"Ronner" is new to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I see it's also used to refer to a lover of Ronald McDonald, but assume that wasn't the intended use in what you quote (thought it would be wonderful if it was).

It seems to me apparent that we're caught in chaos and suffering, and have been for a very long time. So, understanding that we are doesn't strike me as much of an insight. If by understanding that we will "discover how to live intelligently and supremely" then we've been living intelligently and supremely for quite some time now.

Krishnamurti was thought to be, and groomed to be, "The World Teacher" by proponents of Theosophy. Though he distanced himself from Theosophy later in his life, it seems he never denied what they said he was. He certainly kept teaching and had devoted followers, who took care of him very well, though he claimed he wanted no followers. It may be hard not to be the The World Teacher when you're told you are from a young age.

I await reprimand for pedantry and cynicism and other even more reprehensible traits.

The only historical evidence of Jesus having super power comes from his disciples and Josephus, who also was a Christian. — Gregory

Flavius Josephus a Christian? I don't think so. Some Christian inserted a statement that Jesus was God in one of his works, rather awkwardly, but he remained a Jew though a kind of favorite and pet of the Flavian emperors.

There were several wonder-workers wandering about the Roman Empire, though, so the fact that miracles were ascribed to Jesus isn't all that remarkable; it may even have been expected. Simon Magus, for example, and Apollonius of Tyana.

That said, on the topic generally, we make judgments all the time about people, events, things. It's part of what we do. The trick is to do so intelligently. Christianity holds that judgment is required, however, as a matter of doctrine; judgment of humanity in general, and of people, according to doctrine.

The Christian religion, the genuine, 2000 year old Catholic tradition insists on humiliation, confession and thus the remission of sins. — Lokii

Also, the oppression and persecution of nonbelievers, Jews and, even more so, of unorthodox Christians.

In case of humans, being forced to exist doesn't imply being made to act like a robot, like all other livings things do.
But, a person is also free to see himself a very intelligent robot or... — KerimF

Thinking is something we do (well or poorly) as well as dreaming, breathing and pissing. We do those things because we're creatures which evolved in a particular have certain biological and neurological characteristics. I think you're defining "forced"--which means coerced or compelled by someone or something--in a very odd way.

There is no absolute objective truth, but then again post modernism is no full blown relativism (which is inconsistent). I don't see post modernism is self-inconsistent — Gregory

Absolute truth, like absolute certainty, is a chimera. If they were geese, they may be said to have led philosophers on a wild goose chase for 2,500 years or more. But they're unnecessary, as we may make intelligent judgments, conclusions and decisions based on the best evidence available, on probabilities, on what's been tried in the past and the results of those efforts. From what I know of it, it's the suspicion and devaluation of reason and reasoning, which may be some kind of reaction to the pretensions of the Enlightenment, which disturbs me about postmodernism. As far as criticism of philosophical thinking in general and the idea of truth in particular is concerned, I much prefer that made by Dewey. He was less inclined to dispense with the use of critical intelligence--inquiry, as he called it, which includes logic, experimentation and reasoning--in assessing our lives and the world in which we live.

Do you believe that you're forced to breathe. Or forced to piss? That you wouldn't breathe or piss if you weren't being compelled to do so? Dreaming, breathing and pissing is just part of what we do as humans. Nobody's making us dream, breathe or piss.

I've seen these kind of objections to Hegel, but the more I read him the more I don't see it. I'd bet if you read the post modernist in context, it can be seen they are not just playing games. I look forward to reading much of them in the future — Gregory

I think anyone who reads Hegel is remarkable, in the same sense that I think anyone who voluntarily wears hair shirts is remarkable. It's as if one is doing penance in the hope of being rewarded sometime, if not in heaven then perhaps in 19th century Prussia during the reign of Friedrich Wilhelm III, its earthly equivalent.

But I suspect context could provide some clarification, if the author deigns to supply helpful definitions for the more obscure words and phrases or if the reader is already familiar with the jargon. When that's required in order for an author to be understood, though, I don't think it does him/her any credit.

