I agree. Show me the life! Beyond words there is a life actually live, giving words weight. I don't think you're a pragmatist, but that's largely what it means to me. I respect your beliefs and anyone's beliefs that allow them to live well (without preventing me from doing so). We'd probably vote in different directions, but I'm glad you're here (and that Wayfarer is here) to keep up the 'biodiversity' of ideas. — Hoo

Thanks for your kinds words :)

Although it should be added that both Watts and Ramana are subversive from the perspective of mainstream religion. — Wayfarer

And maybe also add that rightfully so :D lol

You shall know them by their fruits - what were their fruits? Watts used to persevere in doing drugs and drinking, thus being attached to all sorts of feelings and sensations he identified as pleasurable - forget the Zen, that was certainly not so important when he was repeatedly drinking and doing drugs - maybe it was only an excuse. Ramana invented all sorts of nonsense (enlightened cows >:O ) none of which made any important difference in the lives of his followers. Really - such people cannot produce good. They are subversive - they undermine order - regardless of any other so called achievement. One shall know them by their fruits.

or do so regarding whether we're brains in a vat — Ciceronianus the White

Peirce did criticise Descartes's method of doubt involving the evil demon though. If that criticism applies to Descartes, it certainly applies to the brain in a vat hypothesis too.

It's true, though, that Dewey felt that many philosophical problems and prejudices resulted from a misguided "quest for certainty" and that certain philosophers' proclivity to believe what is true or good has its basis in something transcendent was caused at least in part by a sort of aristocratic disdain towards or contempt for the world which encompasses such things as trade, manual labor, unwashed bodies and ugly, ignorant, inferior people, change and death. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes true. Peirce also had this concern about criticising the possibility/usefulness of Cartesian certainty.

"quest for certainty" and that certain philosophers' proclivity to believe what is true or good has its basis in something transcendent was caused at least in part by a sort of aristocratic disdain towards or contempt for the world which encompasses such things as trade, manual labor, unwashed bodies and ugly, ignorant, inferior people, change and death. — Ciceronianus the White

I think something different is involved, though. Maybe it's a kind of self-serving "quest for profound significance." — Ciceronianus the White

I think that the transcendent has its basis in the experience of the transcendent, which isn't altogether uncommon. A beautiful piece of art, falling and being in love, prayer/meditation, values, meaning, etc. - there's lots of possibilities out there for encountering the transcendent. As for why we are attracted to the transcendent - I think Plato was right, and we are a sort of a metaxy - an in-between the world and the transcendent - we have one foot in this world, and another in the world of spirit. So you are right - we can never know the transcendent. But we are still attracted to it, we want to experience it, and be around it. It's part of our nature. Hence we desire to know it, even though we can't ever know it - we are always attached to the Earth. "Significance" that you are talking about, that is merely a feeling, I don't think it's such a thing as a fact. So I'm not sure about the quest for profound significance underlying an intellectual movement - maybe it is the opposite in fact - in front of the transcendent, man is indeed like nothing.

Why do we concern ourselves so much with (1) what cannot be known and (2) what makes no difference to how we or others live our lives? — Ciceronianus the White

Sounds like a rehash of Pragmatism :D

Can we kill Hyde without destroying Jekyll? (Or "How to play with the animal without biting your own face off?") — Baden

So you want to have one foot in heaven and the other in hell? :-*

I think we all tend to have one idea, a la Bergson, that we consistently keep on coming back to. The problem that we keep on thinking about when we're in bed and staring at the ceiling, or what keeps us entertained in the long transits between work and home. — darthbarracuda

The good life. Virtue and morality. Order. Love. How to help bring order in one's own soul, as well as in those who are surrounding me? How to become more virtuous and how to teach virtue? How to get more people interested in living a good life? These are the matters/questions I always come back to.

Anyway, everyone here should realize 'the uncaused cause' could not exist. — Wayfarer

That is only if you assume that existence is meant in the same sense for all possible things it is attributed to. However, the scholastics made a difference between the way number 2 exists and the way a chair exists for example. Both of them exist - but in different ways.

Who brought up 'the afterlife'? Anyway, I digress, the point was only about 'being a believer'. — Wayfarer

Well being a believer means following the practices of a certain religion. What's wrong with that? You don't have to be a sheep to do that...

Interesting, I will acquire the book - it's as subject I've been interested for a very long time, especially in-so-far as it relates to Plato/Socrates, so thanks for bringing that up.

But I wanted to know. I didn't want to believe in 'pie in the sky when you die'. I said there was a way of knowing about ultimate truths, not simply standing in the congregation and mouthing the words. — Wayfarer

Well it depends on the subject about which you wanted to know. For example, wanting to know in detail about the afterlife is a waste - the focus should be being a good man here on Earth. A vague notion will suffice. So there is something very harmful about an inordinate desire for knowledge - first the fact that it doesn't consider human limitations, second because it is knowledge which is not of importance in this life.

The gnostic is concerned with knowing, not being lead or believing what s/he's been told. — Wayfarer

Sometimes in order to know one must be led, and one must believe. Some knowledge is not achievable except by first making the "leap of faith".

That is one of the reasons why the mainstream adopted the pistic orientation - believers are much easier to manage, they're like sheep. 'Believe this!' says the preacher. 'Baa, baa....' say the sheep. Not for nothing all the references to 'flocks and sheep' in scripture. — Wayfarer

Yes - do you suppose that a society can be organised where everyone adopts a gnostic orientation and wants to know everything through their own experience? Imagine the resulting chaos. The limitations of belief are necessary for order and stability. Knowledge is not necessarily good - it can lead to arrogance, disdain, and a feeling of superiority. "They are sheep, I am not" - that is very harmful.

Beliefs, doxai, are deficient cognitive attitudes. In believing something, one accepts some content as true without knowing that it is true; one holds something to be true that could turn out to be false. Since our actions reflect what we hold to be true, holding beliefs is potentially harmful for oneself and others. Accordingly, beliefs are ethically worrisome and even, in the words of Plato’s Socrates, “shameful.”

Interesting but don't forget about Socrates in the Phaedo - he states that he does not know about the afterlife. There is no certainty. Either there is a soul which survives after death, or there is none. But nevertheless, he believes that there is a soul which survives after death. Why? Because it is beautiful to believe so, and it seems just that it is so - and so his love of the Good makes him believe.

I have always resisted 'belief' as such — Wayfarer

What do you mean? How do you "resist" belief? Also please note that my categorisation was "open to believe" vs "not open to believe". Being open to believe allows you the possibility of believing, whereas not being open to believe doesn't.

there is something I don't like about 'people of faith' — Wayfarer

Why?

But having done that, to be honest, I have found I am much nearer to Catholicism in terms of philosophy. But I don't feel any compulsion to convert to it, or to accept the dogma; I think it has value because it points to a greater truth, but I don't for one minute believes that it has a monopoly on that truth. — Wayfarer

Yes, neither do I.

BTW, it wasn't an accident. IF the train had arrived on time, the bomb on the bridge would have exploded and the train would have crashed into the flood-swolen river. A woman had been asked to choose between throwing Banno under the train, or killing the one authentic, oppressed, colonialized, colored, transgendered, intersectional feminist on the train. Since it was a woke middle-class female adjunct philosophy instructor who did the choosing, she, of course, opted to kill the white man. (See the thread "wtf is feminism these days".) — Bitter Crank

>:O - crazy progressives!

Most in our secular world have put everything marked 'religion' in a box and sealed it. Then they're concerned that if anything prized the lid open, it will be a pandora's box. Where will it end up? — Wayfarer

I think though that the secularism is the symptom of a deeper problem. Secularism is merely a refusal to look at certain aspects of reality - a justification for this refusal in fact. But much more interesting is understanding the spiritual problems that one shields from by this refusal and justification...

(This essay is long, been published a while, but well worth the read. Last line is a kicker.) — Wayfarer

Thanks will have a read! :)

Stevenson always only claimed to present evidence that 'suggests the possibility of re-birth having taken place'. I think it does that. — Wayfarer

Fire up a new thread. Present your thinking on (justification of) it. Add a vote. (Isn't that what the site is for anyways?) — jorndoe

This illustrates my point very well between you two. One is open to believe, and thus believes. The other isn't open to believe, and therefore doesn't believe. You could present as much evidence as you want to jorndoe on this subject - unless one is honestly open to believe, they will always find reasons not to believe - as such matters are not amenable to the kind of studies jorndoe is open to - double blind studies, etc. The sad part is that evidence is rejected when it doesn't fit a method. But it is precisely the method which ought to be rejected when it has reached its limits and cannot investigate further.

