:up: I am agree with your points now. But, I would fix this phrase:

Thus, great thinkers and artists think they're great? — Bartricks

I would say artists think they are different from the rest but not greater. They are aware of doing original works, completely distinct from we are used to see. Whenever an artist ends a work I don't think he has in mind thoughts as "look how great I am" but the mind rest of finishing a work where he feels unique, personal, individual, etc...

Thinking of being great after finishing something could be a sense of arrogance...

if you don't think you're great, you won't try and do great things. And so you won't do great things. You need to think you're capable of doing great things to try and do them. — Bartricks

Or I just want to do great things because I want to, without the aim of being considered by the rest of the people. Maybe I just paint a portrait because I want to express myself not caring about being great

Furthermore, you started this post about recognising greatness, but you didn't provide a definition of great. Your arguments are based on a positive attitude towards our goals. Before to acknowledge that, we have to reflect on greatness. What do you consider as greatness? Because we all have different points of view and we shall not share the same view on greatness.

I see. Thanks for proofreading me, Clarky :up:

Sorry. Yes, I guess I am inflexible because I can get out of my mind and am capable of understanding more diverse behaviour patterns. You, on the other hand, are more flexible, because you can't imagine how some behaviour patterns are possible, due to the fact that you can't understand them. — god must be atheist

... you are using sarcasm, right?

Well... the author creates the works. How can you seperate "author who never finishes his works" from the author? — god must be atheist

It is not possible at all, that's true (or at least, very difficult). But I am not referring (for example) of finishing a novel of 250 pages. That's not the type of "ending" I am thinking of. I am talking about recognition. If someone burns all their works he will never get recognition at all, so the circle will not be closed.

Well, at least that's how I see it...

In other words, please allow people their individuality, and individual judgment without judging them. — god must be atheist

It is not necessary to see "judgement" as a negative mark. We are even using the incorrect word here. I am thinking of recognition rather than judgement. I will always respect the artist's indidualism. Most of the artists are independent and individualistic. I just want to recognise their works. Why not?

No, it does not. Where did you get that? Leonardo da Vinci, one of the most prolific creators of all times, had been criticised by Michelangelo for not completing his works. — god must be atheist

I am not referring to the works but the author.

People are diverse. You can't make everyone comply to your values. And why should they? Because you don't see their point? — god must be atheist

I see their point but I don't understand it. Simple. I guess the only who is inflexible here is you

Why destroy the works if they are great?
1. The world is not deserving of them. — god must be atheist

Why I am not deserve to see your works? Am I worse than you?
Who are we to judge the world doesn't deserve our works and art?

Waste of time? No. The creative process is fun, and at times therapeutical. — god must be atheist

It is fun and therapeutical, that's true. But the creative process needs a conclusion. Like a perfect circle where you start in a point and then you end up in the same but with recognition. I cannot conclude and close the circle if I burn or destroy my works. In most of the cases, artists tend to represent a expression of themselves and the society in their works. Thanks to their talent we can see "reality" with other eyes.
In the other hand: I bet that the artist who burns their works would end up regretting such action.

And there are an untold number of artists and writers who burn their work before they die.

You don't hear of them, you don't see their works, but they are out there. — god must be atheist

Yes, I know. But I still see it as a waste of time. What is the clue of writing a poem if I will burn it down? I would understand it if you vanish the works because you don't like them.
I mean: every artist feels attached to their own works. If they burn them, they are vanishing with them too.

Franz Kaffka. — god must be atheist

We are lucky this amazing writer never destroyed his works!

and there are people who do not need that. — god must be atheist

Well, these kind of artists make the art to themselves, then. I see your point and I am somehow agree, but I don't understand the cause of writing a book or painting a landscape if no one ever would read or see them.
It would be a sorrow for these works to never been shown to anyone ever...

I disagree.

"Great" people don't know they are extraordinary. Never. When you want to do different things from the ordinary, there are a lot of chances to suffer criticism. This is what happened to Van Gogh or James Joyce. A good example of masters in literature and arts. Their works are magnificent but with the eyes of modern generations. Van Gogh was poor because nobody really bought any of his paints and James Joyce was not well understood by the literature critics.
So, to become "great" needs a lot of facts than just thinking I am good. You (we) need the approval from the rest of the people.

Secondly: I don't know if an artist makes his stuff just to show he is good or "great". For example: I took part in short story contest of this forum. When I finished my story in my computer I didn't think: "this is supreme". I was just proud of myself because I was able to conjugate words and make an original story. I was happy. Nevertheless, I was pessimistic towards the opinions from the members. I thought they would not like it or I would receive negative comments. It ended good and I received good feedback but I wasn't my intention.

