Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm not offering you an "argument." I'm just pointing out the holes in yours, that you need to plug if you want to appeal to rational people.

I agree, with an intense adamancy, that my arguments, seen from your perspective, have holes. Because I know enough about how your predicates are constructed, I know what they allow and what they do not allow. Those are your limitations. And I accept them without begrudging you them.

However, I do say or aI do propose that even if you Immanuel are stopped where you seem to be stopped, that that does not mean that any other need stop or be stopped there.

If the things that I have been saying do not appeal to Mr Immanuel Can -- the very picture of a man deeply committed to sheer irrationality but who declares that it is reasoned and reasonable -- it is really no skin off my nose. I have no interest in convincing you nor in presenting the sort of argument that appeals to you.

But what I say is odd: I will not say that the views I have been expressing are *rational* as a Euclidean proof or a mathematical equation, and I am not sure if I can clarify therefore my epistemological theory. I might not feel it worth it to try, to be truthful.

All I can do is to suggest it possible that the views I have expressed may be linked to *higher states of awareness*. I believe that to be true but I know of no proof for it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No. I mean any human rights at all.

Factually, I have not been defending human rights. I believe that if I defended anything it would be life, or awareness, but on some other plane.

If *rights* are recognized they must extend not just to man -- the upright ape -- but to all things (in one way or another and at least in some ways).

[Alexis Jacobi]

Master AJ intoned gravely: I believe that if I defended anything it would be life, or awareness, but on some other plane.

Life, being, existence, reality -- but seen from another plane. That is, not so immediately tied to the specifics of our condition. Only man can arrive at such a metaphysical distance.

[promethean75]

no dude. god made animals for us to eat and stuff. one night god was like 'ya know i am omnipotent so i could create a world in which protein grows on trees and humans can sustain themselves on a vegetarian diet alone.... but that's no fun. instead I'm gonna create millions of different animal species which can all eat each other... a few of which will have advanced nervous systems so they feel the most pain when they're hoarded and slaughtered. those are the one's the humans will eat.'

[Immanuel Can]

We know that in relation to the Earth and the Universe that nature does not care -- one way or the other. But Man cares.

But man is said to be nothing but a product of that same uncaring universe, so that's nothing to the point.

Besides, "man cares" does not achieve anything, even if true. As the old aphorism goes, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." That man wishes to be of significance does not go one stroke towards making him matter; and his longing for rights does not buy him any.

I am interested in those examples of men who arrive at what I term *higher awareness*,

They're called "Gnostics," and a bigger load of self-important liars you'll never find. The blighters actually regard themselves as "illuminated ones."

But if you're a Gnostic...well, there's not much more to say about that. I have no reason to suppose you are, except for your adoption of their language, like "higher awareness" and "demiurge."

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not offering you an "argument." I'm just pointing out the holes in yours, that you need to plug if you want to appeal to rational people.

I agree, with an intense adamancy, that my arguments, seen from your perspective, have holes.

It's not perspectival, unless you think that rationality is just a "perspective." And if you were to think that...

[Immanuel Can]

No. I mean any human rights at all.

Factually, I have not been defending human rights.

You should be. You need to.

You're presuming their existence, then trying to build an argument that the rest of the world can derive their alleged "rights" from the human ones. If you can't even clear the first hurdle, logically speaking, then there's no chance of you running that whole course.

[Alexis Jacobi]

We know that in relation to the Earth and the Universe that nature does not care -- one way or the other. But Man cares.

But man is said to be nothing but a product of that same uncaring universe, so that's nothing to the point.

Besides, "man cares" does not achieve anything, even if true. As the old aphorism goes, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." That man wishes to be of significance does not go one stroke towards making him matter; and his longing for rights does not buy him any.

I am interested in those examples of men who arrive at what I term *higher awareness*,

They're called "Gnostics," and a bigger load of self-important liars you'll never find. The blighters actually regard themselves as "illuminated ones."

But if you're a Gnostic...well, there's not much more to say about that. I have no reason to suppose you are, except for your adoption of their language, like "higher awareness" and "demiurge."

As per usual, Immanuel, you distort what I say and turn it into something I did not say.

It doesn’t matter, to me, who frames their argument to say “man is the product of an uncaring universe”. Seen from that angle it appears quite true. And it is true for many, perhaps the greater multitude.

But all I say is that “man cares”. And that he cares, you moron, is absolutely to the point. That is the point. In one way or another that is what matters. And how he manifests it.

Besides, "man cares" does not achieve anything, even if true.

You pitiable brain-dead looser: man caring — you caring, me caring — makes all the difference.

That man wishes to be of significance does not go one stroke towards making him matter; and his longing for rights does not buy him any.

Where man cares, and where he thinks and feels, and especially in respect to higher values, simply means that he assigns values. Or lives through his defined values.

Man unquestionably assumes significance, often in selfish and childish ways. But nevertheless he does exactly that. No one is there doing that for him.

I make a separation between knowledge as gnosis (I simply prefer the Greek word) and Gnosticism.

I don’t give a flying fuck on Earth or in Heaven what you think of the historical Gnostics. I’d also remind you, gently, that I read you as vastly self-important and also as a liar — in your own field of course. You are fundamentally untrustworthy so I don’t and cannot rely on you for much (though in some areas our interpretations concord).

