Shūsaku Endō — Tom Storm

Excellent novelist, indeed. I have a novel by him. It is called 'Scandal' and it is about a Catholic Japanese who suffers because of social context and the repeated sins he committed in the book. By the way, there is a good criticism by Endo in the sense that there is a lot of hypocrisy amongst Japanese citizens and the traditional Japanese values, etc.

If Catholicism and personal ethics is important to you Greene's The Power and the Glory may be of interest. — Tom Storm

It seems interesting. I think I should buy it in English rather than looking for a proper translation.

It's not as if you are concerned about the spiritual truths found in Islam or Jainism. Seems to me that the position you are in is fairly common - how to be good without religious interpreters telling you what is good. — Tom Storm

Exactly, this is my approach, Tom.

Graham Green (for instance) wrote entire books about the complex relationship between Catholicism, faith, morality and individual conscience. — Tom Storm

Thanks for the recommendation! :smile:

I know I sound ambiguous in this thread, or even contradictory. But that's why I started it. To find other ideas, clarification, and the opinion of the rest of the members.

And, sometimes, the church is against members who deviate too far from the tenets of the faith. — BC

Why do they do this? It is one of the main things I have never understood about the Church. I must admit that it is a low democratic institution. The people there are not open to receive not only criticism but a different interpretation of the Bible, even acting with good faith. As I pointed out in the intro of the thread, Kazantzakis was persecuted by the Greek Orthodox Church for many reasons, and they tried to excommunicate him... crazy.

About 7% of active church participants did not believe in the resurrection, for instance. Were the study, Faith and Ferment, repeated today, it is likely that the results would show decline in belief in basic tenets, like the resurrection, — BC

It is fairly understandable. In my humble opinion, here is when the creed fails to be believable. They try to convince people with fantasies and ideas which were less likely to happen in real life. Furthermore, in those religious institutions, I think it worthwhile studying the teachings in a personal way. I mean, it is obvious that the Gospels were twisted by the apostles, and they wrote (in a metaphorical manner) how to supposedly act in a Christian way. But it is amazing how the Bible is actually a text full of controversy. In another thread, some users claimed that it promotes slavery, etc. I think the best way to understand this sacred book is on my own.

Do you think you would benefit by being baptized? In mainline theology, Baptism provides for the erasure of original sin, something cooked up by the early church. Baptism doesn't make you a church member, it makes you part of the body of Christ. It's all very mystical, but you do get wet. — BC

This is a good question, indeed. Honestly, I never thought of the consequences of not being baptised, and the 'benefits' of who actually is. I know that baptism doesn't make me a member of the Church. What I attempted to explain is that my familiar context is zero religious. I have never been taught to read the Bible, catechism, go to the Church, etc. Even the weddings were at the Town Hall or judge!
What I know is that baptism is something that a person could end up losing... because the creed reserves the right to excommunicate fellows...

Spirituality is still tangled with religion to me. I can't explain or understand it without any connection with religious creeds. Furthermore, if I extract 'spiritedness' from its creed perspective, it is hardly accepted by philosophers. Most of them see this as a worthless thing. A thing that depends upon religion. I understand your struggle with the Church. I guess all who want to be more critical, and dubious about the set of norms, tend to be against the Church. This is how I was raised. My parents considered the Churches as places where free thinking is not welcomed, and where the fellows are 'fooled' by superstitions and beliefs. Yet I always felt I had a spirit, and I wanted to act following values. Otherwise, I would have felt my 'spirit' was rotten. Philosophy can teach me a lot regarding this, but I discovered that some authors like Kazantzakis or Kierkegaard pointed out interesting views using the Bible...

Your situation, Javi, isn't the same as the former church members. Your spirituality appears to be 'de novo' — BC

I agree. But this happens to me because I have never had a Christian background in my family. I am not even baptised.

Jesus was an ordinary man. — BC

This is the 'version' of Jesus I believe in, BC. Not the twisted drawing of the Gospels...