We can make a test about this topic. I going to share my short story with you: Wake up, newborns! and I am opened to your comments and criticism. I am not hoping my story is "great" indeed...

You should look up the meaning of "shout." Also "literal." — T Clark

I wanted to say that he complained about "shoutbox" while he "shouted" in his posts in this thread. It is a paradox :smile:

I think Wayfarer thought the same:

‘Shouting has no place’, he shouted — Wayfarer

Anyway, I think China needs to start being more sensible and cooperative. It will be better for Chinese citizens and the rest of the world. I still do not understand why Xi Jinping acts in suck way. We are not debating on economics and digits but human lives.

China’s neighbors wary of dubious Covid data as they brace for influx of travelers

The official Covid-19 data released by China is proving to be unreliable. In December, internal documents were leaked that put the number of infections for that month at 248 million, but only 450,000 were reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). In other words, China only reported one of every 550 cases.

But of course there's no magic bullet, no guarantees or certain stoppage, it's life, bathed in organics and other hazards. I guess every bit helps (if done (right)). — jorndoe

:up:

You literally shouted when you had started this thread...

I see and agree with your point of view. Even, I also think a faithful figure should not have such proportion of authority and power. His persona ends up as a political lobby/machine rather than a moral cursor.
Nevertheless, though, I guess such authority and power is needed (in a believing and practical Catholic perspective). We are debating about a person whose sermons have influence around the world. How can you reach that without authority?
Well, I guess, that was one of the main strategies of the church in the past.

I don't really understand what they're doing. No one thinks lockdowns can stop the Omicron strain. It's just too contagious. — frank

I wish China will be more cooperative in the following weeks... It will be better for all of us. Like it is a country you necessarily depend with. Most of the products and technology industries comes from there... That's the reality. We depend on Chinese enterprises.

Or it could be that naturally acquired immunity is just better for some reason. — frank

It could be. But we suppose to save the most possible lives. If we only use the naturally immunity there would be a lot of weak people dying just for an experiment and I see it unfair... I think everyone deserves to be safe from covid.

In the other hand, China has two main issues related to their current crisis: 1. Opaque data so we don't truly know what is going on there. 2. The Chinese vaccines are not good enough so these are not helping the citizens. I think that with European/American vaccines the context would be different.

Interesting video and analysis. In the description of the video the doctor warned: The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of covid infection. and then he shows some evidences related to the number of taken vaccines and the correlation of percentage of people testing positive.

Well, it is obvious, right? Whenever you put vaccines on the population the people tend to start relaxing towards the precautions. But the vaccines are not there to "prevent" infections but to saves us from death. My parents and I have taken two vaccines and we were infected by Covid. We didn't get close to death thanks to the vaccines but it is obvious that sooner or later we would be infected. It is impossible the opposite.

I respect the analysis and evidences of the doctor of the video. But in my humble opinion, I think they are not related to the main cause of massive vaccination.

Thanks for your analysis and point of view.

Who but a believing Catholic would be interested in this question, though? — Ciceronianus

I am not a believing Catholic and that's why I started this topic. I want to see it in an impartial/objective view but it is difficult because I am aware that the role of the Pope has different perspectives among the Catholics. I am interested in the nature of the power of the Pope and why the believers trust on him.
Nevertheless, as @Gregory explained yesterday, the opinion among all Catholics is not the same and there are discrepancies.

You explained that you see the Pope as the main interpretation of a Roman Emperor. But I guess it is more complex.
In the other hand, it is interesting that Catholics always have debated about Pope's power. Is it a political or religious issue? Because I see him more than just a priest...

It is even difficult to describe the role of the Vatican.

When less solemnity is used, it is not sure whether infallibility is used and if it's not clear then how can it be part of dogma? There are all kinds of Catholics. — Gregory

I see... it is a complex topic.

Any rational organization would first ask itself if past popes had ever spoken ex cathedra but nonetheless been wrong. — Art48

That can rings a bell... I think only a few priests are brave enough to doubt on Pope's decisions or dogmas. As I said previously, I always thought that Pope is seen as the closer person to God (they even believe that the Pope is elected due to God's mercy)
So this brings Catholics to a dilemma: if they question Pope they are also doubting God's decisions and will?

Interesting. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in this matter with us.
I have two questions (if you do not mind):

I. Can you give me an example of papal decrees that are certainly infallible? It sounds interesting because I want to know an example of a statement that Catholics respect and comply without doubting.

II.

Even abortion hasn't been infallibly defined as a sin — Gregory

This was a surprise, indeed. Do you think that abortion was never been infallibly defined as a sin because is a controversial topic? I am not familiar with all Catholic dogmas but I always thought that abortion was condemned by most of them.

Are you human? :grin:

... Or are you the only human in here? — Alkis Piskas

I am just a Rōnin with the aim of loyalty and honesty :smile:

In the other hand, I always read your posts. I like them and I remember that you also take part on mines... I consider you as one of my online friends in this asylum.

Yes, the Proust. It's really, really good. — Pantagruel

Enjoy it! :up:

As it happens I'm just reading one of the longest novels in the world, whose main themes are the ways in which memories extrude themselves into life, and the ways in which things actually become memorable. — Pantagruel

Don Quixote? ... In Search of Lost Time?

Agreed. But I still doubt if an animal (whatever the species) can be aware of a time lapse when he learns something new. I mean: can an animal be aware of how much time did he take to learn a trick?
We are the only ones capable of measuring the circumstances in time.

I understand that time lapse does exist in our awareness and I am agree with your argument. Nevertheless, I was referring to the fact that time only exists in our lifetime. Past, present and future only exists and affects us but I wonder if a stone or a dog care about years passing or even if my dog suffers of nostalgia. It is a very complex thought and this circumstance is only up to the most complex animal in earth: humans.

The past is real — neonspectraltoast

It depends on how you interpret time. According to Kantian theories, time doesn't exist empirically outside our minds. There are even some debates that evolve to time paradoxes when we argue about past, present and future.
So, I am not confident enough to say that the past is "real"

The Protestants have plenty of problems, but at least they don't have a pope. — Bitter Crank

It was a historical change in Europe when Northern European countries broke their relationship with the Vatican, indeed. As I see, it seems that religion always had issues among their believers and priests.

Good example of Papal ex cathedra dogma. It is true that the Vatican always had influence on education. Nowadays this power has being vanished to ashes. Church educational system is no longer powerful as much as old era/days because modern society tend to be more critical.
In the other hand, I was looking for some answers related to the conclave. For me, catholic church seems to be a very complex organisation.

My wish for this place is to continue to be a source of inspiration and intellectual proliferation! — Alkis Piskas

Same here :up:

In the other hand...

Convince the members of this forum that the right path of life is Bushidō.

One must have the right enemies. Or in F's case, enemies in the Right. :wink: — Tom Storm

:up: :100:

. I was referring to their dislike of Ratzinger. — Tom Storm

I am aware that Ratzinger was disliked by a lot of Catholics. His views in the world were not welcomed by the rest of the persons. He was a very controversial figure inside the Vatican.
That's why I started this post. I wanted to know if the priests were "free" to argue against a Pope. I am seeing that they can do it individually. It is something new I learned these days.

Pope Francis — Tom Storm

Despite Pope Francis is more warmly than Ratzinger he receives hard criticism from the conservative wing too.

I'm not Catholic, but I deeply and most sincerely hope that the Pope is entirely different from God. As I understand it (several times removed from a catechism class) is that the Pope is, at most, the on-site human representative of Jesus -- the vicar, — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are right Crank. Nevertheless, there are some doctrines and dogmas who see the Pope "above" of Jesus. I mean, as a pure representation of God. This theory was established by Pius IX: There was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius) and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor aeternus), the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome [...] Another main goal of the council was to definitively define the powers and role of the pope.

Whether one is a Catholic, a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Moslem, Hindu, or Zoroastrian, animist or atheist, in the end the individual has to personally decide what to do. — Bitter Crank

I guess it could be difficult to them... we have to keep in mind that those Catholics or Protestants follow a dogma and a hierarchical group. Being individual/independent can be seen as an act of criticism against the dogmas.

I see. Pope Francis is a very controversial figure in both inside and outside of the Church and Vatican. I am aware that he receives some criticism due to his actions but as much as the other Popes. They always have had some controversies in their backs.
Your testimony is interesting because it shows that priests and nuns are "free" to critique the Pope. I always thought that they were forced to venerated him whatever the circumstances...

Yes, there are a lot of differences among all Catholics. I see it interesting because I wasn't aware about the "importance" of papal authority until today.
I always see him as a prophet not as a "Leviathan" or someone with a lot of power in his hands.

A creator is merely a personification of "a fluke", no? — 180 Proof

The humanity is obsessed with humanized whatever when we don't have to. For me a creator is not necessarily pictured. It could be whatever you believe... If I don't believe in anything there is not a creator at all...
I think flukes don't exist. It is just a reference to whatever happens and we cannot explain the cause.

It is true that the only way to understand the role of the Pope is from a Catholic perspective because his institution is based on canons and faith. Even is a religious debate I think it is interesting how his power can be more or less estimated.
A Pope doesn't have any influence on me but there are millions of believers and I understand that the Pope is important to them. But how important? Do they see him as the image of God or even supreme?

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God.