How sweet, the sound of tears falling!

Methinks another 'just' moderation is upon the horizon.

:rofl:

M

One has no problem with the Devil and his boils.

As far as I am aware he has no offspring himself, and may well be impotent? (It may be the source of all his anger and all of the evil in this world?)

Be it impotence or impudence, his friends and peers might offer some counsel. There are ways and means that either pathology can be effectively managed.

As Zizek often states: 'one must not try to defeat the devil, but have him do ones bidding.'

He is the dog of dogs, but can be useful nonetheless.

M

I've been found out :yikes: — StreetlightX

Have no fear (said the cat)

We can make love.

But only through the medium of Philosophy and without the coitus interruptio of your zealous moderation.

Relax, and try to enjoy it!

I promise to be more gentle.

M

That would be me. Have I missed something? — unenlightened

Yes.

Streetlight has a particularly keen interest in my moderation (I suspect he fancies me)

M

Definition
Religion = Magic

Magic is not reasonable
All philosophy has a reasonable basis

Religion is not Philosophical.

M

I have a standing issue with anyone who believes that my theism is in conflict with truth or reason — Rank Amateur

Theism is predicated upon a belief in magic.
Belief in magic is in conflict with reason.

That which is not reasonable cannot hope to be philosophical.

How do you reconcile?

M

let me paraphrase your words and ask if you agree?

" other than it is not a matter of fact that "[the Tooth fairy]" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "[The Tooth Fairy is]" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "The Tooth Fairy is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not."

Now if we are to assume that both God and the Tooth Fairy are equally dependent upon a magic of sorts, why should God have more of a right to Philosophy than the Tooth-Fairy?

M

All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic.

One can indeed have a 'Philosophy of Magic', this would entail a formal philosophical dialogue or treatise upon the effective means of producing and differentiating good magic and 'bad' magic, the ethics of Magic, when it should be used how it should be used and whom it should be used to entertain etc.

This would be a reasonable account of a 'Philosophy of Magic', and it would necessarily take as its basic premise the notion that the Magic itself is not real magic, (there is no such thing as magic) but is an art or an entertainment. From this real and pragmatic basis there can and does extend a valid 'Philosophy of Magic', much in the same sense that there can and is, a certain formal 'Philosophy of Plumbing', or Farming etc

'Magical Philosophy' (religion) on the other hand is an entirely different affair, although it likes to dress in the attire of Philosophy, it is NOT Philosophy it is a belief system that fundamentally allows for and insists upon the contravention of reason logic and science. It represents the contamination of Philosophy and the subjugation of reason.

It cannot lay a claim upon Philosophy because it forms its ideals upon the notion that the Magic is REAL, that logic, science and deductive reasoning can be dispensed with at the whim of the Magical Philosopher, and sense-data or reality can be explained by his own brand of Magic.

Magical Philosophy may give comfort to the weak minded and those who fear reality, but neither does this grand utility lend it any Philosophical credibility.

Why does the Philosopher still tremble and cower at the empty prognostications of the charlatan?

Philosophy has no need of God, yet God cannot exist without Philosophy. Even the God-thing is the vassal and the subject of its own Philosophy. Let the God-thing kneel and give praise to its Master.
Let Him kneel and kiss the ring of Zod. Should He refuse, then likewise, let Him be dammed to hell, just like all the non-believers and the un-baptised are dammed in accordance with the dictates of the magicians.

https://youtu.be/jUORL-bvwA0

M

It does give one.. 'the one who is'

and surely that must be a consummate delight, one that Old Philosophy tends to remove rather than sustain.

M

Agree entirely.

There is no better place than the Bible to quarry for the 'sweet delight' of 'the one who is'.

M

The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd." — Blue Lux

Is this a rather prosaic way of re-stating the old adage that: 'ignorance is bliss!"

M

I attempted to post an alternative view of the Trump phenomena some time ago and it was censored. Fortunately this OP is from 'Teachers Pet' and is less likely to be quashed. But we shall see :smile:

It is very unlikely that Trump will be reelected, as his presidency has highlighted to the majority of sensible Americans (they are in the majority) the sinister evils that can arise when one becomes complacent about ones democracy.

Personally I think that American Democracy is one of the most beautiful political systems on the earth, like communism it was designed by intellectuals and philosophers, however it is applied to a mass of people who are incapable of living up to and enjoying its great ideals, and it has lost or jetisoned the essential guidance that was afforded by Thoreau (and Emerson to a lesser extent) She has been left to flounder and her God has been confined to a belief and a trust in the Almighty Dollar.