But, perhaps in your reality, I mean how YOU perceive reality, you have your good reasons to believe that you had also the free-will to accept or not to be brought into this life. — KerimF

I think I have good reason to believe it makes no sense to speak of us as if we existed before we exist,. Because, I hope it doesn't surprise you to learn, we don't exist until we exist. We exist only when we exist. So there is no me, nor is there a you, pondering or deciding whether or not we should exist until we exist. Nor is there a me or a you that can be forced exist when neither you nor I exist.

In short, if A is possible, then it must make B possible, which opposes C, in the name of the being of C, and of the D from which (B, the being of C, or C) should derive. I think we can just substitute most anything we like for A, B, the being of C, C and D and the resulting assertion will seem much like that made by Foucault, and make as much sense.

If time travel is possible, then it must make visiting the past possible, which opposes the view that time travel is not possible, in the name of the being of time travel and of the idea from which time travel should derive.

If good is possible, than it must make evil possible, which opposes determinism, in the name of the being of free will and from the idea of free will from which free will should derive.

Sadly, I could go on and on.

What does he mean by the rest of the quote, while you are at it. — Banno

It's all so clear.

That possible enunciative analysis--possible, bear in mind, not actual--simply must make it possible--not certain or probable--to raise that transcendental obstacle--no ordinary obstacle, mind you--to all analyses of language, in the name of the being of that language--being being, after all, being, and the being of the language therefore not being the language itself--but not merely in the name of the being of that language; also in the name of the ground from which it--the being of that language, or perhaps that language, or perhaps the transcendental obstacle (here it becomes a little bit unclear)--should derive its origin--not necessarily, therefore, the ground from which it does or may derive its origin.

Oh , Tully, you missed the point. Can't you see the plasmoids clearly emblazoned in the guts of your cat etching? — Banno

I thought they were badges or insignia, or communication devices like on Star Trek.

You can find me on stupid-joke-porn.com! — Hippyhead

That won't be necessary, as I can find you as much as I want to here.

Sorry, did I say that every living being is supposed to perceive 'IT'? — KerimF

No. What you did say, however, was that you weren't asked if you wanted to exist, and were "forced" to do so, by IT. That was what I referred to, as should be obvious.

You don't know what you want. Neither do I. Few to none of us know what we REALLY want because what we really want has so rarely if ever been an option that we have so little real experience in considering it. — Hippyhead

I want a colossal statue in my likeness to erected in Chicago on the Chicago River, say at the State Street bridge (I like Marina City), standing athwart the river, one foot on each side. Like the Colossus of Rhodes as imagined, portrayed standing athwart the harbor. Well, clothed differently, as I am shy.

Sadly, it's unlikely that my benign countenance will ever loom over Chicago in this manner. However, I easily have, and enjoy, the real experience of considering it.

Back to cats. — Banno

Everything comes back to cats. Even aliens, as this Nazca Lines image shows. Or maybe it shows cats are aliens. I forget which.

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-peru-unveils-giant-cat-etching.html

I confess I was just being silly.

But chess, when played at high levels, is very much about theory. Some would say it's become too much a matter of theory (Bobby Fischer for one, before he became completely unhinged). And generals aren't necessarily good players. Napoleon was a terrible chess player, but is considered one of history's finest generals. So, one should be careful when comparing chess with politics.

You take out the leading general, and their replacement general is weaker and easier to fight (of course you fight them afterwards) — Saphsin

Aw, you don't fool me. There aren't any generals in chess.

Depends on how young they are, I suppose, but teaching logic and rhetoric as tools in evaluating claims would be useful. As for teaching philosophy, hell no. It would be ideal for them to learn how to think, but might be catastrophic for them to be exposed to the bizarre caperings of most philosophers at a young age.

As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world. — KerimF

Well, there was no "you" to ask, before you existed, nor was there any "you" to be "forced" to exist before you existed. So, there was no IT forcing anything.

