had no intention of disrupting the thread, — Janus

But you did it anyways. The fact that you're having this conversation with me is disruptive to the Thread. And you're dragging me into that Chaos as well. Because now I'm disrupting the Thread just as much as you are, and I take exception to that. This is not how a noble book such as the Tao Te Ching deserves to be spoken about. Do you even understand this basic concept, yes or no?

you had no obligation to respond at all. you could have just ignored my posts. — Janus

I have no obligation to remain silent either, especially in a Thread that I started, even though it's a public Thread, about a topic that I am passionate about. I tolerated you enough during the first messages of our exchange, but you keep doubling-down on your mistaken opinions.

That's what I would do — Janus

You do you, and let me do me.

if I thought someone was being intentionally disruptive. — Janus

I don't care if it was intentional or not. You're the one that said that I can't know your intentions, aren't you?

I had thought that you might be interested in alternative views — Janus

Yes, I am. That is why I started a Thread about it in the first place. Why do I have to explain such basic things to you? Do you not know these things already?

and in presenting actual justifications for your own views — Janus

If you don't like my justifications (i.e. "actual"), then explain what's wrong about them, instead of disrupting the Thread.

but apparently not. — Janus

Oh, so you know the inner workings of my mind, but I don't know the inner workings of yours? Is that it? I can't know your character or your attitude, but you somehow can know my character and my attitude? Do you see how senseless and mistaken your opinion is, on this specific point?

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further. — Janus

Then why are you doing it? Engage or don't engage, I don't care. If you want to talk about the Tao Te Ching here, you are welcome to do so. If you want to argue with me over the rules of this conversation, then I will ask that you relate that to the Tao Te Ching in some way. Otherwise, I'll just keep pointing out the fact that your interventions just keep impoverishing the quality of this Thread, and what's worse is that you've turned me into your accomplice in that sense.

Anyway, I have no desire to offend, so I won't bother you again. — Janus

You're not offending me personally, you're disrupting the Thread. This isn't my Thread, it's a public Thread, and you're doing a disservice to it by trying to see if I personally tolerate your lack of etiquette. It seems like you don't understand the rules of etiquette when discussing the Tao Te Ching. This isn't the coffee shop, and it's not the book reading club either. This particular topic has its own subset of specific rules, in addition to the general rules that any topic of conversation has.

Call the mods in: I am confident they will not see my questions as disruptive. The disposition of one who find reasonable critical questions disruptive rather than acknowledging them as being simply disagreements is more that of the proselytizer than the philosopher in my view. — Janus

And your view is mistaken. Your questions are not disruptive: your attitude is the disruptive element here.

you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian. — Arcane Sandwich


This ad hominem shows you are obviously taking it personally. — Janus

It's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your character. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views are mistaken because of your personal characteristics. But since I've said no such thing, it does not qualify as an ad hominem. Go educate yourself on what an ad hominem is, before incorrectly using that term.

Others, with more balanced views have said they did not see me being disruptive but merely questioning. — Janus

Good for them. I have no obligation to share their views, just as you are under no obligation to share mine. You are still here after all, aren't you?

I have carefully read your responses, and they did not satisfy me at all. — Janus

Here's what you're saying: "I'm not satisfied. Satisfy me."
Newsflash: I'm under no obligation to satisfy you.

I still don't know why you want to separate Dao from Nature. — Janus

Again:

Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:
:

"Tao follows what is natural". Therefore, if you wish to follow the Tao itself, do not follow the Tao itself, follow instead what the Tao itself follows: you should follow what is natural, not the Tao itself.

"What is natural" = Nature.

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation. — Arcane Sandwich


I wanted to know why the OP was saying that the Dao is not Nature. To my mind I did not receive a satisfactory response, so I continued to question what was offered. — Janus

Your response was in the OP itself:

Tao follows what is natural. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)

I've said my piece about that, several times. So, there are only two explanations here: either you still fail to understand that this is the topic that the Thread is investigating in a collaborative manner, or you are simply trolling.

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation. — Janus

You did not argue anything, you simply blurted out an opinion and wrongly assumed what my own thoughts about it are. You offered no argument whatsoever.

The OP took it personally, so I decided to desist. — Janus

The author of the Original Post, as in, myself, did not take anything personally. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

I've no desire to offend anyone, and I always assume that people who post on a philosophy forum are open to having their ideas critique — Janus

Does a soccer player get kicked out of the game for receiving a warning in the form of a yellow card? No, he does not. Have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

until they show that they are not so open after all. — Janus

Again, have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

I have reported your comment, and this is the second warning from me that you're getting. If you keep up your disruptive behavior, the moderation team will have to step in. Drop the attitude or get kicked out of the Thread. Let a thousand flowers bloom and may your head roll if you dare to cut a single one. Plant one, cut one, or simply watch them grow. Your choice.

I question whether Aquinas wrote everything that is attributed to him. It just so processed and empty that to me it seems the Church has hidden the true story behind their creation. — Gregory

Yes, this is possible. I agree. It's also possible that there are manuscripts of Aquinas that were destroyed for being heretical, or that simply got lost for no reason. Perhaps some of his unknown manuscripts exist, but they are not accessible to the general public.

He seems like a very odd person to me. I would think Aristotle for example would consider him odd — Gregory

I agree. I've always had that same feeling about Aquinas myself, he seems like an odd person. But then again, what medieval thinker isn't odd? William of Ockham sounds like a person of common sense, until you begin to read him. Then he seem like an alien. I remember when I had to read his works, when I was a student at the Uni. We saw him in Medieval Philosophy. I remember that reading his words was like reading an alien language or something.

Not exactly because Aquinas has a Biblical idea of a pure *existence* which was uncreated because it was what was, was necessarily there. — Gregory

Interesting.

Aristotle had like sixty something prime movers according to Bertrand Russell, but don't quote me on that. — Gregory

Yes, I've read that somewhere. They are like celestial spheres, made of the fifth element, the Aether. Reality for Aristotle is like a Russian doll in that sense, or a series of Chinese boxes.

Aristotle was more Greek culturally in his philosophy, while St. Thomas was more Latin and Jewish in his understanding. — Gregory

That's a good point, I sometimes think about that, but I also tend to forget this point that you are referring to.

Aquinas is either too personalistic in his conception of God (they say he laid his head against the tabernacle and cried because he wanted to know more of God) or not enough (oddly) — Gregory

Well, Aquinas is the saint of Catholic studies, isn't he? So, I associate him more with the Catholic church than with medieval Latin culture.

At the end it is believed he had a mystical experience — Gregory

Yes, I can believe that. Mysticism is an important part of Christianity, I would say.

Thank you very much for your kind words, friend, and for your helpful contributions to this Thread.

Thank you very much for that useful reference.

I'm looking at these different translations (Thank You Sincerely for taking the time and energy to hunt them down and share them here).

It is like you said: We cannot fully understand the True Tao, only catch glimpses of it, with the help of the many different translations.

And even if we somehow completely sidestep the philosophical and political topic of the Being of Spain, if we talk about Franco, we also have to talk about his circumstances (As Ortega y Gasset famously said: "I am myself and my circumstances."). And those circumstances are none other than the Spanish Civil War. The closest that people from the USA have here, in conceptual terms, is their own Civil war, but these two civil wars occurred in different centuries, so it's not like they can fully understand what's going on in the Spanish case. I don't quite understand it myself, to be honest, since there was no civil war in the 20th century in Argentina. We had a civil war in the 19th century instead, just like the people from the United States of America.

So, you see, Javi, there's things that even I, a Spanish speaker, cannot understand about your country, Spain. And even if we start to speak Spanish now instead of English, the problem persists, because it's not a linguistic problem, it's a conceptual problem. More specifically, it's a philosophical problem.

In that sense, there is no one in Argentine politics that I can compare to Francisco Franco. The closest could be, perhaps, Juan Domingo Perón, but again, they have different circumstances. Franco was in the middle of a civil war, Person wasn't. So, there are important differences there, in terms of their "essences" or whatever word you want to use (note: some philosophers get very angry if you use the word "essence").

