@god must be atheist

Yeah, I'd frame it the other way, if anything at all. Hygiene (the need and preference for personal physical cleanliness) as representing a projection of our underlying affinity to high standards of spiritual/mental/emotional "hygiene".

Didn't you already make that joke?...

All music was "modern" and laughed at at some point.

Thanks, had meant to turn the discussion back to Maritain anyway.

I too care not.

How do you explain then the atheist movement, the secular movement, the agnostic movement — god must be atheist

Religions, all of them. Like I said, maybe a new word is in order...or maybe not. What religion does for people is a function which survives the apparent death of "religion" proper. Ideology is a loaded word as well, so maybe also not the best choice. The I Ching, for instance, describes the idea of "clinging"; fire clings to the log, which is the fuel to keep the flame going. What these stories (religions, atheist movements, etc) do for us is provide that fuel; they're essentially the very stuff of being, of life. Something along those lines. The question is whether atheism or secularism can provide the same spiritual nourishment in this way that religion has done; whether the "stories" that support them are as advantageous to spiritual well-being.

Thanks. I'm just the joker in the back of the room, though. Any accidental logical cohesion on my part is exactly that. :rofl:

Janus said it better than me, as usual. I still stand by my annoying bullshit, though.

I can choose what flavour crisps to buy in the shops later on for my lunch, but I can't choose to believe what year I was born. — S

If I believe you used this red herring in error, does that prove your argument right? Or, if I believe you used the argument nefariously, does that prove me wrong in thinking you to be wrong?

What are your thoughts about this? It seems almost as if the childlike care for others, parents, and such is sublimated into something profoundly repugnant. Why does this happen or what happens in such individuals who possess this trait of care or compassion? — Wallows

This "childlike care" isn't care, it's ultimately a selfish but fully appropriate need, as a child, for protection and nurture. So, as a child, the notion of parents suddenly gone is distressing, but this desire for their well-being isn't actual care for them (or their "well-being"); it's just the childhood need for nurture; it's ultimately "selfish" in a positive sense. A child needs nurture. The love of the child for the parent is dependent. It's quite literally infantile love; the first, beginning stage of love. "Care" as a concept seems to denote a higher position in which a person is "placed in your care"; a responsibility; the parent is in the position of care, not the child. A child has no responsibility to the parent for care; they rather have a responsibility to obey and learn proper conduct in life. The child is the recipient of care, not the giver.

Sounds like he's not opposed to wisdom?..

Crime And Punishment - Dostoevsky (found it on the street :fire: )
Man And His Symbols - Edited by C.G. Jung
The Destiny Of Man - Nikolai Berdyaev

On deck:

The Dream Quest Of Unknown Kadath - H.P. Lovecraft (my favorite novel title of all time...maybe I shouldn't read it and just continue to enjoy the title.)

For me, "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder" — god must be atheist

I somewhat disagree. I've said for years that beauty is there waiting; an "object" waiting for a "subject" to perceive it. This isn't a theory, it's an experience that I've had, which I count as a better guide. Not "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but rather "beauty waits for the beholder to see".

If art was an extension of spritualism / religionism, then humans would never have developed secular art. Which is, like, 100 percent of today's artistic output / throughput, with rounding. — god must be atheist

Art expresses the human, and the religious is an inseparable aspect of the human; whether Hindu, atheist, nihilist, or whatever...all "religions". A new word would be better and less controversial. So, "secular" art is just as religious as anything else. It just expresses a different ideology.

Sorry to be that '1-year-old-thread' guy, but it's the fucking Phil of Art section, which is basically 1 year old anyway, so this response practically constitutes a new thread. (This thread was still on page 1 of the sub-forum...) Maritain is underrated in my book. Friends with Berdyaev amongst other thinkers who are affiliated with religion at large without receiving the mantle of "religious thinker". A clean, concise thinker who happened to be Catholic.

"Quintessential Hamlet" doesn't make sense, though. I might as well say "Quintessential 'The Window'" (my forthcoming album). It's a non sequitur.

