I'm sure John Piper could set me up with a fine young Christian lass.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong, — John Harris

>:O

and most Christians don't go looking for it. — John Harris

No, mostly they don't, — John Harris

The reality is most Christians, including American ones, — John Harris

You continue to generalize. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience?

Ugh

particularly most American, Christians do see themselves in a exalted, not a degraded, state because of their Christian faith. — John Harris

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here. My personal experience within Christian protestantism revealed a hidden shame that was lying underneath the outward exuberance. And that shame is latent in the way the American church at large interprets scripture, I think.

Sure it is, and grouping members of all the various Christian groups in one gestalt is a mistake and a poor indicator. — John Harris

So you're saying it is, in fact, "the general zeitgeist of the faith", and then saying I shouldn't group "members of the various Christian groups in one gestalt". Which is it?

You're quoting me there, not Beebert, fyi.

So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state. — John Harris

This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on. I already made the distinction later on in that post.

This is not Christ's conquest to many Christians. — John Harris

Yes, that's what I was saying.

This is not Catholic belief — John Harris

I was talking about the general Protestant view.

No problem.

Not to mention, a pretty thorough knowledge of the world's religions to as to rule out any one of them being exclusively true. — Thorongil

Here's a question for you: would you join a religion while willingly knowing that not one religion is exclusively true? Could you do this while also submitting yourself to the demands of your religion? How would you reconcile your philosophical knowledge with your submitting to religious authority? Honest questions that I'm interested in.

the ability to be personally transformed in a positive way. — Thorongil

Have you experienced religious transformation?

Jesus, for example, says he comes for not the well but the sick. Those who are well don't need a savior, so if one believes one is well, then that person has no need of and likely doesn't care about religion. That is fine by me, but I am not well and nor do I believe the world is either, so I am interested in religion. — Thorongil

I think the irony is that everyone is sick.

Such a person is seeking the benefits of religion without the costs, the costs being assent to a specific set of truth claims and obedience to religious authority, both of which are especially hard for modern man to accept. Simply put, it isn't certain that the benefits of religion can be had outside of it. — Thorongil

What are the benefits? I don't think I agree with your assessment here. But, you seem to be describing a definite type of person that exists; the "spiritual but not religious", the type who wants to avoid conflict by painting over disparate views with a broad brush. They have a fear of commitment.

But it's possible to study religion and philosophy in more depth and come to a perennialist conclusion. You haven't actually shown an argument for why the idea of different religions having kernels of the truth is wrong. It looks like your argument is just that taking some religious stances but then not adhering to one is fruitless because it's undemanding.

On the other hand, the notion that different philosophies, different religions, might have bits of truth in them, amongst the dross, is a far more demanding prospect. It requires both a courage (the sense of leaving the familiar shore in favor of the uncharted sea), as well as a comforting reliance on the spiritual intuition which is the tool that uncovers those truths, and the very tool that sparks the belief in the perennial nature of truth.

Yes, imperfection isn't a problem, but there's a difference between imperfection and dishonest thinking or otherwise just being a bad person. I'm not saying Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates were perfect for that matter, I'm just saying that they were righteous and good people. I can't say the same about Bertrand Russell or Nietzsche for that matter. — Agustino

More legalism; you've missed my point about imperfection.

I was using Augustino's examples as a counter argument there.

Oh, don't pander to who you think I like. I don't give a rat's ass about Berdy's morality. His ideas changed my life. That's all I need.

Typically, when most people/situations aren't the way they should be, the world tells you "oh well, it's helpful to just accept that" - well, I don't want to, nor have I ever accepted that a wrong thing is a right thing. — Agustino

It's not about accepting that a wrong thing is a right thing; it's about acknowledging the imperfect humanity of all; The imperfection of Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates in their kind. It's the understanding of the common, imperfect nature of all. That's the thing I'm actually trying to get at here. Your view is inherently legalistic, and it's strangling. The greatest moralist you could think of is still morally imperfect; the worst offender still has redeeming qualities. Ironically, this is the crux of the Gospel.

Yes, I've rejected nihilism of any sort for those reasons, among others. For now, I've come to accept a few basic principles, while retaining a sense of ignorance: Morality exists. Morality exists because humans exist. Humans are the "noble animal", the "noble dust" of the universe. We are set apart from the rest of it (the original connotation of the word "holy"). Divine love is real. That's all for now.

I understand your idealism (colloquial idealism). I wanted it once too. The reality is that the thinker never lives up to their ideas. It's helpful to accept that.

Since so much of our vocabulary is influenced by concepts of good and evil it is hard to describe moral nhilism. — Allthephilosophersaretaken

It's easy: no morals. Except, "moral nihilism" then becomes a contradiction.

indifference is not a moral stand point since one is indifferent to morality — Allthephilosophersaretaken

Yes, indifference as amorality is totally plausible; but it also entails total indifference to all conceptions of morality. Harm done to other persons is necessarily permissible, as an important example, within this indifferent amorality.

If you were not refering to my indiffernce but my dogma, i say that every possible philosophical possition has dogma, no system is free of dogma — Allthephilosophersaretaken

Agreed. This includes your attempt at hard nihilism, which just comes up as soft nihilism because you still need to appeal to your own dogma. Dogma suggests morals. Dogma means a set of beliefs accepted without question by a given group. Morals are inextricable from dogma as such...nihilism is inherently a-dogmatic then. So...dogma means not nihilism...nihilism means no dogma...etc...