I'm not sure how you can say this, though. That the concern for power structure is a "modern thing." — Marty

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to what intellectual circles are concerned with - the ideas which guide their thinking, and which represent the "glasses" they look through at the world - those glasses that they can't remove without much practice. Today power structures govern the thinking of intellectuals - just have a read of Rousseau, Marx, Foucault, and other such modern thinkers. Power forms the glasses through which society is perceived. These ideas which govern intellectual circles seep through into the general culture - it is seen as "intellectual" to hold those ideas, they become something associated with social status. Sooner or later the general population starts to be concerned with and see the world only through this prism.

So the political examples you give from Alexander or the Pelopponesian War, while describing the political behaviour of human beings (an innate desire to conquer and rule others - which I agree is present, and was present, and will be present in human beings) do not describe the consciousness of man during that age. It doesn't describe the glasses through which people saw, understood and related to the world. It's those glasses that I am concerned with here.

The beginning can be found at the tail end of the middle ages. I would agree before then there was probably more of a commune between the caste systems, but only because social ranking was divinely and financially put into place from birth — Marty

In other words there existed order - after this period, which in many cases lasted well into the Renaissance, order started to collapse. And my hypothesis is that order collapsed because the consciousness of man changed.

But to think this was an era of prosperity for these individuals seems contentious. — Marty

Depends what you mean by prosperity. Spiritually I think the Renaissance and the Middle Ages were more advanced than we are today.

Where society begins to flatten out the antagonisms between good and evil, between higher art and lower art, between high and low culture which you have in mind. — Marty

Yes - this is a change which I believe you have correctly spotted. I think when you're talking about the increasing in egocentricity in this period you are noting a change which is a manifestation of the change in consciousness I am trying to refer to.

We live in a world where there is more law, more power structures, more surveillance than ever before. — Marty

And paradoxically also less - many people today are truly lawless. People have access to a miserly "freedom" today to do as they please - without realising how limited their choices have actually become.

I disagree about the power structures only because by this word I am referring to things which have been qualified as power structures by people who have used this word in intellectual circles (Marx/Foucault): the importance and role of tradition (that is a power structure), the importance of morality (another power structure), the importance of religion (that too is a power structure), the importance of the family (also a power structure), etc. I am not referring to bureaucratic structures of the state such as secret services, governmental agencies, courts, etc. - even though they can and also are power structures in a different sense of the term. In that regard I agree with you, that there are more of those than ever before.

We've created a society that refuses to acknowledge any other system than its own. When mankind cannot no longer see alternatives to the society it lives in, where forms of suppression now become invisible forces in the guise of a "neutrality," then one could be completely analogous to a somnambulist — walking through his daily life asleep, and in-taking new forms of "progress" without realizing their mass consumption, (and essential non-radical conformity).

Our society can hardly be called radical or progressive. In fact, we live in probably one of most dangerous times where newer ideas become harder to come by due to the crushing status-quo. — Marty

I agree.

The explosion of pathologies today isn't because we've become radical and progressive, it's come because we can't find an identity anymore in the meaningless (secularized) bureaucratic and technological world. — Marty

Which is merely a symptom of the lack of order that exists both in our souls as individuals and in the rest of society. The secularised, bureaucratic and technological world - these, in my opinion, are merely the outward reflection of the change in consciousness which took place - it's the change in consciousness that has produced all these, and not the other way around. People make technology - not technology people. And now, when we behold ourselves through the world we have made - we are as Kierkegaard would say, in despair.

So Plato's Republic isn't an excoriating critique of 'power to the people' (democracy)? — Barry Etheridge

No - it's not focused on power structures. Plato's Republic is focused on how to form a good society. The focus is The Good - not Power. I'm talking about people's consciousness, which is reflected in the intellectual movements of the times. This consciousness has drastically changed - changing the way one relates and perceives the world, around the end of the Renaissance and the beginning of the Enlightenment. I'm not the only one to note this either: you can check the works of Owen Barfield, Mircea Eliade, Eric Voegelin to name a few.

You seem to be concerned to talk about something different - namely the goals of different groups of people in society. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in our consciousness, and how that has changed the way we feel, perceive and relate to the world.

Isn't Aristotle pre-1800 then? Doesn't Plato have a book entirely concerned with the structure of society and the nature of rule? Isn't Augustine's City of God a treatise on the same subject? What else is Machiavelli talking about in the 15th Century or More in Utopia before him or Hobbes after him? Marcus Aurelius? Cicero? — Barry Etheridge

Again - you don't get it. Yes it's precisely the point that these people were talking about how society should be organised. However - unlike people like Marx - they weren't concerned with removing power structures. Their questions were never "Who has power in society, and what can we do to eliminate this structure of power?" - their questions were always "What is good for society? How can society be made better?"

What? What do you imagine the Catholic Church was doing from 325 until the Reformation? What's the burning of heretics if not a concern to maintain power? What were the Crusades about? Why was there a Pope and a Holy Roman Emperor? What was Ambrose doing publicly shamiong the emperor if not asserting the primacy of Chruch over State?

What the heck was Cromwell doing marching around Britain knocking noble head's together if it wasn't a concern with structures of power? I don't think I imagined that he was asserting the primacy of Parliament over monarchy?

And while we're in Britain, do you have no idea just how deeply structured the feudal system was under the Normans? — Barry Etheridge

As BC noted I probably wasn't referring to political leaders and their enemies, who have always struggled over power. So try a more charitable reading. I was referring to intellectual currents - what people who were talking about how society should be organised were concerned about - people like Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, etc.

We need more samples for the experiment. — jorndoe

In such matters, maybe more samples will only introduce more errors. The scientific statistical method may very well not be adequate to deal with such matters which depend upon the concepts and beliefs which people already have or don't have - unless of course we're interested to find out what, empirically, the mean of a population is (although this could change in the future - so I don't think it would be a very scientific endeavour). If we're interested in the truth however - then we may need to be careful in the selection of people we consider for the experiment. They should be those people for whom their own behaviour is somewhat transparent - who have followed the train of their minds, and understand what makes them form a belief or not. Otherwise, we'll get a lot of people who are confused and unaware of the ways in which their own minds function - that's not good - that's a source of error. And trying to study the way beliefs form in a confused person's mind is not very helpful - the process becomes intractable, since even the person is not aware of many influencing factors.

I found that honest belief in the elephants didn't come about as a matter of exercising "free will", sort of justifying that sometimes at least "seeing is believing".
On the other hand, I also believe there's snow on the peak of Mount Everest, and that there are exoplanets, though less "seeing", and more thinking, is involved.

"There was a pink elephant on the street"; SP. Kiwiyum; 1m:58s youtube; Jul 2012

Funny video thanks! :D Yes definitely a few things are needed to form and sustain a belief. One is experience, another is reason. I have developed a more extensive framework but will not state it here, although the nuts and bolts are that experience will go through the filter of reason. So to believe in God a few things must happen. First you must clarify for yourself what God means. Second you must have an experience of God. Third your reason must confirm that your experience of God is indeed of God. Then your belief in God will form. So what role does the will have in here? Well the will can intervene either at the first level - meaning that you are simply not interested in God, and therefore have no interest in ever clarifying the concept - or at the third level (or both) - meaning that despite having an experience of God, you will ignore it, refuse to see it, and in other words not be open to it. If you don't have a clear concept of God, your reason will never be able to identify a certain experience as being "of God". If your will is not open to the possibility of God - then your reason will choose another way to interpret your experience in order to avoid God. If you truly want to be honest with yourself, then you must be open to possibility.

Your interesting OP has kept me from getting to church this morning. I hope you are aware of the negative effect on my morals your writing has. — Bitter Crank

LOL :D

What is the time of your dividing line between pre-modern and modern? 300 years ago or 3,000? 10,000--back to the time of the first buildings in Jericho? — Bitter Crank

Based on the philosophical movements. Pre-modern = Renaissance and before. Modern = Enlightenment and after

But... while agreeing that 40% bastardy is deplorable, I'm not willing to agree that "totalitarianism is the necessary result of all forms of progressivism." — Bitter Crank

That will depend on how we define progressivism I think. I define progressivism as movements which (1) ignore the ineradicable evil in the world (and consider that perfection is achievable on Earth, or in some cases worth striving for), (2) promote rapid social change which is aimed at removing power structures for the sake of removing power structures, and (3) empower (or better said seek to empower, because I don't think, for example blacks, are that empowered today) minority groups in ways which neglect the effect their manner of empowerment has on the rest of society.

respect is propagated by doing the virtues, not in teaching or being taught--though teaching virtue is a necessary thing. — Bitter Crank

Indeed that is why it becomes necessary that we have leaders - not only in politics - which exemplify and wear the virtues for all to see. People do what seems to be popular to them, and what seems popular is what they see their leaders do - those who are in the public eye. People learn and arrange their lives based on Hollywood, actors, musicians, comedians, politicians, etc. But the media and Hollywood, and Western politicians are mostly hyper-progressive. They don't wear any virtues, apart from the virtue of benevolence towards everyone and everything, which they mistake for complete virtue. Courage, loyalty, trust, kindness, self-sacrifice, chastity - these virtues, they most certainly don't represent.