Unitarians (something like your non-theistic Quakers) — BC

These groups are very interesting. I never get tired of saying they are awesome at trying to understand Christian Ethics separately from believing in God. Amazing.

One element I wonder about a lot is the importance of a creed, as a set of propositions, to establishing practice and ritual. — Paine

I agree. I wasn't thinking of a creed specifically, but now you have explained it, I think this suits what I attempted to explain. I guess some religions (let's say, Christianity, because it is mainly used in the example and the largest by the number of users) set prepositions. Is this similar to a code of conduct? Maybe. But some people would heavily disagree with this point because I read (in some posts) that the Bible is not precisely a book to achieve democratic values, etc.

Unamuno is interesting — Paine

It is another important thinker regarding this issue, but Spanish philosophers are hardly known by people overall. It cheered me up you actually brought him to this topic. :smile:

What do creeds or the rejection of them have to do with us? — Paine

Good question. I think they have to do with us, in the sense that ethics and values are subjective. Although those creeds or codes of conduct tend to be objective, a person's life is complex. It is not possible to apply objectively those notions of values in each person equally. It is clear that always leads us to a big debate.

I hadn't a Christian education as well. Although I was born and raised in a Catholic country, my parents never taught religious beliefs and ideas. The Bible (or other sacred texts) has never been in my home. I always attended secular schools, etc. Basically, my parents decided to teach me in this way because it is the correct thing to do, and if I ever decide to believe in something, realizing this belief on my own, without external 'imposing'.
I have to understand them. They were raised in Franco's Spain, and they (and my grandparents) hadn't any possible choice apart from a Catholic educational system. So, they always thought that being raised without religious stimuli was a synonym of freedom.

...Ironically, the youngest person of the generation in my life (me) started to be interested in religious ideas, but it is obvious that I am lost, and I can sound contradictory in my posts.

I believe in God because I have to. — BitconnectCarlos

The statement is interesting. I guess you consider it as something to obey. Did you impose this belief yourself? I agree with you. Philosophy is a very reliable tool which helps us to understand ourselves and what is around... But it is not the epitome. I often felt lost when I searched for answers regarding ethics and values. Paradoxically, the philosophers who helped me the most, are at the same time theologians, like Kierkegaard.
I still haven't finished forcing myself to believe in God anyway.

You also grew up in a familiar background outside of religion, but you ended up attending a non-denominational church about once a month. Your personal experience gave me a lot of confidence, because I have been wondering whether I should go to attend a church or not. I obviously had to do it in secret, because I guess my family will get disappointed if they know I am tempting to go to a sacred place. Maybe they will feel they did something bad regarding my elementary education, or what is going on with me. In the end, there is not any other place to worry about these concerns...

It is interesting how you pointed out that Christian moral teaching is only going to make sense in the context of a relationship with God. I have always had the same thought until I discovered Nontheist Quakers (also known as nontheist Friends). Although it can sound contradictory at first glance, because this group tends to be tangled into Christian Ethics without necessarily believing in a theistic God or Supreme Being, I think their approach is fascinating.

Their main Web page (https://nontheistfriends.org/) says something very important:

Some of us understand “God” as a symbol of human values and some of us avoid the concept while accepting it as significant to others. We differ greatly in our religious experience and in the meaning we give religious terms

.

I fully agree, and they are, by far, the group I most relate to.

Thanks for your feedback, as you always do, friend.

Firstly, yes, I am trying to establish a forced code of ethics. This happens because I am not aware what the limit and extension is to our actions. And more precisely, when these actions can affect others. I think we somehow agree in a basic and predictable code of conduct, which is reinforced by the law of each country. But I wasn't referring to generic terms, but something which is left to the free will of each person. For example, and maybe this example sounds stupid: I told my mum I went to study at a bookstore. It was a lie because I actually went to see a woman. I feel bad about this childish attitude for two reasons: 1) I lied to my mother (and this is a terrible sin, although this concept is Christian) and 2) I feel ashamed for nothing. I don't trust myself, and I don't reach this level in my life because I am a well aware that I am not behaving ethically. When I end up in a situation where I need lies to confront people or to avoid limitations, it is when I start to worry. I ask myself: Am I a terrible liar? How can I face the truth and not lie to others?

