A perfect being should possess existence, but it cannot maintained that solely by virtue of this conception existence is entailed. — Cavacava

To say that a perfect being should possess existence would presuppose conditions corresponding to a set of properties, but existence is not a first-order property.

"Kant-- following --Hume disqualifies the ontological proof on the grounds that there is no contradiction in conceiving of a determinate entity as existing or nonexistent" Quentin Meillassousx.

Kant's refutation of the ontological argument means that for any and every determinate being there can not be any absolute necessity. Dogmatism is dead and along with it metaphysics, oi vey.

This proof is intrinsically tied to the principle of sufficient reason since this thought entails that all things have causes, even the totality of causes which is god, it demonstrates that there is no absolute necessity. — Cavacava

Well, yes, Kant cannot agree in non-existent objects, since if he stated that 'existence is not a real predicate' he would contradict his own argument by accepting the non-existent. To put it simply, it is impossible to prove the existence of God as much as it is impossible to deny.

But, didn't Kant agree that God is not contingent but exists necessarily? How is dogmatism dead if Kant justifies believing in God, considering that noumena is beyond our understanding that we simply use reason to regulate such a suggestion? I am an imperfect, finite being that there must necessarily be a perfect, infinite being. It is a synthetic a priori truth within the limitations of noumena and while we are responsible for shaping experience through this intrinsic principle of sufficient reason through free-will, there is still an external part of this that remains independent from us and it is not simply reason attempting to order the phenomenal.

I don't think Kant links this to a succession of causal rules that we are able to identify but rather that we are able to reason that an event has a cause even if we don't know what. Free-will is noumena that contains its own causal process of our independent choosing, so I still fail to see the demonstration of no absolute necessity.

So, ah-yuh even the universe is contingent, it could have been otherwise. — Cavacava

Nope. You're gonna have to do better than that. :P

https://www.ghazali.org/works/taf-eng.pdf
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1190averroes.asp

In the area of that I spent over ten years studying/debating philosophy and know about it as much as anyone can the answer is "yes". However like Socrates who was the "wisest" man in Athens because he at least knew that he knew nothing at all, I know that there are both plenty of unknown knowns as well as unknown unknowns, as well as human fallibility/human condition that I can't do that much about. — dclements

There are many people out there that surround themselves with morons who don't know the difference between their left and right hands so that if they lie and pretend to intelligence, the applaud of these people where your every word goes straight over the heads is nevertheless enough to satiate your ego and make you feel highly intelligent. You have those who are cruel or vicious and yet falsely pretend to kindness as they manipulate with precision specific actions that they can publicly demonstrate in order to show themselves as unique and kind. People play games with themselves and one another, with false prophets and prophetess' everywhere - that when they are confronted with the reality that they are not so smart and not so kind after all, when their ego is hurt because their game is exposed and their sense of delusional grandeur is shattered, they can get rather angry.

You speak as though you are humble and yet refer to yourself as the unknown known comparatively a reference to someone supposedly "wise" whereby you apparently spent ten years studying this very subject that you know more about than most people. I'm not swinging my fist at you, I am just showing you that you are not as wise as you think you are and from what you wrote, I highly doubt that the last ten years were well spent.

I kind of both agnostic and atheist. — dclements

You have it all figured out. :-|

The existence of something and our capacity to conceive it are logically independent. — Cuthbert

I have freckles. Just thought I would mention that since you appreciate the obvious. :-|

We can conceive things that don't exist and equally things that do; and we probably fail to conceive things that do or alternatively don't exist. So to consider what we can or cannot conceive will tell us nothing about what exists. — Cuthbert

You will fall into an infinite regress, the point of Anslem' ontology is that which is ultimately a perfect being cannot be thought that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.

I am sure that a 'logical' God it is a fantasy, perhaps a necessary one but still if your conception of the divine is some sort of logical magician, happy trails. Logic is fine, it is important for knowledge, but it is not in my opinion extensive with experience, it can't explain experience. All the logical conundrums fall flat in the face of experience, and life goes on. — Cavacava

Oi, since when is Anselm a god? I said that surely Anslem' ontological argument on the existence of God has a logic, namely "...that than which no greater can be conceived," and not that God is logical. But wait, you say:

The only necessity is contingency...show me otherwise — Cavacava

Hmm.. and you also say:

All the logical conundrums fall flat in the face of experience, and life goes on. — Cavacava

Anselm' formula that we are unable to conceive by understanding alone of a perfect being or God which - by being an agnostic - you must agree with this contingent proposition since the nature of the divine beyond which nothing greater can be posited is neither true nor false.