I have no reason to suppose you are, except for your adoption of their language, like "higher awareness" and "demiurge."

Every man, all men, ultimately must rely on themselves, their faculties, to make assessments and decisions. Some of us are in a very bad position to be able to, and some are in a better position. I am interested in those who show that their decisions are wise & circumspect. That’s all.

Higher awareness, in comparison to a moron, is the only (or one of the only) terms I can conceive of for wisdom. If we do not value awareness, and higher levels of it, what then do we value? Lower levels?

As you receive other people’s ideas, you twist them. It is a vile & disgusting habit …

[Alexis Jacobi]

You should be. You need to.

You're presuming their existence, then trying to build an argument that the rest of the world can derive their alleged "rights" from the human ones. If you can't even clear the first hurdle, logically speaking, then there's no chance of you running that whole course.

Certainly I “presume” their existence: they exist with and without my thought about them.

And as I say my “manoeuvre”, my strategy, is to recognize in metaphysical principles all that we refer to when speaking about value and meaning.

Since no ‘rights’ are recognized by the world, by rocks, by elephants and by stars, we locate valuation in Man. If there is another (tangible) locality, locate it. Man assigns values. No one does this for him.

In my own view, since locating what we do in God seems weak and suspect, I can see no way around man assuming responsibility.

Man imposes himself in this world. And man is in that sense the metaphysical animal.

I go only that far in making that statement. What it means is a further topic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Demiurge is a very good term. But in my sense of it I’d refer to the metaphor of Plato’s Cave. That might have influenced Gnostic thought but my usage is largely Neoplatonic.

[iambiguous]

Since no ‘rights’ are recognized by the world, by rocks, by elephants and by stars, we locate valuation in Man. If there is another (tangible) locality, locate it. Man assigns values. No one does this for him.

On the contrary, every single one of us comes into this world only to be thoroughly indoctrinated for years and years by others. We come to encompass their values. Some literally take this all the way to the grave. But even this changes significantly depending on when we are born historically and where we are born culturally.

The irony is that things like religion and philosophy are then invented in order to make that part go away. After all, if we become aware of other communities, and these communities believe things and do things differently, why our way and not their way?

So, God is thought up. Or philosophy -- deontology -- is thought up. They become the "go to" fonts enabling us to establish that our own moral narratives are superior. And often "by definition".




Start here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

[Alexis Jacobi]

… and that is your description of where you stand in relation to the Questions: strung uncomfortably between relativities, unable to make decisions, fractured & fragmented, torn & damaged but loud & forceful.

But what blocks you, or the point where you get hung up, is not necessarily everyone’s confusion point.

[henry quirk]

I am less interested in proving that man has *rights* -- that seems to be Henry's department mostly

Which I've done (more modestly: I've offered evidences) and -- nope -- natural rights do not extend to, do not inhere in, biological roombas and crab grass. We can (but have no moral obligation to) offer humaneness to bio-machinery, not equal status.

[Immanuel Can]

But all I say is that “man cares”.

Man is a contingent, perishable, and manifestly flawed being. What makes you think that his "caring" about a particular thing automatically gets it for him? If I "care" to the Queen of England, does that entitle me to a crown and a golden carriage?

Man unquestionably assumes significance, often in selfish and childish ways.

So now, his "caring" is misguided sometimes, you admit. So we need a good reason to think he's actually deserving of these "rights" you assign to him, and "he cares" or "he wants them" is just not good enough.

I am interested in those who show that their decisions are wise & circumspect.

If that's so, how do you detect which of man's "cares" are the product of proper "circumspection," and which are not?

Anyway, you've already admitted he can be wrong, so that's just not gonna float.

[Immanuel Can]

You should be. You need to.

You're presuming their existence, then trying to build an argument that the rest of the world can derive their alleged "rights" from the human ones. If you can't even clear the first hurdle, logically speaking, then there's no chance of you running that whole course.

Certainly I “presume” their existence: they exist with and without my thought about them.

How do you prove that...to yourself, if not to anybody else?

Since no ‘rights’ are recognized by the world, by rocks, by elephants and by stars, we locate valuation in Man. If there is another (tangible) locality, locate it. Man assigns values. No one does this for him.

Pardon my bluntness, but what does it matter? So what if a man assigns himself a robe and a crown? That doesn't make him entitled to be emperor. That just makes him a preening fool.

Likewise, a man who says, "I have rights," has to get them from somewhere. We don't just roll over and say, "Yep, I guess you do."

Your problem is that you're giving man a pass on the very question that would substantiate the very first premise you need for an argument. You want to get rights for other things: fine. But you haven't established that man has any intrisic right to have any rights. So you don't have the very source upon which you're attempting to draw; and so long as you don't, you can't just assign rights to lower animals or the environment, and think that people will find you reasonable.

They won't. You haven't made your case to them.

And, of course, when you do, you'll have to be able to show that rights are transferrable to lower beings as well...not just that some preening fool wants to assign them speculatively, but that those things actually merit their proposed "rights."

P.S. -- The spluttering and insulting is an unmistakable sign of being spent, like a lawnmower running out of gas. If you've got something, you'd be bringing it:instead, you're sputtering and gasping on the irrelevant. But I'll be charitable here: maybe you've still got something "in the tank" -- in which case, this would be the moment to bring it out, if you've got it.