No. But the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good, especially the section which details the dialogues that discuss the forms, and also the biblography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms — Wayfarer

Thanks already know this one. I was referring to Joshs other terminology and asking if it was in the same vein as Plato's forms.

An anarchist is a realist? Explain how that works. — Dharmi

I have met anarchists who are realists but I did not make the point C is a realist. I doubt he is.

Chomsky is a charlatan and a fraud. He got famous for an unfalsifiable pseudo-theory about language that's been challenged by multiple linguists, and it's not even clear what the actual theory is except that language is somehow innate. His political views might be interesting, but they belong to a bygone era. — Dharmi

I have no feelings about Chomsky's integrity, my point addressed the issues of complexity not validity.

Again, I think this is an economic matter — Athena

Economics - where money and resources are prioritized is almost entirely a reflection of the cultural priorities of a society.

How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena

I have worked with Buddhist and Hindu community members have made this point to me often. But clearly there are individual practitioners who do are highly charitable.

My understanding of morality is that it is intended to reduce the friction and conflict among people who are consistently fractious. Secular morality can ignore the god-man relationship which religious morality attends to. — Bitter Crank

I think that is a legitimate position. I have often thought that the problem is this word 'morality' it contains so much baggage.

It can also be seen as a code of conduct that is largely shared by a community or culture. Codes are probably given a kick start by our apparent capacity for empathy.

Chomsky is a realist when it comes to geopolitics. He has argued in a few places that materialism lacks coherent content.

I said it.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

People who live in fear do not take responsibility. They live in an altered state of awareness.

But i think it goes further than that for you. I think your worldview itself may be naive realist one,( our scientific theories attempt to correspond to an independently existing external world ) and if that is the case then the notion of a philosophical perspective requiring a whole new way of thinking and a transformation of your language is alien to you. — Joshs

I think you are using my comment to engage in a little patronizing ad hominem. Noam Chomsky - a highly complex theorist - made this exact same point about some French thinkers. Not a naïve realist or simple man by any means.

I personally don't hold this view (as yet) but I see why it is said and offered it as an alternative to your response which seemed to go straight to 'I have superior recondite knowledge'. I reject the position that complex ideas can be explained in less convoluted imprecise ways. But this is a useless digression. If I have further questions I may ask them.

No the point I was addressing was your reflection about divine command theory.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it. — Tzeentch

The jails are full of vicious criminals who believe in god. There is nothing intrinsic to the idea which makes people behave ethically.

Doing what is right for fear of punishment is ethics for three-year-olds. Adults take responsibility. — Banno

You have obviously not done any time in a Supermax prison - not many 3 year-olds there. You do what you are told or suffer the consequences. If god is a totalitarian bully and Mafia-style thug (and as written this is his character) then the divine command theory makes sense. Yes, it is God treating human beings like children or prisoners.

Of course the pious believer will say something like - I want to do what pleases god, goodness radiates from his nature and I seek to follow this.

I always get that from corporate types( not that you’re necessarily a corporate type). If an idea is worth anything it should be explicable in a simple
sentence. That works well in the world of
commerce because by definition a commercial product only has a market if it’s value is understood by a sizable number of people. But philosophy traffics in ideas
that are not already well understood by the mainstream , so buzzwords, soundbites and tweets will only be coherent to whose already well versed in a particular philosophical approach. Plus, different philosophical orientations define metaphysics in their own ways. Since I’m using Derrida’s definition , I’d need to introduce you to his vocabulary and way of thinking before his notion of metaphysics will make sense.

I could, however, respond to focused questions from you. — Joshs

Thank you for the offer. The only corporate types I know generally use weasel words, convoluted syntax and jargon to hide or massage the facts. They are terrified of clear sentences, as some philosophers seem to be. What was it Foucault said about Derrida - that he practiced obscurantist terrorism? I know Foucault told John Searle that writing deliberately incomprehensible prose to appear profound was an especially French practice. This may be true.

But outside of all that I generally take the view that if an idea is understood well it can be expressed simply and clearly. I'll keep reading your responses and see if there are further questions. Appreciated.

Thanks Joshs but that hasn't helped. Like Pato's theory of forms? Can it not be explained in a simple sentence?

You're right, spiritual is not always a good match. Is there a better word? Supernatural? Even more loaded for some. It depends on the claim being made. Scientific anomalies or gaps in knowledge don't really count. We know there are are things that are not yet explained by science, but that doesn't mean we have a better approach for establishing facts about the world.