What, exactly, is the program for returning to the saving virtues of Aristotelianism? — Bitter Crank

First of all, bringing together all those who understand the need for Aristotelian virtues. That needs to become a strong and united community. It needs to reconcile and unite people of different religions under the common umbrella of the virtues - in this globalised age, the progressive movements are winning because they have divided religions one against the other, and thus nullified their effect. Second of all, educating other people about the importance of the virtues - combatting Hollywood and the mass-media - because the truth is most people haven't even heard about the importance of the virtues. Who would have told them? Hollywood? Clearly not. People for example don't understand what makes stable marriages - they just have never been educated about it. They have no clue - most people end up marrying someone, without any serious consideration about what characteristics are important for a stable marriage. Then they wonder why their marriage failed - no doubt it failed - if you do something without planning for it, what do you expect? People spend years learning to be doctors or engineers or whatever - and they don't even spend 1 week learning what it means to be moral, which is perhaps much more important than all the other knowledge they have.

is order maintained by the state actually any worse than order maintained by other power structures--church, corporation, family...? — Bitter Crank

Order by the state is order maintained by the threat of law, supervision and punishment - like Stalin. Order from power structures is order maintained by the community itself. For example, if your husband cheats on you, society reacts to this by ostracising him - not respecting him anymore, pushing him towards the periphery of society. That is a form of social order. There is no law determining that to happen. It's just a reaction of the people to say that they do not value this kind of behaviour.

Also I should add that order maintained through power structures like the family is organic - whereas order maintained by the state is bureaucratic and mechanic.

To value realising the evil which has been done is not to value the sin. It's to value understanding that irreversible evil has been done. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not the rape, the guilt over the rape-- the realisation of the wrong etched into the eternity of history. The understanding of an immorality which cannot be undone or resloved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes - I appreciate such a valuation, and I think that's good. I was thinking for a moment that you thought they should treat it as if it wasn't something wrong, something to be ashamed of. Yes - the man who is proud of his guilt over having done a crime, that is a good thing!

This is not entirely true for a start; some knives are designed for spreading. In any case knives are designed to cut a variety of different materials, just as humans are designed to flourish in a far greater variety of different ways, and that is the point your lack of subtlety fails to recognize. — John

Yes it is entirely true for the simple reason that we call a knife a knife because it is an object designed with the function of cutting. Even the knives which spread - they are also designed for cutting, for example butter. And yes, each knife may fulfil this grand purpose on different materials, and in different circumstances. Same for people. People just like knives have an over-arching purpose, which holds true of all human beings.

This is a superficial understanding of Aristotle. He advocated a mean in between extremes. If lust is one extreme and chastity is the other, they are both vices and the mean, or virtue, lies in between. — John

I wasn't explaining Aristotle's conception there, but an Aristotelian one. The Aristotelian tradition is larger than just Aristotle.

And Aristotle, to my knowledge never advocated chastity. This is a later Christian add-on, via Augustine and Aquinas. — John

But Aristotle did have the virtue of chastity, only that he didn't separate it. He held it to be within the virtue of continence.

As to your having a very beautiful body and being a very good writer; even if those are true, so what? That you have an unwarrantedly high opinion of your own qualities, abilities and wisdom seems to be a far more significant fact about you. Anyway, I don't reckon much of any value will come from prolonging this 'conversation', perhaps when it comes to your future pontifications, I'll be phronetic enough to lean more toward the vice of abstinence, than the vice of indulgence.

BTW, I think your writing abilities and wisdom would lend themselves to writing some kind of 'How To' kind of book, along the lines of How to Win Friends and Influence People or Think and Grow Rich; that would seem to be about the right level; an ability for any serious philosophy is certainly not evident; not at this stage of your development, at least. — John

:-! Yes - I think you should work on your conversation skills - when you clearly can't recognise a fictive example, used for illustrating a concept, and you jump to unwarranted conclusions about your interlocutor's character, that is quite shameful of you sir, and I don't think you have any right, given such track record of horrible judgements, to comment on anyone's philosophical skills. Get your conversation skills in order first before you worry about philosophy - perhaps by reading Dale Carnegie yes.

For those who recognise what they have done, guilt becomes a badge of honour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:-! >:O At least you are funny! Imagine - the rapist's rape becomes a badge of honour for him! Who would have thought!

I won't respond to the rest, because it's mostly just the same kind of mistake of over-generalizing, repeated again and again. — John

>:O

So, there is not a great variety of different kinds of knives made for different purposes? — John

Yes there are different kinds of knives, but they all have the purpose of cutting.