You guys are left to Satan. — Olivier5

I've been Satan's lawyer for years now. I'll be representing him in Heaven after Judgment Day. Business is business.

the US is fucked and the rest of the planet too. — Olivier5

Well, as long as the rest of the world is fucked as well, we'd probably be okay with that. Jesus will make sure we're raptured away before really bad things start to happen, anyhow.

How much longer, until a "Constantine" takes possession of the American civilization? And after him, how long before a "Theodosius" forbids pagans - today's Christians - from worshiping their God? — Gus Lamarch

Well, you see, the Christian Roman Empire actively suppressed traditional pagan religion. Not necessarily Constantine, who seemed to prefer Apollo/Sol Invictus sometimes, finally consenting to be baptised when near death. Shrewd fellow, Constantine; he played the field as needed. He may have been the beginning, but the real persecution of pagans took place under his successors.

For anything similar to take place here, substituting Islam for Christianity, Christians for pagans, imperial power would have to be imposed in the U.S., on behalf of Islam, for centuries. That seems unlikely, to understate. For one things, traditional pagan religion was non-exclusive and tolerant. Christianity in the U.S. is neither of those things.

Clearly, I must read her work.

I still think fondly of the way Austin eviscerated Ayer in Sense and Sensibilia, but she seems to have taken him on in a different manner.

Does anyone know if she wrote anything about H-H-Heidegger (pardon the typographical stutter--I'm so far gone even seeing his name enrages me)? If she did, please let me know, but not if she admired him. I don't think I could stand it. Sob.

No. He underestimated Mark Antony's brutality or preferred to defy death. — David Mo

I think he knew Antony well, and that his sometimes rather ribald denunciations of Antony in the Senate assured he would die. It's a shame that the future Augustus consented to his death when part of the Second Triumvirate. It's said Augustus regretted his part in it later, when he was sole ruler of Rome.

What your daimon was doing was defending the senatorial power against imperial attacks. — David Mo

That was his day job. It didn't end well. He lost his crown, so to speak, as well as his hands it's said. But he certainly remained active until the end.

I'm with the Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, who said that every election is a kind of advance auction sale of stolen goods. That said, the quality of some stolen goods is better than others.

My daemon, Cicero, insists that old age is "the crown of life." I tend to think of it more as "the bottom of the barrel of life" in the sense that one expects less of it--naturally, as there is less of it left. So, we must ration it if we want it to last, but there comes a point when what's left is gone or isn't worth the effort. That's the fact, jack. The trick is to accept it without qualification, and do the best with it as we can.

I remain convinced that Supreme Court Justices should spend more time practicing law or on the bench than Judge Barrett, who experience is, shall we say, de minimis. But I'll confess, also, that I'm somewhat concerned by her reputed membership in "People of Praise," apparently a charismatic bunch influenced by pentecostals. I once attended a meeting at which people "spoke it tongues." One would translate the "speaking" of the other. I wasn't in a position to contest the translations which, unsurprisingly, sounded like passages from the Bible. It was one of the oddest experiences I've ever had.

Many barbarians served the Empire well, it's true. And I think the Empire generally did well by them, for the most part. The Principate was available to men of low status, as well. Some were famous as restorers of the Empire, like Aurelian and Diocletian. They clearly thought it worth saving. I can't think of any imperial power in which high status and power was more available to men of "low birth," provincials and barbarians (meaning, outsiders) than Rome.

This isn't to say it was "good." But it is to say that it was remarkable.

.. which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ethno-supremacist. After all, it did view so-called “barbarians” as inferior, didn’t it? — Tristan L

Yes, generally, but in the same sense so many of us, and others, have considered people different from us inferior in some manner. The Roman Empire was fairly extraordinary, though, in that many emperors weren't from Rome or even Italy, but instead from the provinces, e.g. Spain, Africa, Syria, Gaul, Dacia and Moesia. It's also noteworthy that former slaves were able to acquire great wealth and power in the Empire once freed. A person could acquire high status regardless of origin. The Empire's dependence on the legions may account for some of this. "Barbarians" could attain power through the military, which gained more and more influence over the succession.

Jesus was just complying with federal law to avoid an HR nightmare by paying him hourly and not by the week. — Hanover

He was well advised by the attorney for the three persons of the trinity, the Archangel Causidicus Magnus.

Those hired in the morning agreed to work in return for a specified payment. Those hired later were told merely that they would be paid whatever the landlord thought appropriate. Jesus knew, of course, that legally those hired in the morning would have no claim for more than the specified amount. He knew also that those hired later in the day would have difficulty making a claim in law for any payment, because the agreement they entered into with the landlord was so vague as to be potentially unenforceable.

But of course he knew as well that they might have an equitable claim--one for unjust enrichment. Rather than face possible litigation, and as earning the reputation for generosity would make people think highly of him and promote the popularity and sales of his wine. So, the landlord opted to pay those hired later in the day the same amount as those hired in the morning, making it virtually certain that no claim for wages could successfully be made against him by any worker.

The kingdom of heaven, therefore, is like a shrewd employer and good businessman.

Who's this "we"?
— Ciceronianus the White

The dwellers of the modern free Western Eurasia and their forebears and descendents. — Tristan L

You to have no qualms about speaking for all of them, it seems.

I mean laws that reflect objective moral law in respecting the wirthe (dignity) of all human beings (the only humans that lack it are those who have forfeited it by freely choosing to do very evil deeds). — Tristan L

When we speak of rights which "reflect objective moral law" we speak of rights which either already are legal rights, or which we think should be legal rights, but are not. It's merely facile to boast that we now recognize moral law or accept moral rights more than did the Romans. In fact, they were as well aware of what's been called "natural law" and "natural rights" than we claim to be, probably even more aware. As to slavery, for example, the jurist Ulpian maintained that everyone is born free according to natural law, regardless of the civil law; the jurist Florentinus stated that slavery is an institution against nature. You'll find the presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser and other modern accepted legal maxis in Roman law. Then as now, what are called natural law and natural rights were/are honored more in theory than in practice. The Roman acceptance of natural law may have its basis in the popularity of Stoicism in the Roman period among the elite. (Yes, I know Stoicism originated in Greece, but it was developed during the Empire and the Republic by such as Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, and that philosophy as a guide to how to live spread throughout the Empire, and influenced later generations, through the efforts of the Roman Stoics. One doesn't hear Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus referred to very often outside the academy).

You might want to read about something called gladiator fights, and the disgusted report that Seneca wrote about the brutality and perversion of gladiatorial games and the raw bloodthirst of the spectators. — Tristan L

I have some knowledge of the Roman ludi, including those involving gladiators. I know enough about them to be aware of the fact that bouts between gladiators were monitored by referees (as are modern boxing matched) and that reports of the deaths of gladiators have been wildly exaggerated, much as the reports of the massacres of Christians have been, by Hollywood and other manufacturers of titillating fantasies enjoyed by too many. That's why funerary monuments to former gladiators who had retired from the games, noting their victories, have been found. On a purely practical level, gladiators were simply too expensive to feed, house and train for them to be killed regularly. Most matches weren't fought to the death. It's of course true that they were brutal entertainments, but the fact is we don't have much basis on which to condemn them, given that there are many of us who it seems enjoy seeing others beaten senseless in ultimate fighting and cage matches, or concussed to the point of disability or death in American football and other modern "sports." Then of course there's the peculiarly Spanish ritualistic and ceremonial torture and killing of bulls. Until fairly recently, bear-baiting had its fans. Dog fights are popular among some. Seneca, of course, wasn't the only ancient Romans who loathed gladiatorial contests. Marcus Aurelius hated them as well.

With what can the Romans match the beyond-being of Plato’s One or the Godhead of Meister Eckhart? — Tristan L

I don't know, primarily, I would think, because I have no idea what is meant by them. I have no problem with mysticism as such, although we may not agree on what is or is not "mystical." But I don't think philosophers usefully dabble in it. Theologians, of course, must do so by the nature of their profession, but I believe their efforts, when not just special pleading, are equally futile. Self-experience, art, music, poetry may be the only means by which we can experience and understand what is called mystical. Art may evoke it, but it isn't something to be explained, or described, except very clumsily and incoherently.