My my, how logical of you.

Think of the cosmological singularity - how did the universe come to existence? No one is able to posit the very nature and the ultimate beginning of this reality and yet we assume the necessity of the singularity' existence since the universe exists. Unless, you believe that the universe is a contingent proposition?

There is (ultimately) no causal reason for anything — Cavacava

And yet you say:

Of course if there is no God — Cavacava

You seem so sure. :-} Surely there is a logic behind St. Anselm' “that than which no greater can be conceived.”

If you are implying about the lack of certainty for the afterlife or whatever customs that people have created to prompt moral behaviour through such variable influences, then sure.

But if your existence is about the correlation between a number of variables that consists of a timeline of causal events until you authentically become conscious a priori of your own existence and separateness, you then have a purpose. That moment you become 'aware' is the beginning of existence and to Kalam whatever begins to exist has a cause. There is existing in the physical, which is vanity at best (for a majority of people who are not authentically aware but follow the herd are those I would consider non-existent), but there is existence in the Kantian transcendental, which constitutes cognition or becoming a rational, autonomous being. We then become capable of creating a good and virtuous life and experiencing genuine love and happiness (heaven).

I don't want to disarm the potency of your experience here, but I had a similar experience when I was about 15. A feeling of a divine "hand" grabbing my whole being and silencing me, a hand that took my whole being into consideration and made things "right"... — Noble Dust

Scheisse, I'm not mad!

I can wax poetic about whatever I happen to know or not know about tonality, minimalism, post-minimalism, etc, but when it coms down to it, if I don't personally like it, then it just doesn't matter. I don't ultimately give a shit unless it's dope. And a lot of contempo-classical is, decidedly, not dope. — Noble Dust

Well said. (Y)

Well...cellists themselves aren't exactly the privileged (my sister-in-law being an example); if anyone involved is privileged, I guess it would be the faculty who serve as the gate-keepers to cellists. But on the other hand, there's any number of talented cellists willing to play whatever's put in front of them, however, there's many fewer composers willing to write interesting music that involves the cello...so... — Noble Dust

Yes, my housemate is an opera student and she has often asked for my advice on how to deal with what I view to be rather unique situations between students and the faculty, the latter having this puritan air that despises even the slightest deviation from the strict standards they impose that fails to be conducive to creativity with the remedy being a neurotic student cohort. I think it is really fearless of any composer to compose, let alone involving cello, let alone attempting to deviate from tonality.

Anyway, we've kind of taken over the thread... best stop for now. :D

I'm not sure why it being coherently reducible is important. Classical structure lead to atonality, and then minimalism rebelled, but maybe that rebellion was just the next logical step. I mean, atonality continued and continues, even now. But now minimalism is replaced by post-minimalism. Some examples: John Adams, possibly my favorite post-minimalist composer. This piece is for two pianos. Not an easy duo to write for! Twenty fingers... — Noble Dust

When I was in Florence a couple of years back, I went to a concert hidden in the backstreets where I was staying. I was - at the time - in an immeasurable amount of subjective pain and felt the pangs of a deep sorrow and there was probably a handful of people in this concert. When the quartet began playing "Dissonance" by Mozart, it was like a massive hand formed from the sounds and came over me as though it literally grabbed and took away all that pain.

When considering people like Arvo Part, the classical is and remains entrenched in European culture and so it should; it would be a lie in a way to disregard that influence and power. The suggestion of a complete abandonment of atonality to me seems somewhat impossible and there is a certain dishonesty about it that I am afraid becomes clear in some compositions, although I will agree that you correctly paint the picture of a gradual progression and ultimate change. The below is another one of my favourites, but you can sense the mixture between the slavic and the classical that makes Arvo Part well, Arvo Part. It makes him honest to himself through his music.



I wish there were more minimalist music with Cello. I love the Cello and I remember being told how much it would cost to buy one by a teacher at school. I could barely afford lunch at the time and it makes me wonder whether such music is really the sounds created by the privileged. But thanks for your intro in Reicht... ;)

'Admiration' seems to incorporate the idea of approval. I revere nature, but it doesn't seem right to me to say that I admire it. — John

Again, I do not think you can revere something like nature, just like you can't revere your partner who may be a moron or your dog either because they don't respond back to you. Reverence may have an element of 'awe' which is perhaps why you mentioned nature, but it is more about a deep respect for someone that you value with high regard and that can only be directed to a person. That person is beautiful to you not because of how they look since beauty is relative, but you are in awe because of who they are, the choices that they make and that makes you a better person.

Also, I could be intimate (in the sense of sharing an authentically revealing honesty and liking and care) with someone I do not find predominately admirable; I could love someone "warts and all". So, I find I cannot agree that " a mutual expression of this reverence" is a very apt definition of intimacy. — John

One could still call two people in a relationship that play games with each other, lie to each other and compete with one another just to keep the relationship going as 'authentic' since they are mutually out of touch with reality, but authenticity is not that. The narcissism of our society enables people to validate their own existence and personal relationships through the approval of and communication to outsiders and that it just disturbing because your genuine feelings no longer matter.

If you appreciate that someone is showing you affection but does not respond back to you such as showing you that part of you that cannot see, or expose your flaws as much as provide you with a sense of wholeness and peace, the only person that you revere is yourself and you will slowly either go mad or eventually lose your soul. Reverence is directed toward someone outside of you and so when two people who can give love (someone who feels empathy and cares for the well being of all people and nature) and find that respect for themselves (by not lying and having principles that they adhere to etc), the mutual reverence between two such people falls into an infinite loop and they remain authentically connected, and they grow, make each other better, happier etc. They don't need validation and neither does their existence remain dormant or the same.

I finally got through them [half way through Reich] - people should use xylophones more often but I won't indulge in commenting until I have finished listening. I am not entirely sure I agree that a complete denial of tradition can be coherently possible without some constraint of one's own creativity; in the case of Part, he literally is describing and creating his own experiences. Maybe yes, the assertion that one needs to break free from the pre-conditioned structure of classical language has its merits, but is that foundational structure coherently reducible? I'm not sure, I need to read more.

I'm not a musician, I've only just started learning the piano but I have always been a fan of classical music and decided to start exploring contemporary composers, so I appreciate the guidance. To be perfectly honest with you, I have difficulty with trippy analogues, I can even struggle with John M. Cage. I think it is more the synthetic rhythms that causes me to remain focused or conscious and that annoys me, but for abstract stuff, I recently got a chance to see Dan Yuhas when I was in Israel I thought it was a great experience.


I never indulged in Phillip Glass but I could see him creeping up on me on those days where I feel like I'm just sick of everything, but not exactly stressed or anxious, more like disappointed and tired, where you don't really want to talk neither do you want to shut off and just having him on my iPod as I wander around.

what am I doing on a philosophy forum. — Noble Dust

What most of us highly intelligent loners do; we come here to relax. And dude, there is no need to apologise. Passion is way more important than social etiquette. :P

There aren't many people in this world that can make me feel ashamed of myself. Admittingly, I never heard of him but the one piece you posted nevertheless piqued my interest, and though I do not know enough about his work that now renders further investigation, there is that minimalist freedom that I appreciate, though I am not sure what you mean when you say a reaction against atonality?

I was supposed to go to yoga class but you have ruined that prospect :-}

Have you listened to Arvo Pärt? I'm a giant fan and though I do like minimalist compositions, there is a certain technical texture that a composer needs to have to be able to produce a powerful experience despite the repetition and simplicity. Arvo is legendary, in my opinion. I haven't heard of Reich, but I will fish out the album online.

With this one, I feel like I am desperately reaching out to someone, but they are not there, and though it is heartbreaking, I still continue reaching out.

Despite a bad experience at their concert with a creepy crust standing behind me, I still LOVE this song.

Why is it different? Intentions have to do with the resolve for a higher moral good, the thoughts and feelings of the actor rather than the nature of the actions themselves. (of course, one can profess good intentions and not believe in it at all, but that's something different from what I meant.) — Saphsin

I understand, but as an ethical question it is the action itself that matters, the intention is not essential and really only becomes applicable once an act has been made. Something that one simply wants to do but never does has no relevance. In line with the OP and ethics, I feel like consequentialism takes precedence over intention as the latter is perhaps applicable in the case of virtue or values, but it is probably best suited to moral philosophy.

From a moral point of view, indeed what a person may profess tells us little of their intention. And violence does not necessarily need to be physical or heinous either; ostracising or indirect threats are often performed by these monsters as a way to avoid feeling guilt or being blamed as they can easily retort responsibility. That is why I mentioned narcissistic personality disorder as they often have little empathy or understanding of how others feel but seem to feel anger or dismiss anyone that exposes their flaws and run to those that justify the inflated ego, so if people are capable of being dishonest to themselves, it is almost expected that they would be dishonest to others. Monsters are often cowards.

