That is very impressive, I like that. Off the bat i'd say i am more a Cynic than the other two options. In response to Judaka I was going to say that I thought nihilist got tired of suffering and fell into a position where they found that they had no foundational beliefs

St Paul clearly teaches that each Christian is the bride of Jesus. He can't marry a group as a group, so the meaning of the Church as the bride of Christ is clearly that each Christian marries Jesus when he becomes a Christian

Did you guys know that the pro-choice Catholics actually have a point that the Church hasn't said when the soul joins the body? Thomas Aquinas said the soul enters weeks after conception and the decree on the Immaculate Conception by Plus IX speaks of Mary's "conceptions" (plural). I checked the Latin text on the latter, and with regard to Aquinas he was quoted in one of the opinions at Roe vs. Wade.

It is true that the Church still condemns abortion as at least 2nd degree murder, but pro-choice Catholics claim this is not infallible and that Rome is being overly scrupulous about the whole matter

"In the ordinary course of nature this is the condition of the child in its mother's womb, a condition neither merely bodily not merely mental, but psychics- a correlation of soul to soul. Here are two individuals, yet in undivided psychic unity: the one as yet no self, as yet nothing impenetrable, incapable of resistance: the other is its actuating subject, the single self of the two. The mother is the genius of the child; for by genius we commonly mean the total mental self-hood, as it has existence of its own, and constitutes the subjective substantiality of someone else who is only externally treated as an individual and has only a nominal independence. The underlying essence of the genius is the sum total of existence, of life, and of character, not as a mere possibility, or capacity, or virtuality, but as efficiently and realized activity.." Hegel in Philosophy of Mind

So I've been convinced to be pro-choice recently. The above quote shows Hegel would have taken this stance too. I think before birth only the subconscious mind exists, and it hasn't had material to do anything with yet. The first real experience of a child is birth

I read the passage cited above by Tim Wood carefully, and the last sentence says it clearly that there is no noumena in the sense of another world we are indirectly interacting with. My understanding is that Kant did believe he has once nursed on his mother's breasts. That is, he believes in the reality of consciousness coming from matter. We get awakened to a priori thoughts by synthetic thoughts (i.e. while nursing). First we have the subconscious, then the world comes to meet us, birthing the conscious ego. A priori is logic, awaken by the senses. It slowly developes into adult logic. To even think of noumena is to posit synthetic a priori, which is barely not in itself a contradictory category for Kant. You simply can't prove anything transcendent from human experience. Whether the world is made of necessary stuff or contingent stuff is a completely different question from what Kant was addressing

I find matter itself to be absurd. If I were to leap into a pool and start to shrink, I could shrink forever and still remain in the pool. But after forever, I can grow big again and come out of the pool, gaze at it, and notice that it's finite. No matter what calculus students tell me, I will always find this an absurdity

Augustine apparently started the idea that babies were evil because they committed Adam's sin with in while in his balls

On the contrary the absurdist can't help but project absurdity on the noumena, whatever it is

Well, it says that truth is unknowable in this life and that there are things we can encounter that are totally absurd (a very technical English word). Therefore if our minds can only see probable truth in this life and can experience and come to realization of things that are absurd, our faculty of reasoning itself is flawed. So this would be the most mild of relativism, as I see it

What are your thoughts on absurdism, the mildest of all the relativisms?

It's already been said everything is acting to a certain degree. Energy has potential to act in new ways

There are things that existed, things that exist, and things that will exist. There are things that are possible and perhaps things that are impossible. Are you saying that a world without relativity is impossible?

You might like the book Action by Maurice Blondel. Friendly recommendation

I have Discourse on Thinking somewhere. Does anyone know when that was written?