When last I looked, Philo was Jewish and Plotinus likely Egyptian. By your reasoning, it seems, all the peoples who lived under Mongol rule should be regarded as Mongols, making a big part of all Eurasians Mongols. — Tristan L

You seem to be inclined to pigeon-hole people based on their religion, place of origin and such. Once an Egyptian, always an Egyptian, etc., in your mind, apparently--and they can be nothing else. But the Roman Empire wasn't solely made up of people born in Rome, as should be obvious. Roman citizenship expanded rapidly in the imperial period. In 212 C.E. or A.D. it was granted to all free people in the Empire. Plotinus, therefore, was a Roman citizen in all probability; as to Philo, I don't know. The mainly Greek Eastern Empire, later called the Byzantine Empire, considered itself Roman for its whole existence. Simply put, the Roman Empire wasn't confined to Rome, especially when considered in terms of its social and cultural influence and sway.

Firstly, how can you speak for all “Westerners”? — Tristan L

"I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire" doesn't mean "We of the West will never get over the Roman Empire." Nor does "I think you're being pedantic and fractious" mean "You are being pedantic and fractious."

Thirdly, yearning for the Roman Empire — Tristan L

"Ever get over the Roman Empire" doesn't mean "yearning for the Roman Empire."

Also, by ending the Roman Empire, we ended slavery. — Tristan L

Who's this "we"?

Did the Romans have human rights? Did they have animal rights? — Tristan L

Legal rights, you mean? In fact, Roman citizens had quite a few of what we'd now call legal rights. If not legal, just what "rights" do we have, that don't derive from the natural law recognized by Roman jurists like Ulpian? As for animal rights, what animal rights do you maintain we have?

Didn’t their bloodthirsty masses love to watch humans and animals butcher each other? — Tristan L

You must enjoy Hollywood movies.

Regarding religious matters, which Roman can hold a candle to Theech (German) mystics like Meister Eckhart? — Tristan L

I'm not very fond of mystics generally, nor of German mystics in particular, sorry. Nor did the Romans much, I think, until they became Christians, in which case mysticism became all the rage, and religious rage became prevalent. But I'll mention Seneca, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, Philo and Plotinus just for the hell of it (I speak of Rome and its Empire, which included quite a few different people, you know). They were not religious in the sense that a Dominican of Eckhart's time was (necessarily so, that is to say) of course, and no doubt Eckhart was a better monk than they were, not being monks, if that's what you mean.

I just thought I'd note, because all I do should be of note, that I've begun reading The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixby, who's described as a "journalist and classicist." Being a mere journalist, though she studied at Cambridge, her book is being derided by most academics as a mere polemic. She's the child of a former monk and former nun, however, so she must have some knowledge of the destructive potential of the religious zeal of Christians derived from exposure to Sancta Mater Ecclesia, which gave much to those of us under her stern rule, including some of the classic world, but took from us far more of that world, or so I would say, to our loss.

We can never really know the Classical World, including Rome and its empire, because its destruction was so thorough and relentless.

Also those are dolphins not porpoises. — Pfhorrest

Dolphins they may be, but they're known as the porpoises of art and philosophy; porpoises, that is to say, for those purposes.

https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/JCpds_4RJblvcFa0C_qerCvZgLk=/3836x2158/smart/filters:no_upscale()/bottlenose-dolphin-tursiops-truncatus-paints-with-paintbrush-while-dolphin-trainer-holds-the-artwork-dolphin-reef-eilat-israel-red-sea-128123072-57570a995f9b5892e8e46ae0.jpg

He's the one behind the porpoise of art. Oh wait, you said purpose. Never mind.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for charges of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing. — 180 Proof

I don't like the use of grand juries. I hope a complete record is produced (I don't know the details of the Judge's decision). If it doesn't make clear whether the result of the proceeding was just, I hope it will at least serve to demonstrate the flawed and potentially perverse (a sort of prosecutorial perversion of the course of justice) nature of this tool available to the state.