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.

It seems Catholics want some sense of divinity to emanate from their leader, so democratizing his powers, setting checks and balances, and having strict oversight aren't what they want because that might overly humanize him. — Hanover

I see it as you do. But this premise could end up in an argument where the Pope is above God. Catholics don't want to humanize the Pope but I understand that, at the same time, no one is divine as much as God.
So, they will always have this debate. Are the faculties of the Pope object of criticism? If we critize him, are we arguing against God's mercy?

2022 may have been a turning point for action on climate change. It was hard fought, and much less than needed to be done, but it was something. — Mikie

:up: :100:

:up: :sparkle:

I don't want anything from him. I don't even pray...

What do you expect from God?

Any lines in Nietzsche's books/essays that could be read as humans having, well, consumed God? — Agent Smith

Yes. What I meant is that we humans can eat God if we see our life as a anthropocentric scenario. Nothing and no one is above us. I think is better for the world to see in such way. But I respect all views and opinions of course

Inside Japanese mythology, kamis can interact with humans.

We ate God when Nietzsche said: God is dead. :eyes:

My 2022 list of Japanese books I read:

Yukio Mishima:

Confessions of a Mask.
Thirst for Love
The Age of Blue
The Sound of Waves
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion
After the Banquet
Runaway Horses
The Decay of the Angel.

Yasunari Kawabata:

The Dancing Girl of Izu
The Scarlet Gang of Asakusa
Snow Country
Thousand Cranes
The Lake
The House of the Sleeping Beauties
The Old Capital
Beauty and Sadness
Palm-of-the-Hand Stories.

Jun'ichirō Tanizaki:

Some Prefer Nettles
In Praise of Shadows
Seven Japanese Tales

Haruki Murakami:

Hear the Wind Sing
Pinball, 1973
A Wild Sheep Chase
Sputnik Sweetheart

Kenzaburo Oē:

A Personal Matter
Nip the Buds, Shoot the Kids
Rouse Up O Young Men of the New Age!

Seicho Matsumoto:

Far Approach

Shintaro Ishihara:

Season of the Sun
The Eclipse of Yukio Mishima,

Teru Miyamoto:

Muddy River

Looking for reading even more Japanese works in 2023.

Killing Commendatore Part I and II, Haruki Murakami.

Fully agree with you, friend. Lexical analysis is very complex but interesting. I am not confident enough to debate on it... I don't have such criteria or knowledge.
Probably in the future!

Pain, unhappy, sad, sorrow, anguish, agony, grief, loss, glum, gloom, doom, excruciate, torment, angst, the blues, the doldrums, hell/ish, nightmare, etc. — Agent Smith

It is interesting because all of those words, despite of being related to sadness, tend to be the most influential towards writers and philosophers.

There are quite a few events antinatalists can choose to celebrate — Agent Smith

Is birthday one of them?

An afterlife makes sense only in Buddhism (reincarnation, determined by karma). — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

Agreed. But I think is not about "sense" but just faith. Buddhism doctrines promote reincarnation and afterlife as one of the main points of their faith.

Because you dislike life? — Andrew4Handel

No, because I don't have any hope in future.

Many things are drugs: coffee (caffeine) , chocolate (theobromine, methylxanthine), alcohol, MSG (umami flavour which is broken down into a neurotransmitter) and many more. — Benj96

To be honest, I don't see coffee or chocolate as painful as cannabis or alcohol would be.

Rather then considering how they can be used better? — Benj96

Absolutely. I wasn't complaining about psychedelics themselves but the role of the public administration in this issue. I am complaining about the possible taxation in this issue, not the effect of a correct use of those drugs.

Is the apotheosis of Bentham-Mill-ianism Kantianism, ethically that is? — Agent Smith

It is a good question, indeed. But I am not able to answer you because I don't have deep knowledge in German philosophy. Sorry, friend!

What exactly is wrong/right about cannabis anyway? — Agent Smith

It is still be a drug. It doesn't matter if cannabis is "soft" compared to cocaine or heroine. The only problem I see regarding the legalisation of drugs, more specifically psychedelics, is that the State is acting as a hypocrite. There were always been tons of advertisements against drug use. Now, it seems to be "ok" to consume them because the State sees it as profitable. As I said: it is wrong because it is full of hypocrisy.
The real aim of a public administration is to promote the health care of the citizens. You would not reach that if you decide to legalised psychedelics. If someone says those drugs are not painful to you, they are clearly lying.

How would you feel or respond if it was proven conclusively that there is an afterlife? — Andrew4Handel

Disappointed.

I'm sure the FDA has already asked marijuana companies to stick a MARIJUANA KILLS sticker on their products. — Agent Smith

Exactly! They are hypocrites as much as when they sell tobacco packets

. Expect to see novel modes of delivery and safety + quality control. Isn't that awesome? — Agent Smith

It would be awesome for the state, for sure. They now want to make it legal because they will earn a lot of profits through the taxes implemented on marijuana lots. Unless it's free...

:up:
My purpose in this OP was trying to understand what Mishima was referring to. I am bif fan of his books but I don't have a clue inside German philosophy :rofl: so... I thought: I guess somone can help me here! I think a good idea would be give a chance on Kant or Wittgenstein books!

I haven't read Mishima — Moliere

Please let me recommend you some of his important works to introduce you in Mishima's world:
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, The Sea of Fertility tetralogy: Spring Snow, Runaway Horses, The Temple of Dawn and The Decay of the Angel

If you have time and you are interested on new original books, Mishima would not disappoint you.

Cheers! :sparkle:

Santa isn't an individual and yet is in the domain of discourse — Shawn

What do you mean when you say Santa is not an individual? you want to say that Santa is a common subterfuge.

how subjective is pain & pleasure? — Agent Smith

Good question :up:

Gothic Kabuki Theater — Nils Loc

Japanese Print Autumn — Nils Loc

So awesome!

Good points both of you. But understanding is not necessarily based in logic and mathematics. You used Gödel's theorems but we can also quote Confucianism or Aristotle's anima in terms of basic knowledge.

By imposition vis-à-vis life do you mean no one was/is/will be asked whether s/he wishes to be born? — Agent Smith

It is impossible indeed.

It is always a pleasure to debate with you, friend :sparkle: :up:

Could it be that, as someone once said to me, the point is to unlearn ununderstand or at the very least, refuse to understand? — Agent Smith

I am agree. But one of the main problems is that our awareness is difficult to understand. So I will not be able to say: I understand you! while it is hard to understand myself. It is a paradox, if you think it deeply. We try to debate about metaphysical with the aim of reaching significance meanwhile we are not really sure if we understand ourselves at all.

from (god's) nihilistic and ambiguity perspective, human thinking and human affairs must appear to be infinitely trivial and inconsequential and, quite probably, of no logical value whatsoever. — alan1000

:sparkle: :up:

And yes I think any god that creates/created humanity (flawed beings) would have to give them free will, uncertainty, a lack of omniscience so that they might learn. So if one was an omniscient god it seems to allow for free will they would have to appear absent, illusive, a non existent parent departed from what they created. To allow for true independence. — Benj96

Interesting view but that can create a paradox: A God can be illusive and non existent but at the same time it needs to be believed by somone. Otherwise, the existence and omnipotence of God would be useless. What would be the point of a God's mercy if nobody is seeing around?

Well, I guess you don't care much for ethics. — ToothyMaw

I do not even care about living... everything is full-filled by ambiguities.

You choose how to be. If you want to be non-interfering and simply observing that's your perogative. Who are we - any mere human, to question your authority? — Benj96

It is interesting that you see God as an authority. I just see it as pure escapism. I cannot figure out all the problems and uncertainties of the people because that's would be being against the nature of humanity. If you want to question my authority, please go ahead. Isn't it a real act of freedom?

Damn dude. You don't think you would do anything good if you could? — ToothyMaw

No, because I do not know what is the meaning of "good"

, what would you do with your time as this entity? — Benj96

Nothing. Why the people should expect something from me for being God?

Are you, or Mishima, arguing that people who claim be using their faith or spirituality as a guide to navigating actual day to day situations are lying to themselves or fooling themselves? Is your argument that people are hypocrites and dont practice what they profess? — Joshs

Exactly. Or at least their lives and claims are contradictory each other.

Do those principles inform your sense of how to approach concepts like honor, loyalty, friendship, fairness and justice? — Joshs

Those are exactly what Mishima is missing about. We all can have deep debates on honour, loyalty, friendship, justice, etc... but are they possible of being applied to? Are the citizens loyal? Do they care about friendship? I think not... that's the point of our criticism. We currently live in an era which is based on materialism and soft praxis. We can give a lot of definitions of fairness but are we ready to apply it?

Why is metaphysics not also a praxis? — Joshs

I didn't say it wasn't a praxis but not practical enough (at least in my own view) and that's why the metaphor of Mishima is excellent: it is a formidable building which lacks of a toliet.

What makes something a praxis and why do we value praxis? — Joshs

When we put it on in practice and then, we can check the results. I am agree in the basic fact that metaphysics starts the "beginning" of everything. I am not doubting that. But, sooner or later, we have to develop a praxis. For example: humans were always been debating about the universe. Centuries ago it was about metaphysics but now is about physics, because you can explain through laws and formulas which were born thanks to experience and praxis.

And what is useful is what is relevant, significant and meaningful to us? — Joshs

This question is object of another OP. But I would say, in my side, that a meaningful stimulus is death.

What motivates lemons to develop a. metaphysics? — Joshs

:sparkle: :eyes:

Do you think Kant’s ideas were considers useful , relevant and meaningful to him? — Joshs

I don't know. I wish we could know more about Kant and his life because we only debate about his works. I would not categorise those as "useful" but original.

then how do we understand the contrast between how humans and other animals live? — Joshs

I think Aristotle already answered this good question: Aristotle believed that animals, like humans, have purpose, and that telos is natural and unchanging. Aristotle’s Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare.

From this vantage, al even our most ‘practical actions are informed and guided by an implicit metaphysical worldview, and one could say the same for animals. — Joshs

:up: :100:

:sparkle: :100: