Atheism

[Gary Childress]

I would imagine metaphysics can be a lot of things, depending--including games. So I guess my question to you AJ, since you disagree with Dubious's opinion, is why do you do metaphysics and what is the purpose or reason that you do it? Or do you not do metaphysics?

All throughout what I have been writing, for months and months, has dealt in one way or another with my ideas about metaphysics. Did you not read?

Had you read and considered what I have said you’d know the answer.

Do you know, can you state — in paraphrase — why Dubious denies that the metaphysic is a ‘real’ category? Can you connect that denial with an atheist’s general stance?

I find you quite astute quite often, truth be told. You are much more thorough and have developed and structured presentations of your views, concerns, and preoccupations. For this reason I honestly think you could do your own research and you would not ask me a lazy man’s question.

You vould also examine any part of Evola’s thoughts on metaphysics and why the question is vital — for men living in ruins.

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

[Dontaskme]

I'll consider that a prophecy!

No such thing as prophecy, there is only a remembrance of the past, recognised as death now.

[Dontaskme]

I acknowledge your view that metaphysics is ‘mind games’. I quite simply do not agree.

I agree, your ability to put ''nonduality'' into words is a metaphorical mind-game that you are useless at playing.

[Iwannaplato]

A 'someone' is an assumption, it is an idea.

The whole dialog above is unwritten, including this dialog that is being read right now. Where is the consciousness that is supposed to have written, and is reading this dialog exactly?

This whole thread is about not-knowing. An atheist is one who knows they do not know, and also knows there is No atheist who is knowing it is an atheist who knows it does not know.

Well, if this is what the thread is about bringing in those two quotes of Lakoff's was very misleading.
So...

My personal ideas are quite straight forward, I'm not one for tangling up into a huge conceptual pile of mess,

My responses were hardly more complicated than what he is saying in what you quoted. And you threw in Carlyle also. Your explanation seems clearer without them and different from them. Neither of them non-dualists, for example and not in those quotes.

I'm not either one for tangling up into a huge conceptual mess.

[Dontaskme]

A 'someone' is an assumption, it is an idea.

The whole dialog above is unwritten, including this dialog that is being read right now. Where is the consciousness that is supposed to have written, and is reading this dialog exactly?

This whole thread is about not-knowing. An atheist is one who knows they do not know, and also knows there is No atheist who is knowing it is an atheist who knows it does not know.

Well, if this is what the thread is about bringing in those two quotes of Lakoff's was very misleading.
So...

My personal ideas are quite straight forward, I'm not one for tangling up into a huge conceptual pile of mess,

My responses were hardly more complicated than what he is saying in what you quoted. And you threw in Carlyle also. Your explanation seems clearer without them and different from them. Neither of them non-dualists, for example and not in those quotes.

I'm not either one for tangling up into a huge conceptual mess.

Well there you go, you've made clear clearer, congrats!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

Here’s what it comes down to: I just made a statement which is part of an answer. Deal with what was said there, or don’t, but yes, you are absolutely right, I respond to no JAQing (“just asking questions”) if I discern the JAQer is simply fucking around. You obviously have standard jacking issues — your problem — but the JAQing thing is what is relevant here.

Your last string of brainless, idiotic ‘questions’ that you did ask some posts up, part of the games going on here played by the usual morons, certainly get no response.

Read better, do more work, or piss off.

[Gary Childress]

I take that's a "no", you're not going to answer my question?

Here’s what it comes down to: I just made a statement which is part of an answer. Deal with what was said there, or don’t, but yes, you are absolutely right, I respond to no JAQing (“just asking questions”) if I discern the JAQer is simply fucking around. You onjioisly have standard jacking issues — your problem — but the JAQing thing is what is relevant here.

Your last string of brainless, idiotic ‘questions’ that you did ask some posts up, part of the games going on here played by the usual morons, certainly get no response.

Read better, do more work, or piss off.

I can only do so much work alone. I could use a little help from you. You're a big one to carry.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can only do so much work alone. I could use a little help from you. You're a big one to carry.

What ‘work’ have you done so far? (If this turns back to your typical passive-aggressive game this will be my last comment)).

[Gary Childress]

I can only do so much work alone. I could use a little help from you. You're a big one to carry.

What ‘work’ have you done so far? (If this turns back to your typical passive-aggressive game this will be my last comment)).

Not enough. I could use some help.

[Gary Childress]

You seem safe. I'll let go for now.

[Iwannaplato]

Well there you go, you've made clear clearer, congrats!

Thanks for your part in it.

[BigMike]

If I were in Putin's shoes at this point, this is what I'd do as the guy who's been launching missiles into Ukraine:

1. Withdraw from Ukraine. Tell the world that you cannot keep up your "special military operation" due to America's "imperialist interference".

2. IF and ONLY IF anyone suggests putting you (Putin) on trial to be held responsible for war crimes, then tell those who want to put you on trial that you'll be happy to stand trial IF and ONLY IF the world will also bring George Bush Jr and/or those who were instrumental in making the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan on trial.

Why do I say this: Because even the Democrats probably wouldn't put their fellow politicians in Washington D.C. on trial. Too many people in the United States would probably go apeshit over it and the Democrats would risk losing a lot of support possibly even a repeat of the January 6th protest/insurrection or whatever. Therefore, if I were Putin, I would say to Washington, "Hey, since you pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll pull out of Ukraine. If you want to put me on trial, then show me your own balls and put your own war criminals on trial."

Simple.

https://www.amazon.com/Vladimir-Putins- ... 386&sr=1-1

[Dubious]

Yes, Dubious, I recognize that in your conception there is no ‘metaphysics’. Be that as it may my perspective is completely different. I see (for example) that IC’s position as religious literalist is pathological. But ‘atheism’ is locked into a rejection of an infantile, pathologically-inclined counter-conception, is similarly bound. And calls forth — in my view of course, not yours — a transcending manoeuvre. In fact this manoeuvre enables one to hold to a range of values & ideals that nihilistic atheism csn do little else but annihilate. Again in my view.

Your view of my conceptions hardly conforms to my views at all. You fail to understand what was explicitly stated in my last post. Be that as it may, whatever views or counter views we may have all default to nothing in the end.

As for Evola, I consider him the scumbag of all metaphysicians...if he actually ever was one. If this is what you accept as metaphysics then I have to say that even my "opinion" of its actual potential is much higher than yours and would annul every vestige of metaphysics rather than accept any of his puerile, medieval, superstitious nonsense. He reminds me more of Aleister Crowley than any true believer in metaphysics.

You often assert that others failed to read what you wrote, and you're right about that but don't think for a moment that the same complaint can't be lodged against you. On philosophy forums where so much is written I guess that is to be expected.

[Dontaskme]

You often assert that others failed to read what you wrote, and you're right about that but don't think for a moment that the same complaint can't be lodged against you. On philosophy forums where so much is written I guess that is to be expected.

Well said.

The path to truth takes more quiet listening than it does rambling on and on and on in the attempt to make clear who can speak the loudest.

[phyllo]

You often assert that others failed to read what you wrote, and you're right about that but don't think for a moment that the same complaint can't be lodged against you. On philosophy forums where so much is written I guess that is to be expected.

Well said.

The path to truth takes more quiet listening than it does rambling on and on and on in the attempt to make clear who can speak the loudest.

Says the guy who has made more than 15 thousand posts in seven years. Only Mr I. Can has more posts on this site.