However, the problem here is that English-speaking people have no politician of their own that they can compare to Perón. There is no historical figure in US politics that has the characteristics that Perón had. Personally, I think the closest one would be President Dwight D. Eisenhower, because in his last speech, he went publicly against the military-industrial complex (he had done so in private, for many years, but he decided to make it public as well).

I saw the following video on Peronism yesterday, and I think that English speakers will find it useful for this conversation, because they might have an easier time understanding Perón than understanding Franco:



And a song:

I give up—Hispanic matters are not something Anglos seem to care about. They will never make an effort to understand us. I think it would have been more effective to address this topic in your thread about Hispanidad. — javi2541997

They're just struggling to understand what's going on in purely conceptual terms, so I try to point them to a few useful references. But it's not just a problem for anglosaxons or speakers of the English language, it's a problem for non-Spanish (and even Spanish!) people in general.

From the wiki on the Being of Spain:

El ser de España o problema de España es el nombre que suele designar un debate intelectual acerca de la identidad nacional española que surge con el regeneracionismo a finales del siglo XIX, y coincidiendo con la aparición de los nacionalismos periféricos. Confluye con el tópico de las dos Españas, imagen muy descriptiva de la división violenta y el enfrentamiento fratricida como característica de la historia contemporánea de España.

El objeto del debate no fue propiamente político o jurídico-constitucional —la definición de España como nación en sentido jurídico, tema que fue debatido en el proceso constituyente de 1978, donde se enfrentaron posturas de negación, matización y afirmación de la Nación española—; ni tampoco propiamente historiográfico —estudiar la construcción de la identidad nacional española, que se hizo históricamente como consecuencia de la prolongada existencia en el tiempo de las instituciones del Antiguo Régimen y, a veces, a pesar de ellas—. Lo que aquellos pensadores pretendían era dilucidar la preexistencia de un carácter nacional o ser de España, es decir: cuáles son «las esencias» de «lo español», y sobre todo, por qué es algo problemático en sí mismo o no lo es, frente al aparente mayor consenso nacional de otras naciones «más exitosas» en su definición, como la francesa o la alemana, planteando la posibilidad de que España sea o no una excepción histórica. Todo lo cual dio origen a un famoso debate ensayístico, literario e historiográfico que se prolongó por décadas y no ha terminado en la actualidad, con planteamientos y puntos de vista muy diferentes.

En muchas ocasiones, el propio debate ha sido objeto de crítica en sí mismo. Por un lado, por lo que supone de introspección negativa y, por otro, por la previa condición de buscar un esencialismo, es decir, una perspectiva filosófica en cuanto es una reflexión sobre la esencia, cuando lo propio de una perspectiva histórica sería el cambio en el tiempo, pues las naciones no son entes inmutables, sino construcciones de los humanos a lo largo del tiempo, incluso restringidas a la historia más contemporánea en lo que respecta a los modernos conceptos de nación y nacionalismo. — Wikipedia

Using Google Translate:

The being of Spain or the problem of Spain is the name that usually designates​ an intellectual debate about Spanish national identity that arises with regenerationism at the end of the 19th century, and coinciding with the appearance of peripheral nationalisms. It converges with the topic of the two Spains, a very descriptive image of the violent division and fratricidal confrontation as a characteristic of the contemporary history of Spain.

The object of the debate was not strictly political or legal-constitutional—the definition of Spain as a nation in the legal sense, an issue that was debated in the constituent process of 1978, where positions of denial, qualification and affirmation of the Spanish Nation were confronted—; nor properly historiographical—studying the construction of the Spanish national identity, which was made historically as a consequence of the prolonged existence over time of the institutions of the Old Regime and, sometimes, despite them. What those thinkers intended was to elucidate the pre-existence of a national character or being of Spain, that is to say: what are "the essences" of "what is Spanish", and above all, why it is something problematic in itself or not, in the face of the apparent greater national consensus of other "more successful" nations in its definition, such as the French or the German, raising the possibility that Spain may or may not be a historical exception. All of which gave rise to a famous essayistic, literary and historiographic debate that lasted for decades and has not ended today, with very different approaches and points of view.