Is it just a matter of the degree of probability or should one apply other criteria to an event to qualify it as 'Supernatural’? — Jacob-B

Even in the unlikely event that we can confirm an example of a supernatural event, the next problem is determining cause. As Isaac Asimov used to say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Is there a way this all makes sense? — Nikolas

Yes, many ways. God puts people to the test. Do not eat the fruit. Do not do anything God asks you not to do. Obedience is fidelity. But if you must concentrate on the fruit, it is knowledge that is the issue - the betrayal of purity. Which in the end facilitates Adam and Eve's pursuit of their own desires and ideas about right and wrong - free will instead of God's will. The first step in the separation of people from God and the tragedy of good and evil becoming mixed together in creation.

formalist gesture in thinking — Joshs

I don't understand what you mean here?

s seeking knowledge evil and remaining ignorant the good? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a God create knowledge and call it evil? If knowledge is evil why create our potential to receive it in the first place — Nikolas

That's not the interpretation I am making. And the question you pose has nothing to do with my proposition. I never said knowledge was evil. But not following God's command is wrong. He is very specific about not eating that bloody fruit.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to? — Nikolas

The only tree of knowledge I know is the kabbalah. Knowledge isn't evil per say but you may be commanded to remain ignorant/simple - in which case seeking knowledge then becomes a transgression.

Also, it requires being a hard atheist, which is just another a dogmatic position. — baker

Most Christians accept evolution. Not sure where the hard atheism comes from.

I'm seems like it is the same for those who prefer western philosophy. It grabs them. They recognize it. It's something they didn't know they already knew. — T Clark

I just had a quick scan on line. It certainly is striking - it reads like poetry and the reader needs to have a particular personality or imagination (I suspect) to get the most from it.

I'm not a big Western philosophy guy so I feel like I should resonate with other modes of expression. But I am a product of my culture and I can't see a way past most of my own presuppositions.

Nicely put but I'm not sure it addresses most of my comments.

Thanks for your response. I was unable to get much out of the Tao Te Ching to be honest (decades ago) but I'll give it another look. I'm sure I can read it in an hour but I am also sure I will not understand it.

This failure of philosophy is a failure to see the whole picture and storytelling that excluded our wrongs. This is a new day and we need to value philosophy to move ahead without doing more damage. — Athena

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true.

On the other hand, I've met other people like you who were saved by philosophy. I must admit I don't get it, but I've come to respect it and accept that it works. For me, it's like jazz. It's not my music and I don't really get it, but enough people I respect value it that it would be silly and graceless to argue. — T Clark

Nicely put. I guess the real job of all of us is to consider ideas we are not necessarily drawn to and perhaps even repelled by (of course you wouldn't want to push this too far). This in itself probably requires a philosophical imagination.

I'm interested in your idea about philosophy being stony. Can you say more in concrete terms (no half-arsed pun intended) about why it doesn't work for you?

[

here are three degrees of Christians: Non-Christians, pre-Christians and Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Non Christians have no interest. Pre-Christians may want to be Christians but are unable. They are like students. — Nikolas

Interesting - you raise many questions. On what basis do you arrive at this Trinitarian model? When you say precepts of Chris (I am assuming you mean teachings of) does it matter if they are the purported original teachings or ones with theological additions? Is it enough to say 'I follow Christ', regardless of quality control? The term pre-Christian is interesting. Why Pre? Generally pre-Christian means Iron Age faiths. Do you perhaps mean nascent-Christian? I am also curious about your use the word 'unable'. Unable to what? To believe it, or is there some other barrier - such as commitment to the purity of the teachings? I think you may have left one out - cultural Christians.

I'm saying that classical metaphysical arguments don't have obvious winners in the real world. And if I give reasons for their futility, I'm also just wasting my time in practical terms, because in general people don't take such things seriously to begin with, and those who like metaphysics are often religiously-politically motivated or just still captured by the notion that they are doing some kind of higher Science. It's a harmless vice, as is critiquing it. — norm

Possibly the most elegant summary of the situation I've yet read.

I get that people like to feel part of a special group of initiated outliers who challenge the mainstream and embrace a numinous reality outside of conventional lifestyles and the ostensible limitations of crass science. I get the attractions of wanting to be one with a higher consciousness through the contemplative life.

What I don't get is the lack of joy in the communication of these ideas. It seems most of what I read is a thick soup of quotes, name dropping and terminology, with the requisite 'my reality is better than theirs' powerplay. I expect that from some atheists. There's almost nothing explaining the benefits or bliss found through the spiritual path and what it actually achieves. Is there somewhere here where this comes up or do we never get past the pissing competition?

I agree with Justice Wendell Holmes.

You can't resolve this highly emotive issue. You either buy into the idea that we live in community and support it and consider tax a way to pay for civilization; or you take the view that we are free individuals and the state is in illegitimate oppressor that takes away our liberty and property. You have also raised a separate matter of how society determines who gets paid what amount for their work. Maybe this is a separate thread.

Yes, but if that is meant to refer to norm’s comments here concerning the relation of language in a Wittgensteinian sense to issues like mind versus body I think it would be missing the point of his argument. — Joshs

You're right, he is not addressing the point as such but then both guys are talking past each other, which seems the necessary end result of competing epistemologies like this. I am more in sympathy with Norm's worldview than Dharmi's.

However, I was just taken by Dharmi's succinct words on this matter of finding wisdom which would apply in a range of contexts and it occurred to me that the old joke, 'I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy' might be applicable. Hence my point about holding statements. Probably too obtuse... sorry.

hat's not what I said. What my position is, is very clear: whether we come to know the meaning/purpose/nature etc. of existence or not, we shouldn't give up on that question. In other words, the whole point of existence is that question. If we never come to knowledge of the answer, that doesn't mean we give up. You seem to believe that "philosophers and philosophy can't answer that question, so that question is unsolvable, so I'm done with philosophy and good riddance." Well, I don't accept that.

I might not have the answer, nobody might very well have the answer. It's possible that getting that answer is impossible. But that doesn't mean we throw in the towel, and accept nihilism. First, that is a logical non-sequitur to say "because we cannot know x, therefore there is no x." That's a fallacy. Second, that's not the point of philosophy. The point of philosophy is to know the Good, know the Truth, know what is Real. Socrates went to his death asking those questions, and all should model his life in that regard. He never said, "I don't know the answer yet, so I guess I'll just stop asking the questions." That's laziness. That's a cop-out. That's what I'd call philosophical suicide. — Dharmi

That's a very dramatic way of phrasing the dilemma but it seems appropriate and I like your wording. I also think sometimes people give up by finding the answer - one that satisfies but is really just a holding statement of sorts. "I'm an X..."

David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions is a salutary reminder of how and in what way the Christian message was revolutionary in the ancient world. — Wayfarer

I greatly enjoy Hart's work. It interests me that he has identified the problem of evil and the suffering of innocents as the one which has capacity to shake his faith.

I am speaking of the whole ideal of compassion for the downtrodden and poor. In addition, so much of what Christ taught may have been lost in the way the Bible was put together. A lot of the teachings which were established were based on the ideas developed by Paul. Another underlying tension in the development of the Christian tradition was the conflicts over Gnostic thinking, and the role of teachers, especially Origen, in deciding what writings were put into the New Testament, and this is critical for thinking about how the way Christian thought developed. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that's all a given. I think all we can go by in assessing a religion in the world is living traditions.

First we would have to agree on what Christianity is as opposed to the well known Christendom functioning in society. Kierkegaard was aware of a difference but obviously is in in a minority. — Nikolas

I hear you but I don't think you can get agreement on this so readily. We don't have a mechanism to discern who is a true Christian and who is not. Generally, if someone calls themselves a Christian, we have to take them at their word unless we have sufficient evidence to the contrary (whatever that might be).

How do you come by your opinion of Hindus and Buddhists and other Asian people living with Eastern philosophy? — Athena

I don't really have a strong view on this. I am attracted to some Buddhism ideas - but isn't everyone? I don't see any Asian cultures that I would swap for mine. I am always most interested in how cultures manage poverty, illness, work and law and order.

Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable! — Athena

Interesting idea. Christianity is an easy target in its limited literalist formulations. I have a soft spot for Christianity and unlike Nietzsche and other resentful thinkers, I consider its reverence towards the weak, the marginalized, the lost, the 'bungled and the botched' to be of profound importance to culture.

It's a pity so much Christianity - especially where it is growing fastest - is of a grotesque, materialistic fundamentalist bent. But it seems most religions and spiritual systems have their gross populist variations.

Not trying to be a dick but why does it matter?

Convention - I say "There is no objective reality." Everyone says, "What are you, an idiot?" — T Clark

Of course around here it is usually - "I say there is an objective reality." Everyone says, "What are you an idiot?"

I think people accept their presuppositions because they fit emotional needs. But that doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.

The other reason is the considered absence of a viable alternative. Which may fit with what you have called Experience.

La Rochefoucauld wrote something like only vanity is offended by vanity. How dare you claim to have the secret or be special! I have it, you silly motherfucker! — norm

Nice quote.

Silence is more sinister in our cacophonous world.