I am well aware that Aristotle did not explicitly speak about unique individuals, but the logic of uniqueness is implicit in his notion of excellence and flourishing. — John

Nope. That's your modern Maslowian wash-over the Aristotelian project. Excellence, meaning eudaimonia, never referred to what you're trying to make it refer to.

How a person will be happy or will flourish will obviously variously depend on the kind of person they are — John

You don't understand it seems. This isn't the point. The virtues/vices create a general framework for what is good and what is bad. I will repeat it again, because it seems that you haven't read it carefully. Take the example of chastity, and the corresponding vice lust. (now just to clarify, chastity is always good, and lust is always bad!) The vice tells one what they should avoid. The virtue tells them what they should move towards. Now the vice/virtue pair doesn't give specifics. It doesn't say you'll be chaste by not allowing John to put his hand up your skirt on your first date. You have to figure that specific information, which applies in that particular situation, through your own practical wisdom. Similarly the vice/virtue pair doesn't tell you what profession you should choose. To do that, you have to take into account specifics, such as: what are your skills? What are you good at? What service can you best render the world? Not everyone has the same skills. What, given your social conditions and situation is it possible for you to get into? etc. As you can see the framework of virtues/vices informs the entire process of decision you go through in particular situations. For example, I have a very beautiful body. So do I become a porn star? Well no - the framework of virtue/vice informs me not to do that. I am a very good writer as well. The framework of virtue/vice informs me that I could do that, so long as I focus on helping my fellow human beings develop and become better people - into teaching. Etc.

It's the same when you learn a sport. You learn principles in basketball for example. Keep these elements constant in your throw, everything else try to adapt to the specific situation, and so forth. The virtue/vice pair is the principle that will guide your practical wisdom in moral matters. The Biblical rules and commandments are helpful towards avoiding vices and encouraging virtues. It's up to you afterwards to learn how to apply those principles in particular situations.

But what is not up to question is that lust is bad, and chastity is good - regardless of the differences that exist between people. Regardless.

We don't resolve or undo sin, we just do something such that it doesn't haunt us any more. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's impossible. It always haunts you. You cannot change or escape the past. The only choice is to accept it - to live without a leg for example, and to accept the existence of the pain coming from this. But to accept it doesn't mean to delude yourself that you can achieve an equal degree of eudaimonia without a leg as with a leg. You can't, but you have to do your best with what you have.

But I will recognise this. People like me are useful to prevent tragedies. People like you are useful to improve the life of those who have already been affected by tragedy. Both of us are needed. But I think the emphasis should be on prevention, where prevention is possible. For example, in losing your leg, prevention may not be possible. You have a car accident, and they have to cut your leg off. Nothing you can do to prevent that. But in the case of cheating, it is eminently preventable.

The leg may indeed be regrown with perfect function because the future is not dependent on the loss of the past. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Naïve. The future is dependent on the past my friend - the past cannot be escaped from. That's a direct result of the physical structure of our world. If you think a leg can be regrown with perfect function - goodluck with that. The second law of thermodynamics explains that processes cannot be reversed. Furthermore, once a certain activation energy is achieved - in this case whatever energy leads to the loss of the leg - the process becomes irreversible. You cannot rebuild a perfectly functioning leg. Any man who has had a surgery, or who has had a broken foot knows that once healed, the foot or the spot of the surgery is never the same, and the functionality is never as good as it was.

(Just try believing there are pink elephants on your lawn for five minutes sharp, and report back with findings.) — jorndoe

I am reporting back with the findings :D It's not that I can't believe the pink elephants - it's that I don't want to believe it, and I can't make myself want to believe it. Again - it's a matter of the will. If you convinced my will to believe that, then I would, provided that my intellect would not stand in the way.

We just watched "Holy Hell" (2016) on CNN the other day. — jorndoe

Thanks for the recommendation.

Not in any life. The hurt delivered in this world is irreversible. An afterlife doesn't take it away. That's a fantasy which denies the world and our responsibility. It's to pretend we can resolve the hurt of the past when it cannot. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's according to you, and you seem to be very certain about it. It's a possibility, but not the only one :)

The point is not that one should lose a leg, it is life may by just as good afterwards-- the leg may be regrown, with perfect function. It's loss nothing more than one moment in a rich tapestry. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it won't be just as good. One will still manage to be happy, sure, and achieve a degree of eudaimonia, but this will be lower than what would have been possible had they not lost the leg. You deny the impossibilities that exist in this world. Not everything can be redeemed in this life.

the leg may be regrown, with perfect function — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's never with perfect function - you are living in a dream world afraid to accept the reality which is governed by a time which flows in one direction only.

we are told the falsehood Jesus' sacrifice can make up for it — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not in this life; that's a point about the afterlife for those who are virtuous and do the will of the Father on Earth. Indeed those who go to Heaven will have their tears wiped away and their sufferings forgotten - or so is the promise! Furthermore, those who follow the example of Jesus, will indeed live without sin in this life also.