My advice would be to look at something like Plato's Republic, how he moves to define "just". It appears to be a matter of doing one's own thing without interfering with others. That allows your spirit to move you freely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks. I guess Plato is always a great philosopher to take into account.

Wouldn't it be better not to worry about any of it and just get on with life? — Tom Storm

True. :sweat:

But this is something I have been experiencing for months. It is not a simple worry that keeps me awake every morning. Sometimes I feel I don't act ethically, but here is when I start to wonder how I can act better. I have already read some books (and threads in this forum) about ethics, and although they are helpful and substantive, I still feel lost. Now, I have a closer approach to Christianity, but only the surface. Yet I am aware that I can sound contradictory about stating that philosophy doesn't fill my ethical notions but religion does, etc. I feel I am trapped in a cage.

as I studied it, 'God, the bible & the catechism' stopped making sense to me by the age of 15 and I discovered I had no (emotional) need to trust in / hope for mysteries, miracles or magical beings. — 180 Proof

Understood. This happens more usually than we tend to think. When I was a kid, I also felt I didn't need to believe in mysteries or hopes.

As for morals, my intuition has always been that suffering is the universal problem for morality just like illness is universal problem for medicine (I was raised by a single mother who was nurse). — 180 Proof

Interesting. I wonder to what extent Kierkegaard or Dostoviesky inspired you about this.

Moral norms, or codes, of conduct are customary rules-of-thumb and, while not "objective", they are universal in applicability – — 180 Proof

I disagree and this other important point is why I started this thread. The code of conduct is not universally applied. What we think, in the Western world, as norms and values can be very different in the East. The basic notion of how to act accordingly to ethical principles is still blurred.

Of all those spiritual books I read, some resonated deeply and still stay with me. I have a kind of cross-cultural attitude, I like to think of it as being like 'silk road spirituality' as it involves elements of both Western and Eastern philosophy. — Wayfarer

I experienced the same cross-cultural attitude in 2021. I was very focused on how to understand (or put into practice) Western and Eastern thoughts. I read an interesting book: Confucianism and Tokugawa Culture by Nosco, as an intro to my approach. Although it was worthy reading, I felt most of the content remains in the East and I will not have a 100 % experience because I don't live in Japan or Cambodia. I refer to the latter to the fact that it is difficult to find Eastern buildings or communities to put the theory into practice or at least, getting closer. Later on, Kazantzakis appeared in my life, but it is true that I already had Kierkegaard as a background. In the end, these two authors are more suitable for what I find like values or ethics, etc.

Thank you for your answer 180!

It is interesting to see that you actually lost your religion. This means that, at least, you were religious once. Yet you decided to set up a different approach to ethics and values.
I agree, and I respect your view, but I didn't think about my spirit from an aesthetic perspective... This is a good point. I will think more deeply about this. Maybe that is what I was looking for, but I was blind at this point.

Thank you for your answer, Tom.

I thought about morality and values as a code of conduct too. I even considered religious values, or the belief in believing in X, as a waste of time because those people were brainwashed by dogmas. Nonetheless, thanks to reading Kazantzakis or Kierkegaard, I came up with a different approach. At least, my aim is to understand these values differently. What I fully have as basic premises are: 1. I am deeply concerned about my spirituality, and I think I shall act ethically, (2) but I do not know what a sin is, how to define 'spirit' or 'ethics'; and why I feel rotten when I lied to a person (for example). Therefore, (3) although spirituality depends on religious beliefs, I tend to be in midterm. I want to act ethically as much as possible, but I don't want to be trapped in religious dogmas.

My views on this topic could be seen as contradictory, because I feel 'sins' exist, and they make me think about them. But, on the other hand, I am not sure if the Church is the correct authority to say to me whether I act well or badly.