Yes, but personal behaviour is a lot more important than the policies they advocate. — Agustino

The enduring problem with your view here is the discrepancy between what is known about the personal lives of thinkers, and their beliefs. Sure, with modern thinkers it's easier to read literature about their lives and then scrutinize, but what do we really know about the ancient Greek thinkers you mentioned earlier?

The point is that, when it comes to thinkers, the answer is NO: their personal behavior is not more important than their policies. They are THINKERS. Their contribution to society is their thought, not their actions; you're conflating thinkers with priests here because of your religiosity. A thinker, strictly, has taken no oath, no rite of religious passage; a thinker merely thinks. Often, good thinkers think of good ideas.

But when it comes to loving real men and women who are closeby, not many are able to. — Agustino

Yes, could you love Ghandi, Nietzsche, Russell, et al? (Oh wait, of course the answer is yes...you're the underdog and all that...?)

I was going to salute you for being a true nihilist until I read this:

But indiffernce is differnt from "a dislike of humankind". well indiffernce is offten mistaken for disike it is not that i wish people to be unhappy so to speak im merely indifferent to wheter they are happy or not

That is my dogma — Allthephilosophersaretaken

You need to follow your nihilistic feelings to their logical conclusion if you really wish to be one, it would seem to me. If you can't do so, it would be wiser to pull back from the brink.

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

Is there enough time though to test all ideas? — Agustino

I never suggested that.



Fair enough.

It's not that I dismiss their ideas altogether. I just don't see them as someone I want to emulate. — anonymous66

Fair enough, but you did say in the OP that you've "lost interest" in some of them, presumably because of their failings.

Interesting. I get the idea of not following a specific idea because the tools aren't useful for arriving there. But in a general sense, I'm wary of the idea that a thinker isn't worth investigating because they had a specific moral flaw. It sounds like a very legalistic way to go about investigating ideas in general. Getting into the specifics of when someone messed up in relation to specific ideas just sounds pedantic and gossipy. Ideas should stand on their own merit, and whether they're applicable to life should avail itself of your own experience of testing them, not to mention your own wisdom.

No, I'm saying I don't expect to succeed if I try to practice honesty using the tools K. advocated. In other words, he cannot help me become a better moral person (more honest). — Agustino

What were those specific tools then?

So you're saying you don't expect to succeed if you try to practice honesty?

I'm exactly the same as you. If I find out something like that about a thinker, I'm much less tempted to investigate deeper what s/he said. If it couldn't help him live a good, moral life, why should I expect it to help me? — Agustino

Does a wise idea lose it's credibility if the speaker can't uphold the idea? Think of Solomon.

You might like him, but maybe you wouldn't learn anything new. His idea of the pleroma is bizarre but intriguing. He was a paleontologist and a Jesuit priest.

Have you read Teilhard de Chardin?

2) Everything is fundamentally mind that grows along a substantiality spectrum starting with quanta, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc. — Rich

Interesting. Reminds me of Teilhard de Chardin.

But, in return, I'm not interested in hearing from people who aren't interested, so let's not hear from you agaIn, O Noble Dust. — Michael Ossipoff

You'll hear from me if I decide to say something. ;) don't succumb to the ways of Thanatos!

But really, no ill will towards you, Michael. Cheers and all the best; maybe we'll wrangle again elsewhere at some point.

Nope, what makes it funny is that you are the one that has perpetrated these hostile personal attacks all along.

[

:P So what is it that you do or don't like about Sand? I'm the last person to ask these questions seriously, but this situation merits the discussion.

Get caught doing what?

That's clearly not the case, and I hope he doesn't get banned. I think the next go around I have with him--and I'm sure we won't always be in agreement like we are here--I'll have a frame of reference and won't get too upset if he decides to end the particular conversation. — Erik

What the fuck? You are ok with some random anonymous internet poster saying that "we're done here", and deciding that your conversation is over, without your own personal consent?

What?

It's true. It doesn't abscond any of us from calling out the bullshit.

Dear god dude. Your inability to interface charitably with literally anyone on this forum who you, to just one tiny degree, disagree with, in one tiny possible way, is absolutely disgusting. I literally can't comprehend how this is possible, other than the possibility that you're just willingly trolling us all on purpose to prove some kind of point, in a theatrical way. The fact that you just insulted Wayfarer after he offered a word of wisdom, take it or leave it...is just too much. You don't even realize the depth of the wealth of wisdom that you just absconded; a wealth of wisdom that you, like anyone else here, could have benefited from so profoundly.

How so?

The Grand Taboo is, to me, that thing that we can't talk about. It comes up all the time in conversations in everyday life, though.

Connected to The Blue Rose in Twin Peaks?

Those tripe tacos you like are coming back in style, but it just depends on what sort of horses they rode in on when the war ended. It's clear in my mind, but I also smoke cigarettes while asleep. So, as said, no one waits for the dharmic wheel to role down the hill all the way; usually you make sure it stops before it hits the barn at the bottom. More info on his philosophy here.

I don't agree that consciousness is primary; only a small part of experience is conscious experience. What is primary is our experience, both conscious and unconscious or subconscious, of being in a world with others. — Janus

But conciousness is constant, at least in waking life. Consciousness just means the state of your mind right now as you read this; it's the same state when you go clean the kitchen, go to work, have sex, etc. At least that's my conception of it; it's a very broad, basic state of existence; the only basic one, in fact. Of course it's also a spectrum; if you're sleep-deprived or drunk, your conscious experience kind of obtains in a different way. The subconscious and the unconscious are "fundamental" to experience, if you will, but I can't see the use in saying that they're a significantly larger portion of experience itself.