Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:30 am ...the first chooser to become known would have needed a material brain...

I'm starting to wonder if you ever start with anything that's not a non-sequitur.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:20 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:19 am The media is owned and/or run by people with political interests, which will influence the news they report and how they report it, that is just a fact of life.

True enough.

Then what are you complaining about?

Hypocrisy, and the ability of liars to delude the public.

The legacy media depend on the appearance of objectivity and truthfulness. But by their own testimony, having reversed themselves so many times, they are unworthy of the trust upon which their raison d'etre depends.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 11:44 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 7:52 pm I work to locate what is metaphysically defensible in the Christian/Catholic metaphysical scheme.

Good luck.

You're going to need it.

Since my declared *project* is that of understanding our present, and ourselves in that present, I can attempt to make broad statements in the hope that they might illuminate the topics that we have delved into here. ...

I've quite lost interest.

You and I aren't talking about the same things, at all. You're talking about "cultural" Christendom, which, so far as any real Christianity is concerned, is a fiction. So we haven't got a first step of commonality, even so far as to agree on what we should be talking about. You will continue to theorize wildly, about cultural phenomena upon which the term "Christian" sits lightly, like a sticker. I will continue to be interested in statements about Christianity that are substantial. And given your position, we really can't talk about the same thing.

Carry on, I guess...it's evident to me that you've chosen what you're prepared to "see," and what you simply refuse to, regardless of all facts and arguments.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:58 pm I've quite lost interest.

You have no interest except in posting Bible quotes. Leave all other analysis to others!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:58 pm You and I aren't talking about the same things, at all. You're talking about "cultural" Christendom, which, so far as any real Christianity is concerned, is a fiction. So we haven't got a first step of commonality, even so far as to agree on what we should be talking about. You will continue to theorize wildly, about cultural phenomena upon which the term "Christian" sits lightly, like a sticker. I will continue to be interested in statements about Christianity that are substantial. And given your position, we really can't talk about the same thing.

In no sense do we ‘talk about the same thing.’ You have nothing to talk about and there is nothing to be talked about. Your mind has been sold to religious fanaticism.

Beginning, and end, of story.

There are alternatives . . .

Carry on, I guess...it's evident to me that you've chosen what you're prepared to "see," and what you simply refuse to, regardless of all facts and arguments.

Oh man, if that is not a projection I don’t know what one is!

Sidelining yourself is a good idea at this point. Stand down for awhile. Read. Listen.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:20 pm Sidelining yourself is a good idea at this point. Stand down for awhile. Read. Listen.

Says the guy who doesn't even have the foggiest clue what a "Christian" is.

Saudi Arabia sinks Argentina …
Japan Germany …
And Alexis Immanuel!

A New Order is upon us!

Slink away then ….

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:43 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:44 am The s....

Bad mistake.

ooo nooo.

Have you ever heard of the Mandela Effect?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:34 pm ...Now the curious thing, from where I sit, is the resurfacing, the re-enunciation, the re-invocation of the Specter of Hitlerian Evil in our own time-frame. It is not a 'minor' theme' or something offhand and casual, it is in fact an extremely serious assertion about *something* operating in our present, which is to say, though they do not say it in this way, the manifestation of Absolute Evil in our midst: in us.

Right you are, Alexis.

However, I suggest that it's not so much a "resurfacing," but more of an example of how "insidious" evil can be, for it can be openly present in us without us realizing it.

It is also important to keep in mind that there is no such "thing" as "evil" as if it were some sort of dark and malevolent (otherworldly) virus that can randomly infect a person’s psyche, or, sillier yet, personified in the form of a horned demon...



No, I suggest that all “evil” is, or ever was, is low consciousness and the actions resulting from it.

And for an example of how low consciousness can cause humans to be completely unaware of how evil their actions can be,...

...picture in your mind a predator drone operator in the American military who plays what is, in essence, a video game in which he fires a missile that inadvertently dismembers the bodies of several little children,...



...and then takes his honey out later that evening for a celebratory dinner and a movie after being hailed as a hero by his fellow (low conscious) countrymen because he "might have" managed to kill one alleged bad guy in a country that America illegally invaded under false pretenses.

The point is that "Insidiousness" is the hallmark of evil, and what I just described above is a prime example of how almost an entire society of humans can be under its thrall, yet be completely oblivious of the problem.

The bottom line is that all humans on earth walk around in varying degrees of somnambulism, with some of us being more deeply asleep than others, such as the Hitler types, for example, or the Trumpian types as another example, or these wonderful Americans...



...as yet another example, which, in turn, causes them to be unaware of their own evilness.

However, again, there is no such "thing" as evil, and, in the end, all will be forgiven (yes, even Adolf).

And I say that because I personally believe that our attenuated level of consciousness is something that God herself has imposed on us for the sake of maintaining the integrity (believability) of the “illusion” of objective reality.

Now that's not to imply that we humans shouldn't punish evil doers.

No, all I am saying is that it must be done (by us) in this lower context of reality, for I suggest that anything humans do in the confusing din and atmosphere of this lower dimension of reality does not carry over into the higher context of reality that we will all be born into at the moment of death.
_______

FFS seeds. Can you stop posting disgusting pictures?

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:18 pm ....these wonderful Americans...

At that time at which this photo was taken, it's certain that all these hooded figures, like all of those before them, and every last slave owner, were...

Ready for this?

Democrats.

No kidding. Go and look it up. The KKK was invented as the militant wing of the Democrat Party.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:22 pm FFS seeds. Can you stop posting disgusting pictures?

No, I can't, for I feel that people need to see - with their own eyes - the actual (and, yes, disgusting) horror of the madness of war and greed.

Recall this quote I posted several times in the past...