Neither are driven to the end by being irrevocably hurt. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes again - neither is the man who loses a leg driven to the end by being irrevocably hurt. But one shouldn't lose a leg - that's not the sort of attitude we should teach or encourage. Losing a leg can happen by accident - cheating doesn't happen by accident (because rape wouldn't be cheating). Therefore we do something about it - we teach people about its dangers, we don't trivialise it like you do "oh yeah, they will move on, and continue being happy hurr hurr". The point is to educate and teach people to love one another and not to hurt each other. These are imperative moral standards for social order, which are lacking in many parts of the Western world today.

Moving on is the point — TheWillowOfDarkness

You shouldn't get there in the first place. It's like me saying "Oh yeah, if you've lost your arms and legs you need to move on" - obviously! But that is very congruent with the moral warning: "do everything you can not to lose your arms and legs - losing your arms and legs is a great tragedy, be careful and do not injure yourself! The loss of your arms and legs is irredeemable and permanent! It's not something to joke about and think that you can deal with regardless"

Again progressives seem to be overcome by an attitude of indifference to sin and evil. As if evil was a banality of existence... a matter of indifference ... You seem to not realise that these things you cannot undo. That these things leave marks which last forever. You seem to be under the attitude "Yeah, he cheated, why's that even a big deal??". This is the wrong attitude - you're adopting exactly the same attitude about ISIS as well - "Oh yeah, they're only murdering and pillaging in a barbaric fashion an entire region, how about we leave them a few more years to do it until we solve the problem" - by the time you solve that problem with your attitude, evil may as well destroy you - it spreads like cancer, and it must be removed at once, with no delay!

He has no room for the adulter to act without virtue (cheat on their partner) but then act with virtue (never do it again and have a wonderful relationship with the their partner) — TheWillowOfDarkness

False. I have room for that, only that once he commits adultery, the relationship is already ruined, whether he changes or not. If he changes, he may very well make a future relationship more sustainable, but the current one is pretty much compromised. My emphasis is that the sin is eternal - nothing can undo it while on Earth at least. Can anything remove from his mind the fact that he cheated, and the guilt associated with it? Can anything remove from his partners mind the hurt that he cheated, and the humiliation? No. Thus the sin is eternal. They could move on and keep their relationship - but they will be irrevocably hurt, just like a man who has lost a leg is irrevocably hurt, even if he may still achieve a degree of happiness, and a degree of mobility through a prosthetic.

according to Aristotle, each person has a specific telos — John

No. According to Aristotle, a human being has the telos of a human being - just like a knife has the telos (or function) of a knife. This is true of all knives and all human beings.

which is to maximize personal potential, and to flourish as a unique individual. — John

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Aristotle had nothing to do with this Maslowian idea.

Aristotle emphasizes phronesis or 'practical wisdom' which is the ability to see the best course of action in any situation. — John

Phroensis - the ability to act according to virtue in any particular situation. Again, your understanding of Aristotle is very superficial on this point. For example, a virtue is chastity. A virtue is a general attitude. How you act chaste in a given circumstance though - for example when someone flirts with you in an unchaste way - that is different but nevertheless guided by the virtue. Aristotle's system is very much like my own. General level framework, helps determine, through practical wisdom (understanding your social and historical position), how to act in specific situations.

Ethics and morality do not consist in following rules — John

No, it consists in acting in accordance with the virtues. In-so-far as following rules is helpful to acting in accordance to virtue, then rules are useful.

Whether or not it is relevant to an individual is a matter for him or her. — John

Yes because everyone has the intelligence to decide what is best for them all alone... >:O

There are all kinds of reason why people 'cheat' on their partners — John

Right - all of them immoral (and selfish, and uncaring).

and it's a fact that some do it without their partners ever knowing about it — John

Even worse. This is an even bigger tragedy. Now they don't even have the dignity to assume responsibility for what they have done. What kind of people do you want to breed? Snitches and liars?

and others confess and the couple manages to work it out — John

Yes, just like some manage to overcome cancer.

No one owns anyone else — John

The wrong (and selfish) attitude to go in a relationship with. It will never work out if you go with that attitude. Partners in a relationship own each other - and thus each has a duty to the other one. This is the only solid foundation for a relationship. People should go in a relationship with the attitude of freely giving themselves to the other person out of their choice - an eternal choice I may add. They no longer own themselves once in a relationship. This progressive propaganda of self-ownership is the breeding ground of much selfishness and corruption. You drum it into people's ears from the day they are born! In schools, they are only taught selfishness, and otherwise a superficial, socially pleasing altruism - which is merely a coverup for selfishness.

and if some people need to stray from a relationship to work out their own issues — John

Just like some need to murder to work out their own issues right? The victim's family, if they are big and smart will accept this and love them as a human being nonetheless >:O

But of course you want to impose your one and only model of how relationships should be on everyone. — John

No - other models of relationship may work, but they will work only accidentally - by chance - not by design.

As I see it this is presumptuous and shows a lack of maturity and subtlety. — John

Oh yes, and the murderous proposals that you make are certainly very mature and especially subtle - they certainly show a lot of concern for the victim :-*

you seem to think there is but one kind of role "the human being must play in this world" — John

As did Aristotle one might add. Or Plato for that matter. The general level framework is the same for everyone. Social and historical circumstances are different, and its the task of the person to adapt the general guidelines to their practical lives, using what Aristotle termed practical wisdom.

Yes. They're challenged for being grounded. — Marty

Ok.

Ethics are showed in the absence of being, in what it's not. In the sense of what haunts us in the world isn't what there, but in what's not in the world. A possibility not actualized. — Marty

Can you give a specific example to illustrate what you mean here? Also how can such an ethics create order in society and in the individual soul? It seems to me to be very close to arbitrary and debatable - precisely because it cannot be decided upon rationally.

All it means is to go against ground. All ethics are, if you buy into the argument, groundless. Which means it an absolute duty for us to challenge them constantly from the "ground" up. — Marty

This is contradictory. If they are groundless, then they cannot be challenged from the ground up because there is no ground.

But Levinas never says ethics is up for grabs. That's why ethics are radically Other. So if they're radically other they can't be for everyone to decide and judge. — Marty

Then how do we access ethics if they are radically Other? How does a priest for example teach ethics to his congregation in such a case? If ethics are radically Other, then it would follow that even the ethics illustrated in the Bible are not "real".

But if you're skeptical of these things - the ability to concretize an ethical system that everyone has a duty towards, in which we place ourselves ourselves as a duty towards our own ethical standards - then you place ethics beyond that domain, into something otherwise than being. — Marty

The reason for having ethical systems in the first place though is to create order - both in the soul and in society (the latter being merely man writ large as per Plato). If you're skeptical of it, then you slide into an ethics which is very dangerous - because it gives free reign to everyone to decide and judge by themselves, which is anti-thetical to happiness, especially once you realise that one's own happiness is always in part dependent on society and others, and hence demands harmony. Harmony can only be achieved through collaboration, which requires a shared understanding - not caprice.

Obviously in the sense that God doesn't have Being if he's radically Other. It also doesn't offer us a teleological explanation, explain the problem of evil, or makes God explainable in terms of essence, existence, or any properties whatsoever which would delimit God. — Marty

Okay. Rudolf Otto in the Idea of the Holy presents a similar conception of divinity. May I ask you, in your opinion, what is the ethical import, if any, of this conception of God? How do you - as a believer in a God who is Ganz Andere, how do you live your ethical life as a Christian? Are there differences in comparison to someone who is a Thomist?

He's a part of that tradition, I think. Although, I personally haven't read much on Jean Luc Marion. — Marty

How is your radically transcendent God different than the Thomistic conception of God then?

Staying together to ride out the ups and downs that happen even in the best partnership is generally a good thing — andrewk

It depends - some things ruin the value of the partnership, and make its aim impossible to achieve.

But it is often the case that people form a partnership that is bad for both of them, because their personalities and aspirations are simply not compatible. Untold misery is then caused when religious dictates make such a couple remain together. — andrewk

Yes that is a problem because (1) people are not willing to change for each other, (2) they pick each other without judgement, (3) they don't share the same aspiration as you said. But if they believed in God - then their aspiration would have been to serve God, and they would share it. Hence, it would still end up as I have stated - such a partnership will intrinsically be more likely to succeed. Granting of course that the two people do honestly love God first, before loving each other. Indeed - it is this other love that makes their own love stable.