Like Communism the ideal is beautiful but in practice, in its application to the herd, it represents an epic failure. However, it (democracy) is distinct from Communism in that it contains a greater potential for evolution and adaptation to approaching external realities, and a greater potential to transform resource into power. Therefore in essence, the 'beauty' of the Trump Phenomenon, lies only in a potential and essential evolution for Democracy itself.

There is an interesting scene in Game of Thrones where Queen Sersie is compelled by the ruling religious elite to undergo a walk of shame, naked through the streets of her capital city where her subjects can pelt her with consumptive spits and muck.

That is what Trump is for American Democracy... the veritable walk of shame for Democracy. Never in the history of the US has the presidency and Democracy been so degraded as it is at present. Europe and the Scandinavians in particular, presently lead the way in respect of evolved democracy.

However much is accomplished by America in this low state. 'She stoops to conquer'. When the Presidency is so demeaned and degraded, a dialogue of equality is possible with other political reprobates like Kim and Putin, these angry wolves will only listen to another wolf. With the exception of Syria and Palestine Trump's presidency has ushered in an era of great potential instability, but it is also one of relatively great international peace. The world does not fear America, but presently is laughing at her. The absence of fear and fear-respect for US power, has effectively deflated the notion that America should be taken seriously, internationally she is respected on an entirely different level one that is not without benefit for all humanity.

M

Interesting view. You're concerned with salvation. — frank

Not particularly, but for the present exercise I suspect that your own may be at risk, and I am at your disposal should you wish to avoid the general conclusions on the matter.

M

No. Read Genesis with bit of care. — tim wood

No thanks, in my estimation a lot of problems have arisen when too much care is applied to the reading of Genesis and the other fictions therein.

M

Imagine that you're a resident of a subsistence economy that's closed off from the rest of the world. You tend a pumpkin patch for about 30 minutes a day. You fish. You patch the hut. You play with the kids. Time goes by. Nothing changes. Then one day a terrible storm blows away the hut and kills the medicine man. You wish you'd learned which plants to pick for nausea before he died.

This is the character of a world without any form of trade: it sinks into itself. It becomes blind to itself for lack of any vantage point. It's prone to retrogression.

I disagree. This is not the character of a world without trade, it is the character of a world without any character.

'You tend a pumpkin patch.' The human intellect is not a static phenomena, there is no going back to the stone age, even those who might appear to return to the stone age must still wash their hands after they defecate. All societies, throughout human history have ultimately collapsed at the face of unforeseen catastrophe. All societies have firmly believed that their faith in God, their evolving intellect and their Science/military would protect them from catastrophe. All without exception were wrong.

In recent times, almost all societies have morphed, and via technology and the universalism of consumption patterns have become essentially one large interconnected society, that in general terms defines itself upon material wealth and the personal and public 'power' that is derived from the consumptive act.

This overreaching 'general consumptive society' might be characterized by the individual member;s preference for a 'dollar', above the individual preference for an 'apple'. The value system of the general society of man, is increasingly defined by the value assigned to the dollar, as opposed to the inherent value within the apple. Man's reference and respect for the natural world without has gradually been transformed into a reverence for himself and it is for this reason that he chooses the dollar, as the contains the subliminal power of self-worship.

The desire for the dollar, is the motive force behind the move towards the impending catastrophe that awaits the 'general society of man'. There are two principle ingredients to the inevitability of this catastrophe.

In the first, the catastrophe is merely upon the horizon, it is not experienced by the general mass in the here and now. Trump for example can assert with confidence that there is no such thing as Global Warming and indeed there are many who believe him. Those who do not believe him, can enjoy the luxury of stating that they do not believe him, but can equally deny or evade the reality of climate change by engaging in the deluded consumptive models that the merchant has presented as the means to address the catastrophe; buying electric cars, green energy, recycling etc etc.

The merchant, in seeing only the dollar, has presented the herd with a potential salvation through the only means at his disposal, through the consumptive act itself. The deluded 'cure' of the disease through the application of more of the disease itself. Within this 'trade based' scenario, everybody is a winner in the short term. Even the loosing aspects of the transaction vis the continued move towards the catastrophe can be used as a call for increased trade in the 'new consumptions'. When the solutions fail we are encouraged to spend more, spend differently and ultimately to fail better.