Quintessential basically denotes someone's own personal, unique seminal aesthetic experience being replicated later in life (or not, more often than not). For me, for instance, the quintessential psych/prog album is Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd; the first Pink Floyd album I heard. Or, the quintessential Beatles record is Rubber Soul; the first Beatles record I heard. Usually though, there's maybe some nominal correlation between the personal seminal experience and general mass consensus...consensus is kind of par for the course for something to be defined as "quintessential", anyway. But the point I'm making is that the zeitgeist of sorts of "quintessential" tends to be a safe hybrid between the personal and the collective. The personal informs the interaction with the collective. So, contrary to appearances, quintessential is not so unanimously defined; often, personal aesthetic experience of someone influential influences the quintessential behind the scenes, so to speak. So, if anything, you could even make the argument that "quintessential" is a farce.

My most recent rec

https://afterhours-imprint.bandcamp.com/album/imagination-deprivation

Ah, finally, an emotional response.

Notice how now @streetlightex is weirdly absent. :ok:

There's no shift of register. It's all fucking bullshit.

:blush:

I've offered no 'ideas' — StreetlightX

Streetlight, c. 2019.

:rofl: :vomit:

No, it's not trivial.

You should be the one answering this question.

*When everything around you is ugly, the concern for 'looks' is very far.

Eh, I've thought about this a bit. Not sure it's worth mentioning, but..

The true "you" is unconditional. Never wrong. Purely logical. It's underneath your emotion, your intuition, your reason, and your logic. There's a "you" beneath everything. And it's absolutely mystical, and it's absolutely not philosophical, in any way whatsoever. Meh

The philosophical question might be, what are the implications of finally getting what one really wants? Is that a utopia, or the beginning of the end? — Jake

We don't need technocratic utopia to understand that part of human nature; we just need addiction.

A good layman's book on philosophy is Luc Ferry's "A Brief History of Thought". It certainly won't help you argue or defend your beliefs, nor will it aid you in "intellectual self-defense", though.

Did you "get [un]creative"? What happened?

:starstruck:

[definitely not for everyone]

Damn, it sucks that this thread is part of the lounge, which means no one sees it.

Debut ambient album; more to come very shortly:

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/sixty-ton-angel-2

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. — tim wood

Demonstrate this first.

And it's crystal clear that many participants on TPF do not understand that simple point. Practice faith. Think about what it means to believe in and practice that faith. And practice goes to conduct. There's plenty in that. But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed. — tim wood

Not in faith, not in science, but what about in practice? As you've so nearly said?

This bullshit definition of "faith" of the new atheists is so tired and rubbery. It reveals a total lack of understanding of what faith is to the common believer. It's fucking boring.

In short, there can be philosophies of religion and theology. This is just thinking about the thinking about these topics. But that's the limit of what is reasonable. Attempts to prove existence, or presence, or anything else, outside of theology, is nonsense. — tim wood

Is it? Or is it the thinking about the traditions that bears these topics? But yes, attempts to "prove" "god" are useless.

In faith, you can have whatever your faith calls for. — tim wood

That's a facsimile of faith that precludes it's very definition. I might as well say that, in science, you can have whatever your science calls for.

In respect of the topic at hand, I think this is also what drives a lot of the attraction to what I'll call 'scientific secular' thinking. It's because, in the absence of traditional norms, then science is supposed to be the guide to how the educated person thinks. — Wayfarer

Which is a bias; an unconscious bias for most. One that I'm not comfortable with.

Anyway - Berger's book is def. worth a read in my opinion if you can get hold of it. — Wayfarer

:ok:

Stop being so unbiased; you're undermining the thread.

Great; so science suggests that we have bias in our political views. What about bias in our philosophical views, as that's what the OP is about?

Other things that I wish I could do-over or would tell my younger self: Don't question too much! I know it sounds like funny advice for a philosophy major, but I've noticed successful students tend to stick to their topics of interest and their goals, which they pursue vigorously. — John Doe

The really successful people will get stumped by, say, Aphorisms 130-133 — John Doe

Successful in what way?

I think you have the disposition for it, and for that particular area of study, so I'd say do it.

The problem is that you are "God" here. In this thought experiment, you already know about Hitler and how terrible he was.

What does this thought experiment show?