The problem with good intentions is that even the worst monsters profess good intentions, so it doesn't really tell anything about the person and the nature of their actions. Most people reinterpret things to justify what they're doing as for the greater good and they may sincerely believe what they're doing is alright, if not at least partially, otherwise they wouldn't be inclined to do it. — Saphsin

But professing good intentions and acting with good intentions are two very different things; even a sociopathic criminal still has the capacity to show loyalty for instance. In the legal context, mens rea exemplifies criminal intent while actus reus is the very act itself and tests that attempt to verify guilt despite professions of innocence are implemented.

Indeed, someone with narcissistic personality disorder may not even be aware that they are hurting someone and may in fact find their actions justifiable, but actions speak for themselves. That is why one of my favourite movies of all time is Dead Man Walking.

That made me laugh. I'm trying another browser tomorrow.

Feeling classic tonight...

On my phone? No, its just IE. Should I?

Mods,
Not sure who to chat with about tech issues but I am having trouble logging out of my phone. Its a phone my work gave to me - Microsoft Lumia 950 - on android. There doesn't seem a drop down option for it.

What's with the capitalization? What does any of this mean?? — Heister Eggcart

When you capitalise, you are attempting to convey a representation of accurate reality. If you don't know much about what morality is, then run along and play with your toys and stop wasting my time with one-liner questions because you have nothing else good to say.

You're losing me already, fuckmesideways. Yes, I can define time, love, patience, iPhones, pewter cups, etc. What is your point? — Heister Eggcart

That's just... :-|

Uhm, no, I asked whether you can define yourself.

I don't give a damn about what anybody feels is right. — Heister Eggcart

If you follow a religion, than you do.

Alright, at this point, I really cannot proceed with addressing anything else that you've written to me. You MUST define what you hold love, rational autonomy, and moral excellence to be. If you can't do that, I can't discuss with you in any meaningful way. You are hip firing this discussion into oblivion when it doesn't have to. Please, tell me what those three things mean — Heister Eggcart

Listen, I already have but you are just too slow on the uptake to understand. You just throw people questions and pretend that somehow makes you an inquisitive person.

Sorry buddy, but I have an essay due tomorrow and I have barely started, so either read or respond back with an actual response relating to what I say or go play on your iPhone and live out your life and let the adults have their discussion.

You seem to be saying that reverence is appropriate (or perhaps even possible?) only in intimate relationships. This raises the question of reciprocation. Intimacy just is recripocality. Are you able to love that which does not love you in return? Can you reverence that which does not reverence you in return? — John

Yes, but the lack of reciprocal admiration may itself be the impetus that motivates one to better themselves so as to attain reciprocal regard. If a person genuinely admires someone, they would find the will to improve themselves so that the person that they revere would respond back. Intimacy is merely a mutual expression of this reverence.

Love is more universal. If I have been treated rather awfully by a person, for instance, I would still have faith in his potential to improve, even if the likelihood is minimal. That is why love is something we give to everyone without reciprocity and reverence or admiration is something we give to someone.

For me love and reverence are not of different kinds. Love is what makes anything holy. Although the emphasis of the two notions may be somewhat different, I would say there is no love without reverence, nor any reverence without love. Holiness is a disposition. — John

They are very similar, but I do not like the comparable reference of love to holiness as all people are capable of finding the authenticity to love. We need to normalise the act of being genuinely good and enable people to believe that they can attain it. In addition, notions of purity vis-a-vis holy often establish the Other, the impure and that is wrong and makes the positive change in people all the more harder.

So, regarding the Fromm quote: perhaps God was dead because he had become dead to men, and then men were dead because they had become dead to God. — John

(Y)

You believe in that which you've not defined? Bruv, that makes no sense — Heister Eggcart

God is moral excellence and you are striving to God - that is, striving to Moral Excellence or the platonic Form of Good. When you look deep within yourself, do you see anything? Can you define time? We can semantically attach terms like love, kindness, good, patience, but who we are is an activity that only you would genuinely understand. People need to attach temporal and prescribe anthropomorphic qualities to God in order to make sense of something only faith can (and I understand the difficulty between faith and reason vis-a-vis their relationship with what could be established as justifiably accurate, but consider faith to be faith in yourself that what you feel is right).

A person who has faith in himself can learn to love himself and empower himself by aiming to reach an authentic state of rational autonomy; only then are they able to know how to truly love others. This is how moral consciousness is formed. And when one becomes morally conscious, they want to better things that are wrong in their community, politics, etc because they start to have faith in others' potential and as they seek to become better people, they strive towards moral excellence, that their love becomes universal and not restricted and so this faith in themselves is them striving toward God. They begin to positively produce - fruits of their labour - for their community and not for the applaud of religious leaders or by putting on a show of moral worthiness when nothing is going on inside or outside either. Is that not the purpose of religion?

