Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 4:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2026 3:58 pm
Yeah. But I've got no angst. This is not the only world there is, or will be. So while I have to accept that that's what you feel, and it seems very real to you, I've got to tell you I don't feel it.
What I have noted in you is that you will not ever admit any detail that might, even slightly, affect or damage your position.
Well, only because the position you describe is actually not the position I'm in. You don't want me to lie to you about that, do you?
Should I fake it? Should I say, "I feel we're all cast into existence in the middle of a thing we don't understand, without compass or points of self-orientation. We live, ultimately, as monads, unsteady and unloved. We crawl graveward in our misery, inch by inch, until we are pulled into the arms of eternal oblivion?"
You see, I can do it in the appropriate Sartrean terms...it would just be inauthentic, though. That's neither what I believe, nor what I experience.
Are you open to the possibility that your experience is not everybody's? Or if it's different, does it simply strike you as untrue?
So you provide an illustration for us of a man who lives out of a faith position with a platform in NT revelations.
Quite true. I would hope so.
Similarly, a Hare Krishna (et cetera)
No, not "similarly"; differently. You might have to live with the possibility that a person's experience of life is different, depending on his or her basic metaphysical beliefs...assuming he/she actually believes them, of course.
Our man Seeds lives out of faith convictions as well.
I hope he does. For he is certainly staking a lot on them, and to live otherwise would be to subvert himself.
And, in certain ways, I too have faith convictions that induce me to my view that, for those of us of religious orientations (a topic all unto itself) we have deep intuitions about “the nature of the world” that give us metaphysical platforms for under Life and existence.
Of course you do. I believe you. But not everybody shares your "orientations," your "intuitions," your "metaphysical platform" or your "experience," obviously.
Don't be so sure that when somebody says something different, they're not telling you the truth about what they see. They may be wrong. They may not. But why should we assume they
know they're wrong and are deliberately lying to us? Why shouldn't we start from the point, until we find reason to think otherwise, that given their metaphysical assumptions, the world looks a bit different to them from the way it looks to us? Seems fair. We don't even have to agree they're right, to allow for that.
Why slander their motives, then? Why not accept them as speaking the truth
to the extent they experience it? That little courtesy doesn't even require us to agree with them.