The second and less considered reason that catastrophe is to be the final gift of the merchant, is the reality that the general perception is not one that is dictated to nor guided by reason, it is guided by the mass psychogenic belief system of the herd. This century has witnessed the explosion of social and psychological programminig upon a massive scale global scale. Thought, morality and the world of ideas has been contracted into a simple relatively predictable computer model one that is defined by social media and is relatively simple in its intellectual outlook and capacity. It might well be simply referred to as the collective mentality of the herd. It is no less homogenised than that which was homogenised at the rallies of Nurembourg.

Your piece contains two examples of this simplistic velief system that perpetuates the status quo.

Your suggestion that those who might call for a simpler moreself sustaining life with an increase in self sufficiency and a decrease upon technological dependence are trying to go back to the stone age, is a common criticism, yet few if any who attempt such non comsumptive simplicity would agree that they are trying to return to the stone age, but on the contrary are attempting to evolve out of the current era of petrified stone age thinking. In referring to this evolved form of thought in the derogatory you display your own unwitting participation in the current delusion that technology and green energies etc will save us.

You refer to the engagement with nature, vis the tending of a pumpkin patch with the same derogation, and in doing so illustrate the worship of the dollar before the enjoyment of nature.

Both these aspects of your thought are biased and ultimately socially programmed.

If you were given the task of constructing a model for individual happiness and ecological sustainability, and an end to the greater portion of human suffering.... such a model would include the 'pumpkin patch' and the 'stone age', but not in the manner that you choose to conceive these concepts.

You are quite right in the assertion that the merchant provides us with an impartial glimpse at the reality of ourselves, he certainly does. But he does so in a manner that merely impartially feeds primitive desires and stone age thinking.

Human salvation can only be derived from freedom. Not the freedom to consume what we want but freedom from the consumptive act itself, only then can man discover his potential once again, save himself from himself and derive value and meaning from his existence within nature.

M

"Trade is one avenue to a vantage point on ourselves. It lifts us out of the mundane."

This is an interesting and profound assertion. How does it lift us out and what is mundane?

If there is a pragmatism or practicality to religion, morals or ethics, perhaps the greatest or purest local or personal immorality is in essence the consumptive act or trade. If economics is the basis of political systems, borders, deprivation, eclogical destruction etc, this elevation out of the mundane has deeper import, in that our belief's in respect of that which is mundane may well be socially programmed in order to facilitate trade.

There does appear to be an anti-trade anti-consumption or minimalist philosophy that is gaing ground and may represent the grren shoots of an entirely alternate view on that which is mundane. Self sufficiency and the necessity for trade and consumption in general are evolving concepts that may shape the future in a more substantive form than technology

M

Are'nt we all the incestuous sons and daughters of Adam and eve?

M

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, and depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it avoids the necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular.

M

"Would you happen to be related to the Marquis de Sade?"

Yours is an interesting post, for the brevity of the reply contains a potential profundity, regardless of whether or not it is tongue in cheek.

The Marquis de Sade, was a sensualist pleasure seeker who was cruel and evil. I am indeed a selfish sensualist, but am neither cruel no evil (at least not to the extent) of the Marquis.

The comparison suggests that pleasure and sensuality, contain an immorality. They do not. They are vague terms that are subjectively defined or given meaning by the intellect. If and when they are poorly defined, this is a reflection of a poorly used intellect.

Given the intellectual distance between your proffered comparison between my reply, and the Marquis, you have displayed a greater affinity with the Marquis, in the distance you maintain, from an intellectual comprehension of the true meaning of my words.

If you make the comparison, despite an understanding of my words then you are engaging not only in the ignorance of the Marquis but are participating in His particular brand of immorality.

Now I do accept that the comparison may well be tongue in cheek, and I am in no way perturbed by the comparison, however I do think it illustrates how ostensible morality, very often has an entirely contrary basis.

M

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it even avoids the immoral necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular.

Beliefs are for the greater part socially programmed. Human beings think act and live in accordance with the instinctual imperative 'to belong'. The intellectual paradigm, shifts in a general sense when pre-existing alternate thinkiing (thought or ideas that are valid but not generally accepted) begins to gain a momentum as such, and begins to ursurp the thought that is general or current or mainstream.

Enlightenment in its purest form refers to the invididual capacity to initiate and to think thoughts that are independent of the herd. Those who think independently posses the capacity for enlightened thought.

Should they persist with their independent thought, should they present it and promote it, and should it begin to take hold within the psyche of others, an Enlightenment of sorts has been potentiated. Should that thought ursurp the general, and become the new paradigm, the period of time this process occurs within, is referred to as The Enlightenment.

The next general Enlightenment (in my own estimation) will occur when the general concept of 'wealth' evolves from the material to the transcendental.

Schopenhauer presents the definitive logic on the subject of the impossibility of a freedom of the will.
I have read nothing to date that undermines his position. Debate upon the subject merely illustrates a lack of understanding or familiarity with Schopenhauer.

Unfortunately for Philosophy it is often the vehicle used express and protect preconception, rather than the means to arrive at the truth of conception.

Philosophy is a whore and will sleep with anyone.
M

Thanks for the book reference I have not read it but will order a copy. I wonder if some of the yawning gaps might be closed were Philosophy to supply a sound answer/theory to the relation between consciousness and the presumed temporal dimension?

I agree that 'scientific realism' or even pure 'realism' does contain an arrogance of sorts. Although sometimes arrogance can be justified..., depending upon the nature of the source.

M

The 'actual' and the 'infinite' would appear to be infinitely incompatible.

M

That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around. — Ötzi

That is not what I wrote. Not "everything" but rather the "temporal dimension" of everything.

I too agree that there is some truth to the 'other way round', but this other way round, although it is the 'common' view, does not appear to be sufficient to substantiate a definitive cosmological or QM model, and is contradicted specifically by observation in respect of the double slit experiment, entanglement, quantum 'tunneling', etc and the 'observer effect' itself.

M

Higher dimensional perception is much more difficult. Accurate time perception can only be approximated by using predetermined units of measurement (like my one-eyed depth-perception analogy). Anything of higher dimensions can only be conceptually understood by using mathematics. — Ötzi

Higher dimensional perception might not be as difficult as you suggest. If the process of thought upon one's thought (meta-thought) is considered, then all or most humans engage in higher dimensional thought, readily and quite easily?

What then if the temporal dimension itself is not perceived as an external apriori, but rather is the product of the function perception?

M

There is therefore in this common view a distinction between the first order of perception "with our eyes" and the second order of 'perceived dimensions'.

How does the common view reconcile the first and second order of this relationship?

M

I used the concept of space-time continuum here, as it is commonly used — Ötzi

Might you be in a position to outline the 'common' view of the space-time continuum?

M

That is an interesting perspective, however like many others upon the subject it is contingent upon an apriori concept of that which you refer to as the "space-time continuum"

Would you care to expand upon what you mean by this rather general assumption of space or time and a continuity that unites them? Once this is clearly illustrated, your analogy with the circle may become more definitive.

M

Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank

This appears to be empirically correct, but is this not simply stating that reality is something of a delusion, if experienced reality is at odds with the fundamental truth of that reality?

If as you say "soft determinism is the appearance of reality", this too cannot be dismissed tritely, as appearance is (after all) the fundamental basis or function of experience.

I suspect that you are right, and that hard or super-determinism as alluded to by Bell, is the fundamental reality. However, I suspect that within the functionality of 'appearance', there are indeed elements of absolute or near absolute freedom. 'Feelings' for example, do not necessarily invariably correlate with behavior, or the evolution of our material forms. We continue to do and say bad things despite the 'feeling' that they are bad. Certain feelings do not moderate material or mechanistic behavior and as such, aspects of our emotional life (whatever that is) may well be entirely free, despite the determined nature of the material function of ones life.

What are your thoughts on the function of "appearance" in the context of your use of the term with reference to soft-determinism?

M

Thank you wayfarer for a very interesting and detailed reply.

I suspect that you are right here, in the sense that sub-atomic particles behave in a manner that is outside of our classical understanding of time and space, and as such the question of determinism hard or soft? is perhaps antiquated by recent observations in QM.

However, whilst QM and uncertainty have indeed apparently undermined the possibility of arriving at an answer in respect of determinism, QM's own conclusive failures, or 'failures in conclusion' appear to arise from its inability to reconcile itself with Philosophy. Not that there is no attempt to do so, there certainly is, and this is perhaps nowhere more evident in the essential and contemporary consideration of the 'Philosophy of Time'.

In my own estimation, definitive movement in QM Theory is entirely contingent upon the emergence of a reconciliation between QM and the Philosophy of Time. Quantum Physicists are certainly working on this, however they are limited in the endeavor by the reality that Philosophy and QM are generally considered as separate disciplines; Philosophers have a limited understanding of QM, and vice versa.

All discoveries in science ultimately create an unGodly mess; one that an old and arthritic Philosophy is invariably called upon to clean up.

If perhaps Bohr and Einstein had the benefit of Schopenhauer and Kant moderating the argument, we and QM might be a little closer to the truth of things as such.

From my own understanding it seems that QM has been brought to a relative stand still by the question as to whether that which Einstein refers to as 'spooky action at a distance' can or cannot be explained by 'local variables'.

Bell has formulated this question into something of a theorem or hypothesis which attempts to answer the question, but as yet, this not been thoroughly or conclusively resolved.

Bell does however suggest that his theorem can be resolved or avoided, and the question can be definitively answered if the Universe is not only determined but Super-determined.

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will"

John Bell 1980 (BBC interview)


The indeterminate nature of quantum particles and Uncertainty itself , are both (it seems) contingent upon (or perhaps contaminated by) the imposition of an apriori temporal philosophy. The impossibility of determining momentum and position at a particular point IN time, may merely suggest that events do not occur within Time, as time is presently considered. Events or qualia may not occur within time but might well be the cause of time. Equally determinism per se, is itself contingent upon temporal Philosophy.

Perhaps both QM and Determinism lead us back to the primary rule of philosophical engagement, in that 'terms' must be defined before they can be debated. Therefore, perhaps we need to consider what is the nature of time? And how can time itself be reconciled with determinism before determinism can offer QM the opportunity for a quantum leap of sorts.

In my estimation QM and Philosophy are presently at the same impasse. Neither can proceed without an appropriate Philosophy of Time and this may lie at the very heart of the questions pertaining to the truth, falsity or function of a Determined Universe.

Because the so-called 'sub-atomic constituents' of matter are themselves indeterminate in nature.

Could you expand on this? How are sub-atomic particles indeterminate?

M

They may have a lot to say about it, however the more they say might well corelate with their respective lack of knowledge of Thoreau, who effectively dissolves the practical and ideological distinction(s) between left and right.

The question of economic growth is posed and answered by Thoreau in Walden Pond. Without an appropriate Philosophy of public and private wealth, the debate on economic policy is an exercise in futility.

The failure of an integration between philosophy and social policy presents us with the dire consequence outlined in the op.

The absentee in western Democratic policy, is Philosophy, this is most typified in the current US presidency.

Does Christianity limit God?

God is the unfortunate limitation to Christianity. Spinoza attempted the inverse in a Jewish context and encountered the usual consequence.

M

Some of the greatest and most beautiful people who have ever lived, have never lived.
The Book is dead. Long live the Book!
M

The book, in my estimation represents a private relationship with knowledge. To engage in a private relationship one must have something that approximates to a private self. The decline of the book as such is a consequence of the decline in the relative significance of the relationship with the self, the private cultivation of the intellect for the benefit of the self alone. Increasingly human beings are public entities, with public lives external to the self. Wealth and increased access to wealth has empowered people and power is expressed or expired in the public domain. Private wealth and poverty in the real sense, have little to do with material wealth. To read is to see and embrace the private poverty of one's intellect.

"Science and superstition; they're not the same"

Science is the transient superstition of the atheist
Superstition is the transient science of the theist

They have the same propensity for change in time, and originate from the same 'thing'.

If you doubt this, consider the history of science, and equally, consider the history of Superstition?

I remain surprised at the reluctance to consider the cause, and the general obsession to reiterate the effect.

M

Apologies Boss,

I'm a bit of a slob!
:yum:

M

"ok here's a fundamental definition for you---- An atheist can be defined as a person who predicates his/her beliefs of the creation of the universe onto scientific theory, and probability. A theist, is someone who predicates it unto an external influence that is impossible to prove or disprove, and is derived off of ancient explanations of how the universe works. "

Your counter argument contains some of the point that is being made.

" ok here's a fundamental definition for you---- An atheist can be defined as a person who predicates his/her beliefs of the creation of the universe onto scientific theory, and probability."


As you state the atheist is "predicating" his beliefs onto whatever
The theist "predicates it" onto something else.

What we are attempting to determine is not the 'belief' (these are both pedestrian and ephemeral) but rather the nature of the predicate, behind the two; as "it" is likely to be the same in both cases.

We must then ask; how and why has the same predicate produced or described two opposing subjects?

This is the point at which (I believe) the puppeteers leave the stage, and 'Philosophy' 'breaks a leg'.

M

You have literally formed your whole premise off of the fact that there are no true atheists, as every atheist has a belief, which by definition, makes them a theist. This is too broadened of a definition of the word theist. — SicklerTroy

One is not broadening the theistic definition (it already reaches out imploringly, towards a ridiculously impossible vista of magic and heavens etc).

We are (some of us at least) trying to get behind the definition to its fundamental basis and atheistic origin or foundation.

M