As said by Erich Fromm, "Rational faith is rooted in productive intellectual and emotional activity." You are aware that you have this core being, this self, this "I" and you ultimately have a choice of either silencing it and living out your days being miserably conformed to your surrounds since it produces the same comfort and peace that you felt as a child with no responsibility having your parents take that responsibility for you, or you work hard toward better understanding this identity, this reality despite feeling anxious because it would mean confronting the responsibility of existence on your own, feeling threatened that you will lose everything as a reaction to the independence and aloneness.

When you look at the bigger picture of all religions, what ultimately matters is being a genuine good and loving person, so our study should be quite simply bettering ourselves. If we start an equation with the incorrect numbers, we end up with the wrong result. Start off thinking God is a man on a cloud and conform to an institution, and you will never reach a state of authenticity. This is why I do not agree with any religion, but there are part of the monotheistic religious scriptures that I agree with particularly in the NT since the wisdom within it is teaching us this 'bigger picture' or this way of bettering ourselves. The rest is all just gobbledegook.

This is why the following is wrong:

Great. So if my way includes finding you, chopping you up into itty bitty little pieces, and then feasting on your flesh, I guess you'll have to just lump it and be okay with that. — Heister Eggcart

Moral consciousness. We can freak ourselves out by thinking that without anyone telling us what to do, in that chaotic state of anarchy we would lose our minds and go on a rampage. No. We won't. That is just your amygdala in your limbic system tricking you with an impending threat and holding you into a state of anxiety so that you can justify your refusal to take a path of independence.

There is an adequate amount of information out there that would suffice in our understanding the differences between right and wrong. No one is saying eliminate the scriptures or the ten commandments. The wisdom does not automatically become eradicated without the religious institution.

One cannot love oneself, so not really, no. — Heister Eggcart

Uhm, yes they can. This is the first and most important step. My favourite quote is by Aurelius:

"I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinions of himself than on the opinions of others."

There is a difference between loving yourself and being narcissistic. This man that Aurelius quotes is narcissistic. But a person who loves and cares for himself understands how to love and care for others, and as the 'self' is universal, they love the others with the same universality. A narcissistic person loves objects only that love him and goes on a rage when the opposite is shown.

Just as the scientist is not independent when having to submit his or her research to other scientists for critique within a larger scientific community, one that has rules and regulations, expectations and requirements? Perhaps you're in favor of removing all the silly tape surrounding the means with which doctors and physicians attain their degrees, since institutions are only run for the shit-for-brains and sheeple, yes? — Heister Eggcart

A scientist can eventually "transcend" to start formulating ideas themselves. Einstein, dude.

This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me. Love is not a sense, nor is it some carrot dangling that, once snatched, gives one a key that unlocks in them an understanding of how best to live their life. — Heister Eggcart

It is the will to continuously improve yourself that gives you the understanding. You make a mistake, you improve, and not just rely on others and what they think you should do. It is not poppycock, you're just slow on the uptake.

If we should strive toward them, why be against, then? — Heister Eggcart

Against what, exactly? I believe in God.

Also, is this moral excellence of yours conceived as being potentially greater than, say, what some of the medieval Christian saints appear to have attained? If Christianity helps you in becoming a Saint Francis or Bonaventure, uh, what's stopping you from working toward that within an explicitly religious framework. (devil's advocate here, btw :-* ) — Heister Eggcart

There is no 'way' there is only 'your way' and no one is able to provide you with explicit answers on how to attain genuine moral consciousness. Each and every individual' existential experiences and cognition capacities differ. You can mimic your way, replicate the traditions and adhere to the expectations - just as much as an AI can absorb and reiterate information - but you will never attain the authenticity, the consciousness that will enable you to be decisive, to become aware of your flaws, to feel remorse for your failures and objectively assess and reason your emotional states that can otherwise be highly influential to your actions and decisions. You need to feel and think for yourself.

This is why priests can wear the image of morality and commit atrocities behind closed doors.

Well, you're getting at a pretty big difference between philosophy and theology, here; namely, how each are applied to and in the world. Philosophy doesn't really have a component of evangelization - theology does. To me, this is one key in distinguishing between how one ought to read a Heidegger, Kant, Bitter Crank, whomever else, in contrast to an Aquinas or John Paul II, for example. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not sure what you mean here.

A problem I find with this is that you're attempting to attain moral excellence through seemingly egotistical means. It can't all be about you when morality itself requires the application of right compassion and love. Ethics require a kind of community, agreement on how to interact. If you get rid of a system, say, like the Catholic Church, some would argue that you're getting rid of a necessary step on the road toward making better sure that you are treating others as well as you are able to - which, as a result, is the only way in which one's own morality can be fostered. — Heister Eggcart

The problem here is that you are implying that moral excellence somehow means the eradication of your ego - of the self - as though one is required to sacrifice themselves to something greater than themselves. This is what I mean about having to eradicate all the learned customs and traditions and transcend toward rational autonomy. So, is it not possible to apply the right compassion and love to the community while at the same time caring for yourself and being happy?

You cannot define love and expect through rules or codes of conduct that people will achieve that sense of goodness and peace. And when one transcends to a level of rational autonomy, striving toward moral excellence, only then are they capable of authentically loving since only then are they morally conscious. If, at that point, they reach that sense of love, than the person they choose to spend their lives with must also have the same level of autonomy and together - though they remain independent - willingly choose to develop and grow. This then extends to the community and you cannot go wrong when you are morally conscious.

You only need religion when you are incapable of thinking independently and I would have agreed wholeheartedly that if the Church fostered independent thinking - which it certainly doesn't - that it would be beneficial to the community.

Each individual creates the world upon coming into being, but the world, once made, serves each individual as a whole. Think Tower of Babel. — Heister Eggcart

This is somewhat confusing; the Tower of Babel is a bad example since spiritually speaking, having one language - religion - provokes people to think themselves superior to the right way.

Is that a bad date? Or a fight with your partner? I don't know, but that was one of the best things I have read in ages. >:O


Beautiful.

Ding! Not being silent, just in case you thought I had an off switch. — Bitter Crank

Ah come on, I know you were joking. (L)

If you've defined God as such and such, which is the same as, let's say, in Christianity, then why aren't you, then, a practicing Christian? — Heister Eggcart

I don't define God and what we attribute to God are properties or representations that attempt to affirm our inferiority and the perfections we should strive towards. For example, the mevlevi strive towards God through love and by eliminating their ego in order to reach 'perfection'.

If I am striving toward moral excellence without necessitating any recognition from a person or community or institution, because of the absence of 'codes' that regulate behaviour, my endeavour can be discredited by the prejudice that no one can can authentically reach this higher state without guidance and the approval by an authority or higher figure. In the end, what you are striving for is others and that is just not good enough for me. It is the same with what you read and accept; should I avoid Heidegger because of his personal choices, or should I accept all of what he writes, rather than just read and appreciate what aspects of his work may be sensible? I have read the New Testament, indeed the Old Testament and the Qur'an, do I need to pick one and adhere to all of it, or should I ignore all three of them? No, there is wisdom and a great many moral suggestions that I appreciate and adhere to, but certainly not all. How I choose to interpret that is mine and mine alone without the influence of a religious institution' interpretation.

If reaching a state of moral perfection is entirely a subjective endeavour, hence why Jesus spoke in parables, then how does practicing a religion influence the independence or autonomy required for one to achieve this?

Why?

PS I hope I didn't offend any anti-religious cricketers or cricket-hating monks by comparing cricket to religion. — andrewk

Well, you did. :’( Bobby Cliff for life.

If they ask me what I believe, I will tell them that I do not believe we can know anything about God, but that does not mean that I am, therefore, certain that God does not exist. I may tell them that I also don't believe that they have special gifts which enable them to know anything specific and concrete about God. I know from experience, that those sort of statements will likely lead to a prolonged discussion which will not be very productive. — Bitter Crank

I actually think they can be productive depending on the person whom you decide to discuss the topic with. Those statements are sensible, but somehow I feel that there is more and your preference to avoid prolonged and oftentimes ineffectual discussions may be the impetus behind that statement, which interests me to further discussion. So, I agree with what you say, but if I follow no religion and I believe in God, that this certainty is based on faith alone without any symbiotic attachment to overcome the existential angst, what would that make me?

A "holy reason" is a reason with holes in it, as all good reasons should be. ;) — John

Sounds somewhat Harry Potterish...

On a more serious, though no less profound, (and curiously related) note; do you not believe that reverence for things is the highest form of motivation?

Or again, as Leonard Cohen would have it: “There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in”... — John

Motivation for what exactly? First let us eliminate any socio-religious influences and ascertain what motivation itself would be required for. I would not say reverence is the highest, but particularly in matrimony, a deep respect or admiration for a beloved can motivate one to become the best that they can be.

For me personally, I believe that love is the highest form of motivation and certainly the most sustainable and empowering, but how we approach the subject is as problematic as the subject of God because there are a plethora of interpretations that often conflate and confuse; if I say God to a Catholic, they see Jesus, whereas I don't see an image and I see Jesus as just a man. When I say love to a person who follows some New Age worldview, they see obscure, cosmic influences that they need to absorb through mindfulness where as I see it as not as a sentiment but as innate which can be obscured by psychological and environmental influences.

Love has a universality that reverence doesn't, which is why the latter is best suited at describing intimate relationships. This universality - or infinite - is the ultimate, God, and becomes what we strive to attain because we no longer just love one object or objects that have some benefit to us, but all things and thus our approach to the world becomes sustainable and genuine. But this requires discipline and learning because, as I said, it is often obscured by psychological and environmental influences. It is why I mentioned to ND that we need to first attain an authenticity of mind by reaching a state of rational autonomy.

"In the nineteenth century the problem was that God is dead; in the twentieth century the problem is that man is dead." Erich Fromm

I see the need to think independently and authentically and objectively, but I don't equate that with the process of transcending the subjective and emotional developmental stages. — Noble Dust

The need to think authentically, however, necessitates a consciousness of ones own subjective emotions and whether their responses to external stimuli is genuine or merely a symbol of their conformity to escape from the anxious feelings of autonomy, as they remain enslaved or trapped within that small worldview. Transcendence does not imply a complete abandonment of the self or the transcendence of Schopenhauer, but the capacity to objectively remove yourself from being blindly controlled by the irrational prompts of our infantile attachments. This is why our doubts should always be within ourselves as it is easy to lie and tell ourselves our conformity is not actually conformity at all. The only possibility where this transcendence is not necessary is in an environment that nourishes the child to develop a sense of moral consciousness and provides them with the proper support to begin thinking objectively and independently, which is why when one naturally evolves to this next stage of rational autonomy seem to have the need to change the wrong or bad to the right conditions, becoming political activists, artists or anything that challenges immoral situations within our community or at large. That is why I call it moral consciousness.

A child is emotional because love needs to be established. Love still needs to be established for the objective, critically thinking adult. The need to establish love never goes away, and this is always a subjective (of the subject) and emotional need. — Noble Dust

Yet, this appears to be framed under the assumption that every child grows up with love, which is clearly not the case. I might personally be bold enough to say that our emotions are innate but how we utilise this cognitive tool depends on the paradigm of learned psychological traits factoring environmental, social and biological. Like the movie Sleepers, while all four of them were sexually abused as children, two of them became violent and abusive while the other two responded through developing legal careers; everyone' mental faculties differ as do their responses. The fact is, though, as it is a part of our function or a tool, than we can understand it and control it objectively.

Indeed, the absence of the sort of unconditional love that the parent offered is probably the genesis of so much human suffering. — Noble Dust

My adolescence and early adulthood felt like I had a gaping hole in my chest and yet I do not agree that love is established; it is innate, otherwise why else am I about to implode with the intensity of all this love and affection when I grew up mostly alone and in an absence of unconditional love? And there are many people who have grown in an environment where they experienced unconditional love and yet become rather vicious. To be sure, probability in numbers strengthens the former, but the ultimate schism in humanity and the genesis of our suffering is the failure to accept our autonomy, the existential aloneness which is a reality for all of us. I could have easily ignored the angst and become absorbed by conforming to my ridiculous culture where so many other young people entertain themselves with random social bullshit, I instead rather enjoy the comforts and pleasure my environment offers - live in a beautiful apartment, wear nice clothes, do photography, go on hikes - while at the same time dedicating myself to the less fortunate in my community through my work and my studies, being the big sister or friend to young girls who also have no one and give them to confidence to do the same. Going back to what I said, those who do transcend tend to want to change things for the better, objective consciousness almost always instigates moral awareness.

On top of that, I grew up in a very isolated environment where I had a lot of freedom; so things like thinking independently, critically, being imaginative, and embracing freedom where always easy for me to embrace, even in childhood. I trust I'm not the only one who's had such an experience, even if the latest psychological studies didn't happen to include us. — Noble Dust

I agree, you may have had the right conditions, but I am always doubtful of those that say they embrace freedom and independence with confidence. Some western societies have indeed provided the superficial conditions that enable people to think that they are 'individuals' when really they are blindly following in masses.

Oi!

Although, you could be right, considering you are still talking to me and you're are nutcase... :-*

There is so much going on, I guess the energy coming from your perspective, the crowds, the foods, the drinks with the main person you are in contact with at the centre of the bar. It is hard to digest and maybe that was intentional because of both your liking and sometimes disappointment when visiting there, but I get a strong glimpse of who you are, what you see and what is important to you. I really like it.

(L)

I've been thinking about that for a long time. :-#

Having the right to get married is just another source of cognitive dissonance- it was something I did not anticipate. — NeubergCrowley

Ah, come on, some traditions are nice if you've found your match. As said by Blackadder:

"And don't forget, sir, that the modern Church smiles on roaring and gorging within wedlock, and indeed rogering is keenly encouraged."

(L)

Doubt, for me, is a very practical attitude because I expose myself to as much as possible in search of fulfillment in the long run... the hunt for fulfillment is itself my ultimate concern. — VagabondSpectre

The problem is the clarity of this ultimate search for fulfilment in the long run, the sustainability of happiness of which, in my opinion, requires an authenticity of mind, clear from subjective influences and the fear of our separateness from the world around us. We inhibit our perceptual capacity because the angst or the emotional dread precipitated by unheimlich, the realisation that we are 'drawing away' from the childish reality. The problem here is that our minds are instinctually trained to overcome or eliminate anxiety and since our fears are being drawn from a concept we cannot understand or the 'nothingness' of freedom that draws people away from their own sense of significance, we repress the alienating force.

So we end up developing a type of ressentiment, ignoring these feelings and never transcending by conforming to others - allowing others to think on our behalf - because by following and failing to exercise autonomy they feel the same 'comfort' of their childish reality, distracting themselves with the pleasure materialism provides along with the applaud of their social connections. Capitalism enables the masses to resist ever exercising objective thought. Thus, unconsciously, they 'hate' themselves in a way because of this cowardice, so they project it by treating others with this insatiable hostility (doesn't need to be violent, it could simply be trying to crush opponents as you attempt to climb the corporate ladder or by exercising the right 'image' like in Instagram, or quite simply just shutting off from the world and not caring at all etc).

Moral consciousness - for me - is the only way that would enable a person to begin exercising independent thought because they begin to exercise objective thinking, or Nietzsche' conventionalism. I think that was what Jesus was talking about albeit in a simplified manner to help push along all the morons, using moral parables to get people think objectively. I don't know what Christianity is on about.

I struggle with relation to the infinite as well, but I personally can't shake the concept. Maybe it's just the religious upbringing. But I've never been anything close to a materialist or physicalist, so a concept like the infinite has remained on my horizons almost out of necessity. Not because I believe in it per se, but because it seems to need to exist metaphysically and teleologically. — Noble Dust

This struggle is not a unique problem only for the religious; I follow no religion, I follow no institution or person and I believe in God. The concept of the infinite in science is just as baffling and I feel that the only thing left in the end is faith since no one can neither prove nor disprove. What makes this faith is what one would need to question and any anthropomorphic projections that render the infinite as a man on a cloud or something temporal is only necessitated to support the smallness of our perceptions and influenced by the historical, but the logic behind it is actually quite sensible pending the elimination of the archaic traditions. This returns back to the above-mentioned, the need to transcend and to learn how to utilise the mind objectively and authentically. We need social constructs for language and understanding, etc &c., and though much of our learning heavily involves the subjective and emotional during our developmental stages that we attach to for most of our lives, our mind is a tool and tools can function objectively.

The problem is that most people never reach that, aimlessly inhibiting their own capacity for happiness as they are fraught with the powerlessness of their fear for anxiety, failing to exercise independent and rational judgement because they don't want to let go.

Humpf, I am trying to eat my subway sandwich. Ok, fine.

I once encountered a lady who appeared to be a highly religious and thus apparently a moral person and as we were talking about charity, I noticed her insulting a particular ethnic group by claiming that their greediness is causing her distributive problems to the broader community. As I started explaining to her that her moral position is somewhat problematic considering that charity is not culture-specific, she immediately became defensive, to a point where she spoke over me and (since others were there) where I became 'third-person' as she spoke to others about me as an attempt to persuade others in the room that something must be wrong with me to justify her behavioral flaws. This intentional discourse was brought to a point where I was insulted. As others awkwardly listened on and as she shuffled about the kitchenette, being me, I quoted from her religious scriptures that confirmed my position and her moral failure point blank. There was nothing else she could say. She then started yelling before experiencing some 'hysteric' moment where she appeared to be fainting but not, having heart failure and paralysis and what not as Iattempted to calm her down knowing it to be superficially induced as her way to silence and win the argument and thus maintain her so-called moral superiority.

Defense mechanisms that subconsciously project false accusations in order to cope with the subjective emotions of guilt is very common, but I am conscious of it.

I said silence!

Work those pegs toward the lyceum. As I say in the gym. 'I squat, therefore I am.'

Nevertheless, I follow no religion, so what would be my holy reason?