America will become an oligarchy.

America already is an oligarchy and has been one a long time.

No problem...:)

↪Thanatos Sand Sorry, my mistake, it is true he did attend a Swedenborg Church, but was it regular attendance over a long period of time?

No, it wasn't, so there is semantic room for argument based on what someone sees as the prerequisites for being a follower. He certainly wasn't a Catholic like Tolkien or an Anglican like Lewis.

I get what you're saying. I won't argue he ever was a full-bodied practitioner, but its clear his times of attendance had significant interest in them. I'd say I'm a Christian in the way Martin Buber, the Hasidic scholar of Christianity was. I'm still a great admirer of its Humanist, Romantic philosophy, but I am no longer a believer in its central mythology.

You should read Blake's Works instead. He rejected Swedenborg in the end. By the time he wrote his most influential works it is true that he was INFLUENCED by Swedenborg, but he rejected his thought claiming that Swedenborg just repeated the same old lies as those that had always been told.

I have read and taught Blakes works. I know he eventually rejected Swedenborg, but he still was an attendant of his religious masses and took substantial gnostic influence with him. I'm no longer a Catholic, either. That doesn't mean I was never one.

↪Thanatos Sand "You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart."

Then you and I agree. I try constantly to tell Agustino that Nietzsche resembles many Christians and have many times mentioned thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Blake, Dostoevsky, Pascal, Eckehart etc. And if you read my whole post you would see that I never claimed Nietzsche was superior in depth to all Christian thinkers, and I mentioned like 5-7 examples of Christian thinkers that reached basically the same heights as Nietzsche.

I got ya.

It is true that he was a Swedenborgian as he and his wife attended services, and even if he eventually grew enchanted with Swedenborg, that does not change the fact he was a Swednborgian:

In the late 1780s and early 1790s, when Blake sought out Swedenborg and other mystical and occult sources, he was also a radical in politics. Most noticeably, he wrote a eulogy to The French Revolution (1791), which was originally planned in seven books, and celebrated the liberation of the thirteen colonies in America: A Prophecy (1793). Traditionally, scholarship has separated Blake’s interest in occultism from his political radicalism. One branch of Blake studies (originating with another great poet of the occult, W.B. Yeats, and reaching its apex in Kathleen Raine), sees Blake primarily as a researcher of mystical sources; whereas a line fathered by David Erdman glosses over the mystical influences in order to draw a picture of a political Blake, whose writings reflect directly on contemporary events in a straightforward manner. However, studies by E.P. Thompson, Jon Mee and Marsha Keith Schuchard have encouraged us to bring these two lines together. [4] The essay at hand proceeds from the historical precepts brought to light by these scholars and aims to show that the rationalistic ideologies of Voltaire or Thomas Paine were not alone in fuelling radical or revolutionary programmes. What I intend below is a historical investigation of how the reception of how Swedenborg’s esoteric teaching was absorbed into the socio-cultural matrix of the late eighteenth century to become a platform for opposition politics. This, in turn, will give us cause to re-evaluate the motivation behind the “radical” Blake’s affiliation with the Swedenborgians in the New Jerusalem Church.

William Blake
— Beebert
I don't think Blake is a Christian for that matter.

He was a Swedenborgian, a Christian gnostic.

Especially since the depth of the missunderstood Nietzsche and his thought so far surpasses that of most of the greatest Christian thinkers that it is almost laughable.
— Beebert
:s Compared to Aquinas for example, Nietzsche is just a confused man.

You're really both wrong here. Nietzsche neither surpassed Christian thinkers nor was a confused man. His project was decidedly different from the Aristotelian Aquinas, but not that different from the more mystical theologians like Anselm, Augustine and Eckhart.

↪Thanatos Sand Then my mistake; 'can' is an ambiguous word.

I got you, it usually denotes the possible, but can denote the definite.

In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument.
— Thanatos Sand

If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument.
— Thanatos Sand

You make my point. I expressly said I did not know what you meant. And I still don't. I infer from your reply that you reject for lack of proof the spirit of giving. Do you? And given the tenor of your replies, may I suggest you read and think before you reply. Save us both time and effort.

I don't make any point of yours, but you definitely make my point that flawed reasoning has infected your arguments on this thread. Your unfounded inference is completely incorrect. And I have read and thought before I replied. Given the "tenor" and irrationality of your replies, you have done no such thing.

So, show some rationality, and actually read my arguments, for once, or we are finished...although you've never really gotten started.

In writing "Santa Claus," you have given the least possible specification of your thinking, unless the entirety of your thought is captured in "Santa Claus." It may be, but Santa Claus is not a univocal expression, and consequently I do not know what you mean. If my experience is a guide, you don't either. If we start here, neither of us will know what the other is talking about.

In writing Santa Claus I gave a perfect example of things that should require proof before adults believe in them and, again, showed the flaws in your argument. And no expression is literally univocal but Santa Claus does have a particular meaning and points to a particular mythic/cultural figure. So, I clearly know more than you here.

The problem, if there is problem, arises when "Santa Claus" is not adequately understood, and the non-belief is thereby unrestrained with respect to both subject and criterium. If in rejecting the jolly fat man in the red suit for lack of "proof" you also reject what Santa Claus represents (for present purpose understood only as a personification of a gift-giving spirit), then you've made a plain error in rejecting for lack of proof something that certainly exists and is easily provable. This is a sign of infection with what I call "global or general atheism," a hallmark of which is flawed reasoning - that is, being unreasonable and even irrational.

If you think I actually meant the fat guy in the suit at the mall instead of the fantastical cultural figure, you are having more difficulties than your erroneous argument. So, the only infection of flawed reasoning is in your argument above, and those before.

Are you with me so far? There's more, but not worth the rehearsal if you're not up for the trip.

No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.
— Thanatos Sand

All right, what is the thing for which no sufficient evidence is presented?

I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him.
— Thanatos Sand

I'm glad you have replied as you did, because your reply captures most of what is difficult and problematic in these discussions, while grounding it in something itself not too difficult or controversial.

No, my answer perfectly answered your question and showed how ridiculous your argument is.

Don't misrepresent me. I said guilt can be a part of the cause of depression. Also, I'm not sure if responsibility is the word as much as rationality.

Of course it's true. The line of succession has nothing to do with the results of the electoral college election. So, we're done here. And keep that "premise" schtick up...it's a good one.

Of course it is since you cant' be president without having won the most electoral votes. Go read up on that and get back to me.

and it is a predicate since the first statement is dependent on the second.

Whether predicate or premise, the argument ""Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is a valid one.

No. it's a predicate.

That fact is incidental to the meaning of the sentence "Donald Trump is the President". The argument "Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is invalid.

No, it's not since he could only be president if he won the most electoral votes. So, the statement is valid.

This might be true, but then it's also true that "Donald Trump is the President" does not logically imply "Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes"

Except it does, since this was an electoral college election.

There may be a component of morality to some depression and anxiety though. I overcame my chronic depression and anxiety by taking responsibility, and I have even received a tentative diagnosis of schizophrenia before and I have all but overcome all of my troubles without any real medication or treatment.

I respect your anecdotal experience as both real and anecdotal, but i'm still not sure what you mean by morality or personal responsibility in these cases. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your clarification. Guilt can be a huge element in both chronic and temporary depression. But, like the guilt of a childhood sex abuse victim or of a parent who lost a child, it can be erroneous self-loathing indicative of a need for psychological therapy--as well as medical treatment, if necessary--instead of a lapse in morality or responsibility.

You do not have to be on medication forever to recover from disorders. For example, the standard treatment for anxiety disorder is to put the patient on medication for a year and they generally get better afterward. Studies show that depression can also be improved by diet for instance, which is one way that psychiatrists can help and inform patients. Sometimes just taking responsibility for something isn't enough and treatment can help. You may learn interesting things in psychology, and it isn't all about disorders. There is also the field of positive psychology for preventing disorders.

Some don't, many do, as many of the disorders--e.g. schizophrenia, clinical depression, and bi-polar disorder are usually chronic conditions demanding treatment but are resistant to curing. And while what you said about diet is absolutely correct, as is regular exercise, personal responsibility has nothing to do with it and you are erroneously applying a morality to the condition where one doesn't belong. And while one can work to prevent the advent of clinical depression, those suffering schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder cannot do so.

David Smail was a psychologist who was in no place making judgments over psychiatric/medical/biochemical matters.

The placebo effect is a testament to utter failure of psychiatry at addressing 'disorders' or rather more aptly, 'conditions'. I see no reason to engage in treatment of depression, due to the fact that it may be a natural response of the body to repressed anger or what-have-you-not.

This just goes against established medical study and practice, as well as psychiatric and psycho-pharmacological study. Depression can, and usually does, also have external life contributors, but one cannot treat the physical condition with psychological therapy alone.

There are some cases where intervention is required, such as in suicide prevention; but, apart from that I have a fuck-all attitude towards psychiatry and psychology. The problem is not the patient in the majority of cases (excluding destructive addictive behaviors) but rather the failure of society in accommodating for people with such 'disorders'.

The "problem" (probably not the best word here) is very much the patient when they are suffering the neuro-physiological disorders of schizophrenia, clinical depression, or bi-polar disorder, where chemical imbalances need pharmacological aid as much as diabetes or any chronic biochemical disorder. Accepting those suffering and not attaching a stigma to the afflicted is very important, but it is not enough.

I mentioned Santa Claus. Apparently there's enough evidence for you to believe in him.

what im saying is that its their brain that does the deciding, it does it based on programming (genes ideas beliefs etc) and the decision is not influenced by your conscious experience of it. but the real point is that if you go back in time to the moment of deciding to turn left, if all the atoms in the universe are exactly as they were, you will turn left every single time. you cant change it, its determined by forces you cant change. — PeterPants

I do have to say this is the most phenomenally awful, incoherent run-on sentence I've seen in a while. Adieu, Pierre...for good.

Of course they can. A person can decide to go left or right. A person then does it utilizing internal energy, which is why we have internal energy to move in the direction we choose.