I don't believe that anyone has access to objective morality — Tom Storm

I agree. I think it is not possible to approach ethics in an objective way, even though they are based on different knowledge branches: Philosophy, Theology, Law, Psychology, etc.

I don't know who's the fault. What I am certainly aware is that Christianity can be dangerous among its members, and not only when it is reflected into society or third parties. This is what I tried to explain, or approach.

Not only that, but my greatest recommendation of all is to put your hands against your ears when protestants start lecturing on what is and is not Christianity. — Lionino

Good point, Lionino. The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known. Not only to Spanish Inquisition but other recent crises in Europe. I understand there is a lot of debate regarding The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but one of the specific reasons was the critical differences between Catholics and Protestants. They couldn't live together.

A good example:

Coupled with Protestant immigration to "unplanted" areas of Ulster, particularly Antrim and Down, this resulted in conflict between the native Catholics and the "planters", leading in turn to two bloody religious conflicts known as the Irish Confederate Wars (1641–1653) and the Williamite war (1689–1691), both of which resulted in Protestant victories.
Anglican dominance in Ireland was ensured by the passage of the Penal Laws that curtailed the religious, legal, and political rights of anyone (including both Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, such as Presbyterians) who did not conform to the state church, the Anglican Church of Ireland. As the Penal Laws started to be phased out in the latter part of the 18th century, there was more competition for land, as restrictions were lifted on the Irish Catholic ability to rent...

**

More recently:

In the mid-1960s, a non-violent civil rights campaign began in Northern Ireland. It comprised groups such as the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), the Campaign for Social Justice, the Derry Citizens' Action Committee, and People's Democracy, whose stated goals were:

An end to job discrimination – it showed evidence that Catholics/nationalists were less likely to be given certain jobs, especially government jobs.
An end to discrimination in housing allocation – it showed evidence that unionist-controlled local councils allocated housing to Protestants ahead of Catholics/nationalists... https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch1800-1967.htm

And many more examples... Which proves that inside Christianity, the groups can be toxic to each other.

@alan1000 pointed out that the violence of Christianity is extrinsic and not intrinsic, which is a fallacy, obviously.

When you say Christians, or Christianity, it sounds as if Quakers think just like Catholic bishops and televangelists are interchangeable with the Amish elders. They don't and they're not. They all hold up a Bible when preaching (so does Trump, when shilling) but it's not necessarily the same version, and they each read (if they do read) it quite differently. — Vera Mont

I agree, Vera. Well written, yes. I forgot about the Quakers when they are an important group among Christians. Even Quakers tend to have different groups among themselves. There is even 'Nontheist Quakers'. Those who engage in Quaker practices and processes, but who do not necessarily believe in a theistic God, when this group can sound contradictory about the main cause of Quakers, etc. It is amazing how many branches have split inside Christianity.

OK, sorry Jamal. I will answer more rational than I did the first time, and I will calm myself. :up:

I know it is literally written by the Gospels. But, again, the concept was twisted by some groups of Christians. While the Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery, it does give instructions on how slaves should be treated during those times. For example: Scripture also mentions that humans can be slaves to sin itself, consumed by their passions.

1 Peter 2:16
16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh

Colossians 3:22
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Did you refer to the latter, right? Look how many interpretations we can get about that passage:

Paul has addressed immediate family members in the prior verses, including specific instructions for husbands, wives, and children. Here, Paul begins a set of instructions for a "bondservant." This is from the Greek term duolos, meaning a person under the command or obligation of another. The word can be fairly translated as "slave," although what modern people think of when they see the term "slave" is not quite how it was practiced in Paul's day

https://www.bibleref.com/Colossians/3/Colossians-3-22.html

I don't know where my answer to Alan1000 went, so I guess a moderator deleted it. Thankfully, you quoted me before it got deleted.

Well, yes, it is true that some interpretations of the Bible were twisted. But who is really responsible because of this? Christianity itself or the people who are violent by nature? It is interesting how a single text allowed different interpretations. My criticism against alan1000 was based on how he accused Christianity generally.

