D P wrote: And I prefer those with a reasonable mind that will just answer the questions I pose to them, or concede my point.
A reasonable mind cannot answer Dee’s question on the relationshhip between faith and knowledge. An open mind can eventually experience it. Einstein could experience it because he had an unreasonable mind. Einstein wrote:
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong.”
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
"Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men." ~ Edwin Louis Cole
Those like D P and sthit have reasonable minds. They will adapt to the world around them. Those like Einstein and Simone have open minds which allow them to appear unreasonable to the open minded reasonable people. I’ll stick with the Einsteins and Simones.
Nick_A wrote: I’ll stick with the Einsteins and Simones.
Now if you had only mentioned Einstein, it would be impressive. The introduction of Whackjob Weil takes away all the credibility. It is like saying I will stick with Einstein and Bob, or like saying I will stick with Einstein and the cult of Big Foot. You whole post becomes meaningless. Being impressed by Einstein is not a qualification. However, being impressed by Whackjob or the cult of Big Foot is definitely a disqualification. You should bear that in mind the next time you introduce Whackjob into a discussion.
Oh and you still haven't answered my question.What person? What new technique? Where is the report of this person?
sthit wrote: Now if you had only mentioned Einstein, it would be impressive. The introduction of Whackjob Weil takes away all the credibility.
Pure Misogyny. You would think that in this day and age there would be more respect for women with both intellectual and emotional intelligence. But still there is a minority with an exceptional dislike for these special women. This dislike has nothing to do with their ideas since sthit clearly doesn't understand them. Their attitude is that a woman cannot have such depth. Sad.
sthit wrote: Now if you had only mentioned Einstein, it would be impressive. The introduction of Whackjob Weil takes away all the credibility.
Pure Misogyny. You would think that in this day and age there would be more respect for women with both intellectual and emotional intelligence. But still there is a minority with an exceptional dislike for these special women. This dislike has nothing to do with their ideas since sthit clearly doesn't understand them. Their attitude is that a woman cannot have such depth. Sad.
You want misogyny, read again Einstein's contract with his wife. What an arsehole.
The open minded person could discuss the possibility that the human mind is capable of receiving far more than the five senses provide. The open minded person would be capable of opening to the potential for a conscious universe in which human consciousness is a part.
The reasonable person will demand proof before allowing the mind to open. Consequently we already know the limitations of the mind and the idea of a conscious universe is ridiculous and unreasonable so must be denied. That is why faith without knowledge is absurd for the reasonable mind yet a legitimate hypothesis for the open mind willing to verify it through efforts to "know thyself."
Lord protect me from reasonable people in my pursuit of philosophical and religious concerns.
sthit wrote: Now if you had only mentioned Einstein, it would be impressive. The introduction of Whackjob Weil takes away all the credibility.
Pure Misogyny. You would think that in this day and age there would be more respect for women with both intellectual and emotional intelligence. But still there is a minority with an exceptional dislike for these special women. This dislike has nothing to do with their ideas since sthit clearly doesn't understand them. Their attitude is that a woman cannot have such depth. Sad.
Misogyny is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. It is not contempt for a single woman. You have studied in English, right? Contempt for Whackjob is respectable behaviour in this forum.
Last edited by sthitapragya on Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nick_A wrote:The open minded person could discuss the possibility that the human mind is capable of receiving far more than the five senses provide. The open minded person would be capable of opening to the potential for a conscious universe in which human consciousness is a part.
The reasonable person will demand proof before allowing the mind to open. Consequently we already know the limitations of the mind and the idea of a conscious universe is ridiculous and unreasonable so must be denied. That is why faith without knowledge is absurd for the reasonable mind yet a legitimate hypothesis for the open mind willing to verify it through efforts to "know thyself."
Lord protect me from reasonable people in my pursuit of philosophical and religious concerns.
No the reasonable person will open the mind to the possibility that the human mind is capable of receiving far more than the five senses provide. Then the reasonable mind will come across Nick_A, who has opened his mind for longer, read the stuff Nick_A writes, and quickly close his mind to any such possibility for fear of becoming a complete nutter like Nick_A.
You, my friend, are the best friend an atheist who wants to propagate atheism has. The stuff you write helps create doubt in God because anyone who reads it for the first time would think, "wow, if I believe what he does, will it make my brain like his?" So keep up the good work. We atheists are proud of you.
You are right sthit. Reasonable people could never find anything attractive about Simone and could even feel threatened by her anti social attitude.
Jacques Kaplan, remembered speaking to Simone Weil while on her voyage to America:
She was very pleasant, very protective, very sarcastic. What especially struck me was the astonishing contrast between her and normal people — or rather, ordinary people. She couldn't bear the cabin-class passengers, because they openly enjoyed comforts that those in steerage were deprived of. She took an interest in me because being a 'scout', I volunteered to take charge of the refugee children in the hold.
Jacques Kaplan evidently was not normal or reasonable so could appreciate Simone since his volunteering was her norm.. It is unreasonable to volunteer as he did much less have this attitude as your norm. But yet it may be possible that this attitude enabled Simone to have the direct mystical experiences she did that were beyond knowledge of facts.
Nick_A wrote:You are right sthit. Reasonable people could never find anything attractive about Simone and could even feel threatened by her anti social attitude.
For once I agree with you. Only unreasonable people would.
Jacques Kaplan found her to be generous and kind. I do not doubt that. She probably was very kind and generous and nice. But what she writes is spectacularly dumb. That is the problem. I would probably have liked her a lot too. But I wouldn't pay attention to anything she said.
Nick A wrote:
The open minded person could discuss the possibility that the human mind is capable of receiving far more than the five senses provide
The open minded person would be capable of opening to the potential for a conscious universe in which human consciousness is a par
The reasonable person will demand proof before allowing the mind to open. Consequently we already know the limitations of the mind and the idea of a conscious universe is ridiculous and unreasonable so must be denied. That is why faith without knowledge is absurd for the reasonable mind yet a legitimate hypothesis for the open mind willing to verify it through efforts to know thyself
There are five basic senses but they are however not the only ones that we have
Human consciousness is part of the universe and as this is self evident there is no need to be open
minded about it although that does not mean the universe itself is conscious as you correctly state
Faith without knowledge may be absurd for the reasonable mind but knowledge is not actually a component of faith any way
Indeed faith and knowledge are actually polar opposites in so far as one cannot be determined to be true while the other can
Sorry, but how does one come to the conclusion that the mind is part of the universe? Yeah, I agree it's in it, composed of matter from it, and receives cues from it through the five senses. But what more is being suggested by saying it is part of it, beyond that? And how is that derived? Because I see too many things that people think are self-evident on this site, yet it's not to me. To claim something to be self-evident, beyond thought and (persistent) things, is pushing the boundaries of reason. To me, saying something is self-evident is a cop out, so one doesn't have explain something.
I simply meant as you said that it is part of it because it is in it and nothing else
For I was not making a grand metaphysical statement just a simple physical one
surreptitious57 wrote:I simply meant as you said that it is part of it because it is in it and nothing else
For I was not making a grand metaphysical statement just a simple physical one
Cool. I'm good with that. Some other members make ridiculous claims, so I just wanted to check.