What is strange is the idea that since deterministic set of laws would so proceed as to concoct a universe where everyone is tricked into an illusion of no choice, except those who know that there is no choice, and for some reason these deterministic laws start unveiling the illusion."

you need to try harder to actually understand what i am saying, because again, your arguing against a position i dont hold.

No, you need to try harder since nothing you wrote there addresses anything I said. So, i'm done entertaining your nonsense. Since you clearly can't address my actual posts, I won't read any more or respond to any more of yours. Adios, Pedro.

no... no you just insulted me without explaining why, i think im very good at considering things from outside my own perspective, you simply asserted im not. please back that up. im not interested in baseless assertions.

I already backed it up in my above tweets. if you can't address what I wrote, then you'll just have to keep crying about it.

If I cannot accept something as a matter of faith, I might well - I do - consult the possibilities for proof. Absent both faith and proof, all that's left is to make the best of it and try to make sense of it. In any case, absent faith or proof it's a mistake and a waste of energy to keep looking for them.

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

To require proof, then, is simply to misunderstand the nature of the beast.

No, to require proof is to not be a naïve fool when no sufficient evidence of a thing has been presented. So, the one who misunderstands the nature of the beast is you.

"So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter."

I would love to know what your talking about... please do explain, i would appreciate it.

I made that clear in what I wrote above that sentence. I'm sorry English challenges you so.

but what did you mean by 'you need to read better'? i read your comment like nine times, maybe you need to write better? maybe not, im not sure, have i missed something? please let me know.

The fact you don't know what "you need to read better" means just further confirms you do. Thanks.

no separation between our brains and us? really, then you have full awareness of everything happening in your brain? you can control your own heart rate? stop it even?

You're hilarious since you clearly don't realize that all your awareness comes from your brain. If you did, you wouldn't ask such ridiculous questions. So, your question about your heart is irrelevant nonsense.

there IS a separation between us and our brains, as i said before, WE are the conscious experience, our brains are highly complex computers which cause us and many other things, we are not our brains, we are but one element of our brains. possibly not even a necessary one

Wrong, all that conscious experience happens because and within your brains. Someone (you) never took basic biology in college. You're so adorable; it's like you think we exist in our spleen.

You need to read better. When you say "our brains" what you are really saying is "our brains's brains," since there is no real separation between our brains and us.

So, the only one with an issue with considering things outside your own perspective is clearly you, Peter.

i was not actually claiming that we 'should' act responsibly, what i was claiming was that if we want a productive society that enables the well being of its proponents, then we ought to take responsibility for what our own brains end up doing. they are after all OUR brains.

The problem with that sentence is the "our" is "our" brains. You're asking us to step outside ourselves. Where does that possible Archimedean point of observation come from?

Yes, writers of secondary literature usually aren't trying to replicate the original text.

Requiring proof of posited supernatural beings like God, ghosts or Santa Claus is just being a rational grownup. And to say one needs to commit to such supernatural entities to make a commitment is truly absurd.

"No, it's more like you're not a person partial to sufficient education as none of those words are "loaded" words, and they are part of common usage in the English language and present-day American culture. I'm sorry you missed that."
--Thanatos Sand

Actually I dropped out of high school and got a GED so my education may be lacking a little in certain area, although I guess I'm about as much a product of American society/education system but I'm pretty sure that is true of you too more or less. Even if I claim to be a person "partial to nihilism" it doesn't mean I'm able to avoid aspects of the human condition which it seems that you are implying I'm saying which I think is due to you mis-reading my posts.

No, it's not true of me more or less since I correctly recognize those words have specific functional meanings and are not "loaded" words, as you erroneously claim. And I never implied any such thing, so the one who is mis-reading posts is you.

I think the term "forum trolls" is used for those who wish to rant and rave about that which interest them while at them same time while at the same time ignoring the interests of everyone else; and this seems to be the kind of mentality you have.

The incoherent ranting and raving you did in your last four paragraphs shows the only forum troll in our exchange has been you. And you described your own mentality perfectly. So, you and I are done here. I won't be reading or responding to anymore of your posts.

P.s. You may want to add to that GED of yours.

And atheists of any stripe reject the good of religion, that collective wisdom for which they are repository. This is just plain a mistake. Admittedly, it is work sometimes difficult to listen to any religion as it expresses itself in non-natural terms and translate where possible "on the fly" into rational discourse. But the fact is that's where that wisdom is, and that's the work that needs be done to get it.

Agnosticism is simply immature atheism and unattractive in any adult.

Atheists don't reject the good of religion; they reject the existence of God. Many atheists, including myself, recognize the good Christian abolitionists and other ethical people drawing strength from religious faith. Most of us just don't believe there's an omnipotent--or any-potent--supernatural source behind it all. That is not a mistake, since there is no substantial evidence such a being exists or that such a being needs to exist. Theres' much more wisdom in the world than religious wisdom; the mistake is to reject wisdom--religious or not--but not to avoid rejecting religious belief itself.

Agnosticism is simply the inability or refusal to commit to theism or atheism. It's neither immature nor unattractive and has its own wisdom, since atheism itself cannot be proven and arguments can be made, if not convincingly, for the existence of God.