He claims that Christianity and its branches are related to slavery (and other negative actions). But for example and paradoxically, the heroes of Ireland, were inspired by the Christianity-Catholic belief to get independence from England, for instance.

Look what Irish republicanism is about:

Discrimination against Catholics and Protestant nonconformists, attempts by the British administration to suppress Irish culture, and the belief that Ireland was economically disadvantaged as a result of the Acts of Union were among the specific factors leading to such opposition

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_republicanism

Not all Christianity is about the Spanish Inquisition. And in Spain, not all were Inquisitors, etc.

We didn't deny the existence of Jesus (at least me). You are mixing up two different premises. That the existence of Jesus leads unavoidably to his crucifixion. Thus, without the crucifixion, we couldn't hold the existence of Jesus. Well, this is a fallacy. It is obvious that we all can agree on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I promise I don't deny this. But... What comes afterward of Jesus' death is a big mystery written by the apostles, and they left many non-answered questions.

Still, as a group (and it's a big group) American Christians do not buck the system. — BC

It's in the extremely conservative branches of Christian political behavior. — BC

They do not buck the system, because they are the system.

We live in countries where the values, ethics, customs, etc., are based on Christian principles. If we look at the banknotes of the USA, it says: In God We Trust. The currency of a nation rests in a religious sentence. And so more around the Western countries, not just the United States.

On the other hand, I think Christian lobbies or Catholics or Protestants only take part in politics when they feel those values are at risk. A religious practitioner would ask for the vote to the right, because the latter provides traditional ideas like same-sex marriage, the local economy, the presence in school and teachings. Writing this brief paragraph, I wonder if Christian groups only feel they are part of the system when the current government is Conservative, and maybe when a Leftist/Progressive government is running the country they would feel excluded from the system.
But again, this is really odd. The Church is always there. For example, the Orthodox Church is very powerful in Russia, even though it has a past under Communism. I think it is not possible to imagine a religion not tangled with the state. Some nations are more secular (France), and others give so much credit to religion, like Brazil (Evangelists).

But they will be there. It is an important core of values. Maybe you and I do not really care, but millions and millions do.

Sonetos by Camões, in both French and original Portuguese. Both are hard. — Lionino

A Portuguese poet of the Renaissance. Interesting. I think he also wrote in Castilian.

Good OP, Athena. Very interesting.

If I didn't understand you wrongly, you seek a state that is secular -or at least - the most separated of religion. I agree that religious groups used to tangle with political groups, and specifically, to the right or far-right of the political arena.

I guess it is due to the reasons which a Catholic/Protestant or Christian Nationalist shares with the right faction: tradition, Christian values, heterosexual marriage, Western predominate, etc.
It would be weird to see a religious group supporting the left. They didn't do so, and neither will do. They are aware leftists are progressive and this means they are against the traditional values. Then, it is obvious that if Catholics or Protestants have to get into politics, they will go to the right wing.

This is why Christian Nationalists are cheering the people to vote for Trump. Here the same happens. I live in a Catholic country, and it is obvious that the Episcopalian Confederation is Conservative, and they ask to vote for the right.

It is fun when Protestants prevented Catholics from having power because they are more 'liberal' (?)... but at the end of the day, they share the same political ideology and even lobbies! AKA Christian Democrats: sceptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, opposition to capital punishment and assisted suicide, the prohibition of drugs, opposition to secularisation, opposition to state atheism and a rejection of communism.

Breadnan used the word "universally", as if everyone on the planet was a Christian! Well, Christianity, even if it is the largest religion in the world --it forms about 30% — Alkis Piskas

Yes, Brendan believes in something which has been the subject of controversy for centuries. Even amongst Christians there is a big debate about whether the crucifixion actually happened, or if it is just a 'metaphor' of the Bible (like the rest of the references to Jesus in that Holy Book). Honestly, I can't think of anything which is universally accepted. Even the shape of the Earth has its own denials: flat-earthers, etc. :grin:

Certainly not. And I would add that even if one accepts Jesus crucifixion as an historical event, his resurrection is quite a controversial if not a fake story — Alkis Piskas

I agree. The resurrection of Jesus was written by the Gospel authors, so the credit and reliability are low. For Christians, this is the biggest mystery of their religion. But... it doesn't go beyond just that. A faith, a mystery, a belief, etc. They are free to believe in the Resurrection, but it is hardly accepted outside Christianity. Even other religions (like Judaism) reject that part of the Bible.

It would be much better if it were built based on and around the human side of Jesus, as a teacher, as is the case with Buddhism. — Alkis Piskas

True! Like Kazantzakis purposes in his magnificent books. It is sad that the only image of Jesus is the one that appears in the Gospels. When Jesus of Nazareth was a real person and it would have been interesting to know more about his persona.

If it's entirely fabricated, then why is it universally accepted that Jesus was baptized and crucified? — Brendan Golledge

In addition to the argument of @Alkis Piskas that a believer would blindly follow whatever the Holy Book says, I disagree when you state that the crucifixion and baptism of Jesus Christ is 'universally' accepted. This is not true and this is even the cause of why the Christian religion (and other religions) split apart into different factions.

For example:

Islam: The Quran says in Surah An-Nisa [Ch 004: Verse 157] "And because of their saying, 'We killed Messiah ʿĪsā, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allāh', – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts.

Manichaeism (a Gnostic religion): Adhered to the idea that not Jesus, but somebody else was crucified instead. Jesus suffering on the cross is depicted as the state of light particles (spirit) within matter instead.

The Sharfadin also believe that: Jesus is thought of as a "figure of light" who could not be crucified...

So, no. It is not universally accepted that Jesus was crucified. :smile:

Hmm... OK let's leave it here. We both expressed our views on this topic. My intention was to protest why I am tired of receiving endless mockery for being from Spain. I am aware that we have a lot to improve, we are not perfect and there are better EU countries.

But Jesus... We are not monsters... Nor retards. We can write books or paint on canvas too.

I will not regret any second being Spanish in my life. It is not about a question of nationalism but self-respect. Yes, none nation is perfect but we receive more mockery than others. Again, I don't usually read criticism on France or Germany...

A person can't be fond of Spain unless also fond of bullfighting and adverse to poking fun at a Genoese? You surprise me — Ciceronianus

No. You didn't refer to just bullfighting. I dislike it and most Spaniards do. You also pointed out in your blog that we are not better than most other nations because our 'heritage' is Fascism, the Spanish Inquisition, Franco, Genocide, etc. You literally wrote: Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things... [and then you wrote all that crap]
The sense of your words is like that's just Spain, no more. When we have eight Nobel laureates and other interesting stuff, which I will not post here because I will not change the mind of someone who already has negative prejudices on my country.

I suppose admiration for such as El Greco, Velasquez, Goya, Picasso, Cervantes, Santayana, Las Cases, and Ortega y Gasset — Ciceronianus

And many more... a thousand old country has a lot of personalities and culture.
It is just frustrating that nobody rants about Germans (for example) because of their Nazi past. They are only known for good things, like philosophers, engineering, economics, etc.

No way we are known thanks to Cervantes or Goya. The people quickly reminds us that dark period of our history. You are an example of that.

I was showing evidence against Ciceronious' own hypocrisy, and then you showed up out of nowhere. Don't expect me to behave like a kitty. When I feel attacked, I respond.

I am not talking to you, and I think it is bad manners to mind other people's businesses, but I don't deny any of that data. I am only confused about how someone is 'fond' of Spain and then he refers to my country using that tone.

I am quoting the following from your own blog:

Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things, e.g. fascism, civil war, slavery, the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects) and, some would even say, genocide in the Americas. Is it therefore the case that only its central government may prohibit such things? Probably not.
Regardless, though, I wonder whether the Spanish people are well served by a court ruling that bullfighting is part of their common cultural heritage. A heritage of gaudy, gruesome torment of animals wouldn't seem something to be proud of. https://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com/search/label/Spain?m=0

It's a beautiful city [Barcelona] of great, wide boulevards and fountains, and an impressive seafront graced by a statue of Columbus majestically pointing to the India he thought he would encounter in 1492. I would think a statue of that great man shrugging his shoulders or scratching his head would be more appropriate.

Oh yes! You are very fond of my country! How can I think otherwise?

Fine. I don't have anything to object to. It is just the idea I conclude whenever I read your comments and other's. It is not the first time. It is something I came across reading different threads where this topic arises.

But I will not waste mine and your time discussing this... I gave up. I already know what the common sentiment and position are regarding this topic.

@Lionino I will give you a wise advice because I really like and respect you. Don't waste your time on this kind of topics. As a Spaniard myself, I spent so much time using the same arguments as yours , but I came with the following conclusion: numerous members of this forum hate Spain, Portugal and England equally, and they think Western civilisation is the worst, our countries suck and we are bloody genociders, etc. But you know what is the biggest irony? None of them would go and live in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Kenya, Angola etc. Most of the people who are against us, live and will live in the West side of the world.
So, don't waste your time. Your arguments and comments are very interesting, but regarding this topic... it is like discussing with a moocow. Our time is priceless. Qué les den a estos fodechinchos…

The Tunnel, Ernesto Sábato. — javi2541997

10/10.Excellent. I really enjoyed this book. Sábato had a great talent at developing the psychological behaviour of the characters. Juan Pablo Castel is the name of the main character. He is an artist, and well... he suffers from his own fantasies, dreams and the heavy sense of hopelessness.

Currently reading: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce.

Your multiple choice object reminds me of a dietary supplement. It can help me whatsoever because it contains all the nourishment I need. I guess I would miss the taste of food per se. For example, I would use the nourishment pill in this way: I usually take tomato with olive oil for breakfast every morning. Although it is a good combination to start the day with, I know it doesn't hold all my mind and body needs, so in addition to my breakfast, I will take a nourishment pill to get vitamins, Taurine, Caffeine, etc.

Port or Albariño?

I fully agree. Steven Pinker also points out interesting arguments regarding meta-linguistics. According to him, whenever we see a linguistic challenge or a word we have never read before or a verb we have never conjugated, we tend to overcome the challenge using the easiest way of our native language, logically speaking. For example: children (and non-native speakers like me) frequently make mistakes in irregular verbs. It is obvious that the past tense of 'to fly' is flew.
But usually, when a person can't understand the irregular answer, he quickly says 'flyed' because most of the English verbs tend to end in 'ed' in the past tense. What they do not do is create even a more complex solution.

This is why I see this very interesting. Pinker (like you also stated) argues that when humans debated about establishing a new universal language they all ended up failing because of the complexity. Why do we act this way? Are we complex when we reach maturity?

I can only ask why you think it is in jeopardy. I personally think if I started a thread on Kierkegaard, we all would have the opportunity to exchange our ideas. I don't see the philosophy of Kierkegaard in 'jeopardy' because his concept of anfægtelse lacks having a unified concept. Furthermore, this is why the discussion becomes interesting.

On the other hand, philosophy is not mathematics. We can't establish universal accepted concepts. For example: Do you think it would be possible to have a unified definition of metaphysics?

There are some philosophical concepts which can't be unified at all. I will use an example: The philosopher I read the most is Kierkegaard.
K, in his writings, uses specific words of the Danish vocabulary. One of them is 'anfægtelse'. I have the Spanish version of Fear and Trembling, and the editor translates and interprets the word as 'fear' or 'anxiety'. However, I decided to search for more information about this kierkegaardian word on Google. It turned out that in English, it is usually translated and interpreted as 'spiritual trial'. All of these definitions are good, honestly. They help me to understand the philosophy of Kierkegaard. But I wonder if we should have a unified concept regarding 'anfægtelse' and what Kierkegaard could have thought about our interpretation of his Danish words.