On many occasions, the debate itself has been the subject of criticism in itself. On the one hand, because of what it implies of negative introspection and, on the other, because of the prior condition of seeking an essentialism, that is, a philosophical perspective insofar as it is a reflection on the essence, when what is typical of a historical perspective would be change. in time, since nations are not immutable entities, but constructions of humans over time, even restricted to the most contemporary history with regard to modern concepts of nation and nationalism. — Wikipedia (translated with Google Translate)

EDIT: I added some more text to the quotes.

Also, I guess you thought in bulls when Spain crossed to your mind, but I could be misunderstood! — javi2541997

Actually no, I did not think of bulls, lol. I suppose that my "unconscious" betrayed me there, as a psychoanalyst would say. Luckily I don't believe in pseudoscience, so there's nothing to worry about there.

Don't worry, I didn't expect positive comments towards my country when I started this thread, but I thought it was worth starting it anyway.

My point was to see if you had negative prejudices towards my country. Sadly, I was right about what I thought. I asked if modern Spain could be considered a democracy, and you didn't address that question but only posted bad and stereotypical comments. — javi2541997

Javi, you have to understand that España is an already complicated concept even for speakers of the Spanish language such as myself. Contrary to what happens when one studies other topics, the concept of Spain gets even more complicated when one begins to study the history of your country. Like, just think about the "Spanishness Day" (Día de la Hispanidad) that we were talking about the other day. Imagine if in the United States and in Australia, people celebrated "Englishness Day" (Día de la Anglicidad). For the vast majority of them, it makes no sense to them as a concept. In fact, it makes even less sense for people from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Try going to a pub in Dublin and telling people that everyone should celebrate the "Englishness Day". You're going to get beat up, it is what it is. But with "Spanishness" (Hispanidad) it's different, because Spanishness is a cohesive element in the Spanish country. What elements need to be cohesive, under that concept? Provincial identities, that's what: the Castilians, the Aragonese, the Catalans, the Andalucíans, the Basques, etc., all of these are like mini-countries inside a larger country. They're not separate islands, like in the British Isles, they're instead provinces right next to each other, forming a single, large territory called "España" (from the old Hispania of Roman times). And we haven't even got to the part about Christianity and Catholicism yet. Or the part about what the Spanish language is capable of, for example in the immortal works of Cervantes, Jovellanos, Unamuno and Ortega y Gasset, just to name a few. We haven't even gotten to the topic of Isabel la Católica, or Fernando VII, or la Orden de Carlos III. We haven't even gotten to the topic of Visigoths vs Moors, or the Civil War between "Las Dos Españas". And you want to jump straight to Franco and how Spain is doing today in relation to the European Union, lol. Like, no one will understand what you're really trying to talk about here, Javi. I can follow you up to a certain point, as a friend, but this topic (the concept of Spain, and how well it's doing in reality) is extremely complicated for everyone, and that includes yourself, as you already know.

EDIT: A good place to start for non-Spanish people is the Ser de España wiki.

I had a seizure on Boxing day and have been in hospital for tests and scans and then on anti fitting drugs and painkillers for a severe backache. — unenlightened

Sorry to hear that, I hope you are doing better now!

Would you say that human awareness is a thing-in-itself? — unenlightened

No, I would not. I would say that it is indeed in-itself, but it is not a thing, it is not a res. Awareness is a process, just like any other mental process. It is noumenical (a process-in-itself), without being a noumenon (a thing-in-itself).

Does that make sense?

Some really cool thoughts there!

Another thing to consider is that every alignment is connected to an Afterlife plane. For example, after death, Lawful Good characters go to Mount Celestia ("Heaven"), while Lawful Evil characters go to Baator ("Hell"). Chaotic Good characters go to Arborea ("Valhalla"), while Chaotic Evil characters go to The Abyss (it has no equivalent in any real-world religion), etc.

:up:

↪Arcane Sandwich

Whatever the nature of God/Jesus is it cannot change. — MoK

Does the following explanation involve a change in God/Jesus' nature, yes or no?

Jesus has both natures: an ordinary, human nature, and an extra-ordinary nature, a divine nature. When Jesus undergoes kenosis (an extra-ordinary process) at crucifixion, he renounces his divine nature, and retains only his human nature. — Arcane Sandwich

@Amity @T Clark :up: