This thread has become quite the post-dispensing mechanism. Quite intelligently designed by Mr. Colin, I must admit. Clearly Colin is a secret guru for philosophy forum orgies, so let's get even wilder, my merry friends! Wosret, give us your blessing, Lord Jester Forum Bro O:)

;)

Why're you trying to argue with Sapi "Wisdom" Entia? You'll always lose, friend :s

If God can be experienced, isn't God empirical by definition? — Sapientia

I don't think more philosophical Christians would say that you can directly experience God. They would hold, rather, that in so far as our own imperfect beings are, we can, therefore, and only in part, relate ourselves to God, who is being itself. I suppose to put that a more mundane way, consider someone who has perfect vision, and another who does not. Would the latter ever say that they've experienced the same sight as the former? No, but they do both see, thus they share a similar relationship of understanding, just not perfectly. That said, not all Christians would affiliate with that sort of dichotomy, however intelligible "being in itself" may or may not be, but I suppose you have to clarify which sort of Christian you're speaking to. Conceptions of God range widely among Christians, this I'm sure you know.

I must admit that the OP does not strike me as one who is wrestling with the quite poetic and nuanced scholastic understanding of the Christian God. This is why many here find him to be either a troll or simply, and somehow, both aloof and mean-spirited. Protestants can be the haughtiest of Christians, at times.

ignore questions — Brainglitch

That sounds like a brain glitch for a supposed "master philosopher" ;)

I find it best to label myself an Ignostic, for mere agnosticism or atheism doesn't quite encompass all of my leanings. Have you considered this position?

s. The Appalachian Mountains were once as rugged as the Rockies. — Bitter Crank

Still are rugged.

most of them are good. — Bitter Crank

For you they might have been.

Your response here has me slightly peeved, I must admit. You've cleverly set up the onus to be on me for having to rehash and redress what I've already said, but I'm not going to do that. If you think I'm wrong, then give me more than an essential, "no". I've given you and Colin the time of day so far, now it's your turn to care enough to prove me wrong. If you can't do that, then I shall toodles and away.

If someone told me, "Hey dude, Maestro Poptart, I experienced the jamming of a gnarled, rusty pipe up my ass the other day, and let me tell you, it felt great! If you haven't tried it, you just won't understand how right I am about it feeling marvelous, haha!" would I laugh as well, going off then to thrust a 2x4 up my butt? Should I trust mere feelings without thought and reasoning to be vehicles for the truth? No, I'mma actually go off and see whether I want to do what that someone says I really, really should. If I decide not to, that's great. But if I do, who cares. That guy's not right simply because he felt something to be good. It never follows that from what another feels to be right, I'm therefore wrong if I do not feel what they do.

Indeed I have. He writes,

"They simply know what feels good and keep at it. They can see it without figuring it out. They know what's right without having to spend much time or effort justifying it. And really, it is so simple."

If this sentiment strikes you as evidence for a man that has suffered, and still suffers, after the truth, I must assume you to be as intellectually vapid as he is. He has just embraced those who " just know" what's "right" simply because something "feels good" and so this therefore excludes he and them from "having to spend much time justifying."

But saying, "I know what that was" is precisely what Colin has said, which is why I find his opining frivolous and entirely boring.

He experienced something, and therefore holds to be true whatever he now does. This is simplicity almost by definition. What struggle was there? If truth ceases to concern you, or challenge you, or demands you to rethink upon what you do think to be true, then truth is a liar.

It would seem that your experience(s) is more an immense feeling rather than an intellectual enlightenment.

Truth is best wrestled with, not embraced. The coming upon what may be right should bring about a journey, a journey of exhaustively flagellating and fighting with a profoundly unsettling idea that could, in time, deeply shape the living of one's future life. In contrast, it would seem that you, Colin, have come upon something very easy, something distinctly simple. And this is why your testimony leaves me slightly off put, for even if I believed in a God, such belief would never leave me assured or content. As I sit here, if I dedicate enough time to it I will be reminded of my sin, and will invariably be distressed and disgusted by it. Such a feeling brings me to humble thoughts, however, not to thoughts of pride, as though I am not a sinful wretch like any other, that I've what others do not.

Its just, some of us have learned to know better, while others are still searching. And I guess that's all there is to it. — colin

Indeed. I suggest you move your searching for humility from this forum to another, so that you might then find more members keen enough to massage your current ego. I myself will remain here, assured only in the fact that I will never be of such a wisdom to suggest that I know better.

Tell me you're right and I'll tell you you're wrong. Tell me you're wrong, and I'll tell you you're right.

Just as a notice to you all, I've played The Witcher 3 (TW3) for about 100 hours, so take that admission however you like, :-*

1.) Am I making a mistake by purchasing a form of media that objectifies women? — darthbarracuda

This particular question appears to stem from some worry that you're partaking in something you're not necessarily wanting to. In principle, are you getting on the media's hype train about the bad, bad, bad objectification of women in video games simply by playing said video games? I wouldn't say so, just as I wouldn't see you as indulging in some sick, perverted indulgence by viewing a Baroque painting that objectifies the sensual, heavenly motifs of a noblewoman emulating Venus or Mary. Yes, she's nearly nude, is of luminescent skin, is matronly yet not obese, but that's okay. Objectification need not always be negative. Sometimes the norm is beautiful, in at least some sense. That is, the suggestion of someone being in part an object quite distinctly relates to what is whole and unshakable in that person, such as their character. And I don't find that as bad. Although, perhaps I'm just not wanting to fully commit to modern feminists' definitions of objectification and what that word entails.

2.) Should the objectification of women be outlawed?

Should the objectification of men be outlawed as well? TW3, more than in any other serious RPG that I've played, objectifies men more than women. The amount of aloof and downright morally bankrupt men in TW3 far exceeds women of equal measure, at least in my play-through. I'm reminded of the village guards (always male) farting and making silly noises, laughing as though pigs, often sleeping lazily on the job, and generally not being very intelligent or upstanding. Now, I suppose some modern feminists would interject and say, "all men are like this, so CDPR is just presenting the facts!" but if that's the case, then you can see the hypocrisy from a mile out. If women are presented as 'peasantly' as their husbands and brothers, there can only be seen a kind of equality in that. And so, the reality is that these "feminists" really only want men to always be categorized as brutish and obtuse, and for women not to be.

3.) Is this objectification the result of the oft-quoted "Patriarchy"?

Well, considering again the game that underpins your questioning, the fact that I can let an objectively manly woman rule Skellige, let Ciri rule damn-near half the world as an Empress, let the various female witches and mages control philosophy and the sciences, let a woman (like Yen) dictate my own life after the conclusion of the story (me being Geralt, of course), strikes me as a game presenting a world anything but ruled by some ingrained "patriarchy" when indeed a matriarchy is more likely in most situations.

4.) Are women alright with this objectification, and does this have any importance to the debate?

Seeing as I am so clearly a privileged white male living in secular America, I certainly wouldn't dare speak on behalf of women here, as you also wisely admit :P

Plus, Momma Moliere might hit me with a book, which would be a bad introducing of myself O:)

~

I'll add, though, that I find TW3 to be both the best game I've ever played, but also one of the best stories I've had the privilege of living. I was really blown away when after the game came out that there were people who not only mildly disliked the game, but were vehemently upset about the contents of so well-crafted a work of art, really.

I also think that a few people forget that you can essentially do what you want in the game. My play-through of TW3 was one where I consciously went about my play with celibacy in mind, respect for everyone that deserved such respect, only doing this or that when I needed to - I didn't have to screw everything in sight. That you can, though, creates a more real and believable world, because like our own, a great many people do play themselves in this reality like a vindictive, selfish Geralt. That CDPR gives us the option, the choice, with whether or not we want to be "non-patriarchal" or "objectifying" should be reason enough for widespread praise, not condemnation, from certain people. That I can live Geralt's life just as I try and live my own is a special thing, especially in a video game. This relation connects to other forms of art as well, where I often very much "favorite" a certain character in a book, or even in a painting, for their similarity with myself. So, yes, there may be a great many genuinely misogynistic players that go about their time in TW3 just as they would in their own lives, but there are those like me who, on the other hand, do the same in a more respectful and loving way, too.

I wonder what Lemaître would think of Krauss.

Maybe you bullied him into saying it's the truth, :-O

This work explores, and expands Aristotelian concepts such as matter, form, potential, actual, the four types of causation. Without a prior understanding of how Aristotle developed these concepts himself, the work would prove to be a very difficult read.

Which makes theology all the more confusing, but sometimes it can be fun! O:)

It's a real shame to see deep conceptual structures completely ruined, laid to waste, simply through misuse of words. Words of philosophical significance enter the mainstream, and pick up common meaning. Then the philosophical concepts which these words originally signified are completely hidden, lost behind those who use the words in the haphazard way. The ruin is caused by those who are insisting that the words have no meaning deeper than the common meaning, and are not tied to any deeper, foundational conceptual structures. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your username makes me think you're some philosophers' hitman, ready to deal a long and excruciatingly complex mental death to any who dare not love the ways of truth >:)

Really? You understand me well enough to engage in a relatively lucid (if somewhat acrimonious) exchange on this forum. Which post(s) of mine did you find difficult to understand (I think I actually speak with an absolute minimum of philosophical jargon or name-dropping, so your claim is quite perplexing to me)... — Arkady

I meant that you don't understand some of the things we've discussed, less that you yourself are not understandable. You write quiet well, better than I, certainly.

More non-sequiturs. I haven't "attempted to rub my boot in the face of all theology." Have I denigrated, for instance, Augustine or Aquinas (yes, I know they were theologically-inclined philosophers rather than pure theologians). I've explicitly praised philosophers of religion such as Plantinga and Swinburne for at least being clear in their writing, and for offering actual arguments. — Arkady

And, I know this conversation isn't just about one thing, but it you could explain "ground of all being" for me, please do so. (I haven't asked you to read a book for me, but as you're apparently so well-read, please share your wealth of knowledge.) — Arkady

Where did I say that? I said I haven't read "Sophisticated Theologians," who I'd define as a particular strand of early-modern, modern, or post-modern blowhards who espouse obscurantist verbiage (sometimes imported from Heidegger or elsewhere) in lieu of actual argumentation.

Well, if you'd have read someone like Augustine or Aquinas, a phrase like "ground of all being" is pretty understandable. :|

Edit: I forgot to answer, haha. Being in itself. If you want me to explain that, then fuck you! ;)

And, yes, I realize at times modern theologians can read as though they're talking about nothing, but much of their language borrows from medieval scholastics, so if you're going to throw away all of their ideas and perspectives as mere word vomit, okay, but you in essence condemn the men and women who came before them as well.

I'll add that many of the modern theologians that I've read are just poor writers. They'll use terminology with established meanings, yet ruin it with poor writing. It's not so much that they're purposely trying to be allusive, but that they just don't know how to properly get their points across. This is one reason why the olden Christian mystics are the benchmark, because they mastered both what to write and how to write it.

As for book reviews, whether or not they're "casual or opinionated," why am I not justified in taking a given person's review as representative of their writing style in general? If anything, I should expect a book review to be less technical than a given author's academic work.

I'm still knee-deep in college, so book reviews are vacuous and unhelpful to me. It's always of more worth to read a well-argued bit of research or the original stuff over a review of popular poop, like Dawkins' books.

No, I think you're missing my point, actually. You assume that when I read something and encounter a term or 2 which I don't understand, that I thereby dismiss that work. But that's not so: I've encountered many technical (or otherwise unfamiliar) terms in the course of my reading, and either looked them up (if they weren't defined in the text), or tried to glean their meaning from context. When Descartes talked about a chiliagon in Meditations on First Philosophy, I didn't throw down the book in disgust: I simply looked it up.

With proper philosophy, perhaps, but it seems you'd have thrown down a Summa Theologica or, let's say more contemporarily, any of the more religious works by Kierkegaard. You don't seem to value the nuance in a good chunk of Christian writing, which is why I have this distinct impression, from what you've said, that you haven't given the same amount of patience or care to an Aquinas as you have with a Descartes.

However, while, for instance, quantum physics is difficult to understand (and chock-full of terms which I don't know), I have the impression that its proponents are writing in as clear and concise a manner as possible without sacrificing their point. I don't get that impression when I read samples of Sophisticated Theologians. I get the impression that they're employing obscurantism in order to mask that nothing of substance is being said.

How have you come upon these two impressions? If you've neither read a whole lot of physics, nor much theology, then I can't see how a mere impression should lead you on the slippery slope of condemning far too many in one field for being somehow ill-intending.

they don't write in a manner in which they want or expect to be understood — Arkady

No, that sounds more like you.

As I said, if you can give me a clear, concise definition of a term of art of Sophisticated Theologians such as "ground of all being," you would have my gratitude. — Arkady

This isn't about one single thing, you've attempted to rub your boot in the face of all theology, categorizing some book reviews as if they represent anything more than a casual, opinionated response. I'm not going to read books for you. If you want to understand what you don't, read more about it yourself.

Piling more nonsense on top of nonsense doesn't yield sense. — Arkady

More impatience. You haven't told me that you've read any theology, so how you know its nonsense without reading it is beyond me.

Which "biology papers" of Dawkins' do you speak of? As far as I'm aware, it's been decades since he's done original work in biology (and little of it, at that). — Arkady

Some say my point is still sailing over your head...

Perhaps I should learn how to fly so that I can retrieve it and try again, hummmmm...

Not sure what you mean by "only read." I most definitely have read authors with whom I disagree, on matters of philosophy, politics, and religion.

Except those theologians you don't understand because you've not read them. Those guys are clearly wrong. "Just look at how little I've read them!" >:O

If you have a "simple meaning" for "ground of all being," for instance, I'm all ears. One questions why the authors who use such terms don't offer "simple meanings" of it. Perhaps because they're engaged in obscurantism? — Arkady

The chemist finds chemistry more simple to understand than the poet. yet does this mean the content of each profession is any easier to grasp? No. But you do have to do the work and delve into the language of the writing concerned if indeed you are interested in fully understanding what someone means. You, however, have shown to not at all be of such an interest, which is why I'm struggling to hold a conversation with you.

I mean, here we are, on a philosophy forum, a discussion board for a field study perhaps the most purposely verbose and nuanced of employers of the human language that there is, and you've not the patience to read some theology in order to understand what someone means. I hope to God that you've not read Dawkins' biology papers, for I must only assume that you would find him entirely wrong because you don't understand the scientific uses of words in his field, >:O

So, again, you've only read rebuttals to a work you're already in agreement with...yipee...

Strange that you seem entirely disinterested in understanding the terminology theologians, and philosophers too, both employ in order to talk about such concepts as being or God. It really does strike me as bizarre as to why are you complaining about not understanding something, yet refuse to be curious enough to seek out the simple meanings of words in order to bring about the understanding you so obviously lack, by even your own admission.
:-d

don't believe that the rarified air of "sophisticated theologians" is any more worth listening to than personal notions of God — Arkady

So you've not read "sophisticated theologians", yet still have the gall to write upon their work as if you do understand what they're saying without having read anything by them? :-}

Indeed, most rebuttals of Dawkins' and company's arguments seem to consist of saying "don't they realize..." and then unleashing a torrent of theological word salad, as if amazed that anyone could be ignorant of such things.

Ah, so because you can't make sense of the "theological word salad", it's the ones replying to Dawkins that are wrong because they're not understood...yeah, got it... :-}

I fully realize that the absolute vast majority of "Christians" are dumber than rocks and hold such a superficial understanding of God as they think "him" to be, although I cannot necessarily blame them. Not everybody can be an Augustine through life.

And with what darth was saying, it's the guys like Eckhart or, in some ways, Augustine as well, that do not see God in such a way as most modern "Christians" do. And it is the irony of many New Atheists that they are as superficially and nuance-blind as those they persecute so vehemently. This is why darth mentioned that they're being stupid for generalizing as if conquering the typical Baptist Christian's theology is a fully encompassing slaying of the Christian God. That isn't the case, which is why I don the facepalm pose when I read or read about fellows like Dawkins.

I was responding to the claim that it was a caricature of religious belief to describe God as having personality characteristics. This feature obtains whether one is considering the OT or the NT — Arkady

True, but not everyone that describes God through personal terms is therefore suggesting that God is actually representative of those terms. Using the terminology that God is thoughtful, or is a male, are simply ways in which, mystics in particular, write about a concept, God, that no words can really adequately represent without saying nothing.

Consider Eckhart, I believe, who wrote,

And so we say that when everything is removed, abstracted and peeled off from the soul so that nothing at all remains but a simple 'is' - that is the proper characteristic of His name.

Do you think that Eckhart is saying that God has a penis and balls, and is just like "us" for possessing a supposed maleness? Not at all. He simply uses words like "His" as a way to talk about something words can't fully describe.

I don't think they "sound" the same, but Christians believe they are (no mainstream variety of Christianity with which I'm familiar asserts that the God of the OT and the NT are literally different Gods). — Arkady

Well, considering that we're discussing New Atheists, the only targets they go for are from the Old Testament, which by itself, is Jewish, and not Christian. I think it was the first failure of the Christian tradition to keep the original Jewish texts, which outside of a few books, are worthless. *edit* And have next to no allegorical connection to the New Testament.

You're still reading it as though the God of the Old Testament must be the same as the one written of in the New. If you read the Bible and think both Gods sound the same, you're nuts!

If that's the narrative you would like to think, sure. But the New Testament is starkly different from the Old, which had God specifically talking and acting as though a personal entity.

At least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible very clearly speaks of God having likes, dislikes, emotions, etc, and engaging with humans (e.g. Moses) in a personal manner. — Arkady

Not so much in the New Testament, which is the only non-Jewish collection of writings that make up the Christian Bible.

I love songs that play the same three chords a million times.

I know whatchu mean, man!

I'll never forget when I was in 4th grade, being around 7 or 8 years old. I was in bed, staring at the ceiling, and remembering how those at church kept saying that I had to ask Jesus and accept him into my heart. And so, that night I tried my very best to ask Jesus to swoop down from the rafters above and snuggle inside my heart. He never showed, though, much to my embarrassment. Even then I felt like an idiot for what I just tried to do.

When someone like the OP brushes by my thoughts, I'm always a bit amused by what they say. And it's not so much that I deny what they've experienced (or what I haven't), but that the assumptions from said experiences are often not justified. I've never had some personal experience with Jesus or a god, but that didn't keep me from believing in the Presbyterian God for quite some time. So, while in one sense a negative experience like mine can keep one's beliefs in check (partially), a positive one can as well, in the case of the OP. However, in both cases, it does not follow that the experience in itself dictates whether one believes in "God." In other words, whether one has such an experience (whatever that is), or in fact never does, is only to judge said experience, not what follows.

It seems something "good" recently happened to the OP, which is great, but I won't ever understand why people like him or her can't just stop with the simple occurrence of something good. y u gotta put yourself in a position to defend a massively complex theology about the source of having a good waiter at a restaurant or getting a bonus from work? Just be glad good things happen to you.

I've recently been reading a bit of Rousseau, and it seems as though he very much argues that emotion is the foundation for decision making, and that reason must be taught. His example of babies not reasoning from the get-go appears pretty watertight, although I'm not quite so sure. I realize you're the one asking the questions here, but what do you think of Rousseau? I'm a beginner to his writing, so perhaps you know more than I do! :-#

The key to being genuine is being honest! :-*

What if in God's name we want to play God? >:)

Ah, yes, the election is so rigged that we've somehow come upon two of the most corrupt presidential candidates in US history, accompanied, of course, by another two of the most laughably pitiful and distinctly unintelligent third party candidates the US has also ever seen.

Why only now that the election process has come under widespread scrutiny is beyond me.

"Is there any value to honesty?"

Is honesty important to you? If yes, then you must expect it in both yourself and others. If no, then that's that. Your inquiry ends there.

Why should I be honest? — MonfortS26

Forget yourself for a moment - why should others be honest? If you find a reason that implores them to be honest, then that reason therefore applies to you as well.

Everybody lies, and people who lie are usually better at getting what they want. Wouldn't it be more logical from an evolutionary standpoint to be a liar?

If you're okay with being taken advantage of in a dishonest way, then there's no reason to question whether it even matters if one tells the truth or lies.

More generally, though, I find that the Golden Rule would be a pretty fitting summation with regard to this topic.

I'd much rather love as nothing for infinitude.

The means with which to know.

How do you know about that which you cannot think?

Apologies for my being confusing.

might not be understanding you, but it seems you are suggesting we might be able to find what is sacred (or anything for that matter) outside of experience. — John

Precisely the opposite. This is what the OP appears to think, though, hence the "outside of thought and time" bit that he brought up originally.

How could you tell the difference between "imperfect and personal representations of it" and the "sacred in itself"? — John

If I say that I've experienced love, have I then experienced an absolute love? As with what is sacred, I think there to be a proper distinction between sacredness and sacred. I could just be too knee-deep in semantics, though.

You say there could be a God without any sense of a God. — John

To me, God is a hollow word that, however defined, reveals nothing about what it supposedly is on its own. This is why I say that there may be a God, yet we cannot get a sense of "one."

See, I'd agree, but you haven't found what is sacred in itself, only imperfect and personal representations of it. Those we can experience and find meaning from all the time, but it doesn't make it any less impossible for us to find sacred perfectly in itself.

Can there be anything sacred if there is no sense of the sacred? — John

I would tentatively say yes. However, I do believe one can experience what is sacred with an imperfect sense of it, so I wouldn't set up your question with your terms. Your question would be answered with a yes were you to replace sacred with God.

When you say " everything lies in the time and thought fields " then you automagically :) put borders around an say ( this is all we can ). — Benjamin Dovano

I do so simply out of a statement of fact. I'm not meaning to be too judgmental, friend.

And life is limitless in my opinion.

What makes you think that it is or could be limitless? And by limitless, what do you mean?

Inquire into stop thinking? Life is way more then we see or percieve with our human senses right? I would call thinking a sense, like the smell or sight - and if those senses can be educated, why can't thinking be educated in such a manner that would allow you to pause it when needed ? — Benjamin Dovano

One would cease being human at this point. You've essentially requested me and you to be like the usually conceptualized God, something that doesn't play by any rules. Humans do play by certain rules, however, which I can't see ever going away and us still being regarded as human. This is why I disagree that you and I can actually do what you think that we can in our current states. It'd be like a mountain deciding that it could think, yet how could it know that without thinking it first? The mountain's trying to get at something that it can't, just as we would be were we to search after something we can't think or know about.

Saying there is nothing beyond thought and time ( just because we are limited in visual spectre, lifetime, understanding and all the other limitations that we have as humans ), sounds a bit vain, — Benjamin Dovano

I'm not saying that there is nothing outside of time or thought, only that that something is incomprehensible and has no bearing on whether I acknowledge this fact or not. If I say that there is indeed "something" outside of time and thought...okay. Great. What then is there for me to do about it? I can't find it because my being prohibits it. If what is sacred exists in this realm outside of time and thought, then it has to find me, not the other way around.

I like to see the glass refillable not half empty or half full — Benjamin Dovano

This example has never made any sense to me. Half-empty would mean not in the glass anymore, and somewhere in negative space, perhaps below the table the glass was sitting on. *shrug*