...when asked in a television interview about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children that resulted from U.S. sanctions placed on that country in the 90s, the soon to be Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright said:

“...we think the price is worth it...”

https://youtu.be/FbIX1CP9qr4

And the point is that if I could, I would, in fact, divide all 500,000 of those dead Iraqi children into 5,000 stinking piles; each containing 100 dead infants and toddlers, and then dump them on the front lawns of the homes of all the past and present (living) members of the U.S. Congress (and that would include the homes of past and present presidents).

I would then dump the remaining piles on town squares all over America so that people could literally see and smell the results of America's imperialistic outreach.

And if your delicate little sensibilities are "all-of-a-flutter" from seeing a mere photograph,...



...then I'm guessing that the real thing would drive the point home even better.

In the meantime, if you want me to tone down my subjecting everyone to doses of "reality," then how about you make an effort to tone down your gratuitous use of vulgar language in your posts?
_______

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmWithin all the Traditional religious modes and philosophies, always, things that are sacred are defined. I will not try to convince you that there are *sacred things* that exist independently of our assignments and designations, but will only support what I said that 'blasphemy' involves 'disrespecting what someone and some other regards as 'sacred'

Blasphemy can be defined in many ways as determined by what a culture holds sacred. Any such infringement is considered blasphemy to a greater or lesser degree. Again it all depends on how the sacred is defined, without which there is nothing sacred and therefore no blasphemy.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmI understand, fully, that you cannot or do not want to (genuinely) believe in the category of the sacred, and you also do not seem very inclined to accept my own ideas and musings in respect to *the metaphysical*, and I understand this!

I accept the sacred as a cultural definition and the metaphysical, in its non-secular mode, as its possible explanation...one temporarily agreed to.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmBut 'truth is truth' as a statement is not accurate. Because a division is referred to. When you say *truth* you mean the verities of the physical sciences. No other realm is considerable for you. No other realm is 'real'.

'Truth' to me is as amorphous as god. Conversely, what is 'true' can be anything, even falsehoods accepted as true. Also, truth is not and never was a function of science. Its function is to create a theory concordant with the observation it attempts to explain. 'Truth' is not inherent in any such process since we can never know whether the explanation can ever be so absolute as to be finalized as a Truth entity.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmIndo-European Catholic and Christian symbolisms are *containers* for elaborate and complex metaphysical ideas.

That is certainly true in the context described, but it is not true that symbolism in itself requires a complex of metaphysical ideas as 'container' to give it meaning.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmWhere would I even begin if I were to make references? Take for example the notion of 'scepter' or 'crown' and 'throne'. What infuses these symbols, and their objects, is pure metaphysics. A scepter implies rulership. Rulership implies a relationship to a cosmic order and an authority that flows out of that. The very notion of 'law' began within metaphysical ideas about cosmic order but also about *right orientation* within that Order.

That's a good example and true to an extent. But note that scepter, crown, throne, etc. are also symbolic of rule by divine right which the West ever since the 18th century has fought against. However, that relationship manifested itself in prior times, it fell apart through secular advances which no-longer acknowledged mortals the privilege of ruling by divine right.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmWhen I read René Guénon he said something that had a strong effect on me. He said that within our world, a world that has fallen into decadence, and fallen away from *essential verities*, that still we can find elements (or symbols) of those verities and he named 'certain aspects' in old school Catholicism where a range of ideas were located and, if you will, encapsulated and protected. That inspired me to make an investigation and I verified that what he said is true. Additionally, within the old school Catholic system there are a range of far older (and also non-Judaic) Indo-European metaphysical ideas. These connect to Indo-Europeanism generally and to a range of idea and valuations that antecede Judaism and Christianity. One of those is the Indo-European idea of the Trinity. Father (cosmic order, cosmos, rta); son (incarnate manifestation; man himself but also sacred man and also poet as 'prophet of meaning', etc.) and holy spirit as a spiritual infusion not constrained or limited by time or by 'becoming' and linked, ideationally, to Being).

The 'essential verities' as literally expressed, are those contained in the world itself and not some thoroughly unsubstantiated fabrication of transcendent reality which never caused it to be since it never was to begin with. It's also well-known that Christianity had its own grand genealogy which it attempted to eradicate in an effort to prove its originality and thus its authority.

Our brains are symbol forging engines responsible for creating, the background, the culture, the beliefs, science and art...basically all that we are witness to and part of. A side effect within that distinct type of evolution also created the concept of transcendency but only as effect and hardly ever as cause. Symbols exist as constellations of thoughts merging into its own symbolic universe in which reality gets warped into metaphor. It's how we think, devise and create which also requires the erosion of the superfluous.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmI think you would have to bring out an example of a 'detrimental idea' so that it could be discussed.

As already mentioned one detrimental idea, among others if researched, is the rule by divine right of kings which was nothing more than a dictatorship granted by the divine authority of the church as granted to them by god.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:19 pmStill meaning exists, and therefore 'meaning' exists and meaning come into our world! What it is any what meaning means anything (excuse the circular references) is something of a puzzle. And the 'higher meaning' do tend to be seen and perceived as 'sacred' -- even if the vcategory of sacredness is not relevant or conceivable to you.

Meaning did not 'come into the world'; the world already contained it as soon as IT came to be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:46 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:30 am ...the first chooser to become known would have needed a material brain...

I'm starting to wonder if you ever start with anything that's not a non-sequitur.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 3:46 pmAnd remember that human beings are "in the image of God," according to Genesis. God is not "in the image of man."

Once I asked you to show me what the image of God looks like. To which you promptly showed me a picture of Jesus, which to my immediate knowledge does appear to be an image of a man.

What gives?
Well?