I got that information from the skepticism section on historyofphilosophy.net

Lucian, emperor Julian, Celsus, Porphyry, and Hierocles provided Roman alternatives to Christianity, which is just remodeled Judaism. We don't have all their works because Christians use to destroy stuff. But to be Christian is to become a Jew. I have nothing against Jews as people. But I'm Italian and Christianity has a Middle Eastern vibe I don't like. Sure Christians dressed their religion up in Greek garb, but I think the experiment completely failed

You are right

If P is 70% true and 30% false, the laws of Aristotle are violated. I think this is what Hegel was after

I just didn't know what your point was. Gn

I've come to realize today that those who choose to enjoy the writing method of "Saint" Thomas Aquinas invariably become not arrogant but prideful. He is bad voodoo. Consider how the word "dunce" became synonymous with "idiot". I regret that I ever recommended his writings to philosophy readers

You haven't presented a logical alternative to my agnosticism so I can't be open to it

If Jesus was God and promised he would return in that generation and didn't, than God is at fault

You haven't made much sense at all so far

Did you read my previous answer? — Gus Lamarch

I see. You don't seem to have a distinct point/argument then

Matthew 16:27-28

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The obvious reading of this is that Jesus thought the Second coming would happen soon. Of course, it never happened. Christians will reinterpret this to say that the resurrection was the first stage of the Second Coming. But if Christians can reread and reinterpret Scripture, what right have they to attack the Koran? Modern Muslim apologists have all the arguments they need to defend any passage you choose to attack

It's almost as if, when you give freedom to people, they normally will throw it at the garbage.
Enjoy it while you can. — Gus Lamarch

I will. You don't have an argument. If Christianity gave us freedom of thought, we have every right to use it against the bad points of Christianity. We are not in contradiction

I see the four corners as mind expanding, not dry

Freedom of religion was late in Christianity. The majority of the time you could not talk as we do on this forum.

Pyrrho doubted that he doubted, and so verged on relativism. I am not sure this is where the Tetralemma leads.

Early Christian writers Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Augustine, and others all mentioned that the earlier Roman religion was similar to Christianity. They were worried that people would believe Christianity borrowed from the Romans, so they made up the story that the devil knew Christianity was coming and mocked it ahead of time. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2.14) mentioned that historians had "written the history of Mithras in many volumes." But these have almost completely disappeared because of efforts of Christians in the Dark Ages.

My point is that you can only question and point out the errors of Christianity thanks to Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

Christianity does't exist. That is, it was not an entity in the past. PEOPLE are who existed. They held various views and often condemned each other. Out of this some of our modern ideas arose. But we can criticize the crap that was mingled with it

I never said anything about identity to him. He just got mad that I refuted his arguments. The part he "responded" to was just me clarifying that Aristotle and Aquinas believe the "form" in an object has many locations: with the prime matter, and in the heads of humans who abstract it. This is the "idealism" you object to, and I agree it's strange and there is no proof for it. Thomists are so prideful they always, every time to a fault, get mad and make things personal when I refute their arguments. They are a unique breed of people

.

You've been ambiguous about identity and said that essence is the form in the mind. But you can continue to ignore the fact that I've refuted your position many times, that's up to you. I don't like Thomist so I don't like you

It's really annoying when people say "you cant criticize Christianity because it's the foundation of the West". Western ideas grew in a variety of ways and places, and are not inherently connected to belief in the Trinity for example. Also, Catholics have long said only Catholics are saved. Other denominations say the same. So we have every right to look at it as a whole and criticize it for being wrong

So I'm reading on this thread that Kant might not have believed in a thing in itself. I understand the Antimonies as arguing that phenomena says nothing about what noumena is and that noumena is something we can't understand because of the Antimonies. If you throw out the noumena all we have is appearance that contradicts itself. Can this really be Kant's position?

You speak as if the form in the mind is the same in essence as the outside forms. This is strange.

Also, why don't we turn into different people (a new form) with changes in a human (internal or external)? You'll say the human soul is a unique form, but maybe treeness is like this and therefore there is one principle per object

My point was that Jesus was supposed to give authority to the Apostles. But it's possible that Paul fooled everyone and was false and that L uke and Mark were just writers. So you don't have a way t o argue how half your New Testament is inspired

The Romans were right to acclaim "Who is this Jewish deity lacking such wisdom as to allow himself to be tortured to death?"

The

Do you consider it a crime not to be always thinking of other people's problems? If everyone did that communication would break down.

According to Richard Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene, we are naturally selfish. And yes it is selfish to be an individual. How else can you have romance, which of courses selfish. Someone can love from any mental state except insanity, but the fundamental fact is we are all selfish. So individualism is not a sin. The Dude abides too

You just made we want to read his last philosophical works