Philosophy Now Forum

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:39 pm I differ with you on a number of points.

I expected so. No problem.

Firstly I am not an outsider I understand the Christian message and feel a kinship with others who likewise understand it.

Are you sure you do?

I ask because there are a lot of folks who think they do, but who clearly don't. A lot of folks mistake real Christianity for something they have formerly thought Christianity was, or for a religion comprising everybody who says they are "Christian," or for one or another of the denominational institutions, or even for a bland positivity toward all such entities. But none of those things is genuinely Christian.

If they are judgmental or critical of other religions whether Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim or of Atheists; who are helping us understand the physical world, I am not on board with that.

Wait. What does "I am not on board with that" mean, other than that there are some religious positions you are "judging" and "being critical of"? It would mean you reject, or are "not on board with" all exclusive "religions," which at minimum, would mean you reject Judaism, Islam and Christianity, along with conservative Hinduism, traditional Buddhism, and certainly Atheism (since it denies legitimacy to all religions).

So how far does such "inclusivity" actually prove to be inclusive?

As for native peoples in primitive societies, they did good with what they had and had wisdom in their attitudes to nature.

Their "wisdom" was not very great. Remember that cannabalism, human sacrifice, enslavement and scalping were all invented by "natives." And their "attitude to nature" was not one of benign coexistence, but rather one of fearful, animistic shamanism.

I'm not making that up, of course. Go and look at how any real-world native culture lived and what they believed, and you'll find the same thing.

I think perhaps what you're channelling is a thing called "the noble savage myth," which arose in the 18th Century, but became a sort of viral belief thoughout the 20th Century. The "noble savage myth" is the belief that ancient peoples are all somehow "closer to nature" and "more in touch with the spiritual," or "in harmony with the planet," and that by admiring them, modern people can become more authentic, environmentally pure or in touch with true nature. Such a belief is indeed expressed in something like Disney's "Pocahontas," wherein the little native girl sweetly communes with animals and trees, and the more modern European West is portrayed as industrial, greedy, violent and subhuman.

Of course, it was always a myth. The historical facts quicky make that clear. Natives were ordinary human beings of the same type as the Europeans; and as such, were just as capable of extraordinary cruelty and destruction, lacking only the power and means to actualize that to the same scope. To the limit of the means they had, they were as wicked and destructive as anyone.

Of course all humans in a dual system can choose right or wrong and that choice plays out in all times and climes.

We could -- and probably should -- pause on that thought. For if that's true, then you must be referring to some conception of "right or wrong" that transcends "all times and climes," as you put it. That is, you must be looking at these "systems" from an outside, objective position: for othewise, what basis would we have for calling anything they do, anything that 'fits' the system, "right or wrong"?

And if some "systems" do "wrong," as you say, then such systems are not the ultimate context or arbitors of the good.

Is that what you meant to imply? Because without that implication, one cannot say what you said.

You choose Christ but has he chosen you?

Yes. He has been quite explicit about that. For example, He says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt. 11:28) That's an open offer for anyone. And, of course, I could point to many, many more such offers...like John 3:16, John 1:12-13, Romans 10:9...

Is He on board with your view of human nature...

I'm on board with His. If, on any detail, I'm wrong, it's Him who is right.

...which even though flawed is, as a work of the Creator, at heart pure gold.

This isn't my view...that's your gloss on what you think might be my view, but it's not correct.

Life is not a Puritan hell but a joyous adventure, a novel written by a Master Dramatist that has good and evil, and choices, the diverse paths will merge in a higher age when all is understood.

Very poetic...but not my belief at all, nor anything Biblical, I have to say.

Mankind is no more responsible for good and evil, before choosing, than it is for the dual system it finds itself in:

That sounds like Materialistic Determinism, I have to say. I don't now know whose view you're speaking about. It's certainly none of mine.

In this situation “faith alone” is a very dubious doctrine.

Well, if Materialistic Determinism were true, "faith" would not be merely "dubious": it would be impossible. Like everything else, the apparent "choice" involved in faith would merely be an illusion. The fact of predetermination by material causes would be the deep truth of everything.

Of course, then it wouldn't matter at all what one "believed." Belief would have no effect on anything. It would merely be a dumb terminal in the middle of a material cause-effect chain.

There is much work to be done and faith alone is not going to accomplish it.

I think you don't know what "faith alone" actually means. It refers to the fact that one cannot be saved by works; it does not mean "don't do any works."

Faith itself doesn't mean mere "wishful thinking," and passivity, you know. It means, "Trust God, and then take action on that."

Emanuel Can wrote:

“Firstly I am not an outsider I understand the Christian message and feel a kinship with others who likewise understand it.
Are you sure you do?

Wait. What does "I am not on board with that" mean, other than that there are some religious positions you are "judging" and "being critical of"? It would mean you reject, or are "not on board with" all exclusive "religions," which at minimum, would mean you reject Judaism, Islam and Christianity, along with conservative Hinduism, traditional Buddhism, and certainly Atheism (since it denies legitimacy to all religions).

So how far does such "inclusivity" actually prove to be inclusive?

Native peoples.
Their "wisdom" was not very great. Remember that cannabalism, human sacrifice, enslavement and scalping were all invented by "natives." And their "attitude to nature" was not one of benign coexistence, but rather one of fearful, animistic shamanism.

I'm not making that up, of course. Go and look at how any real-world native culture lived and what they believed, and you'll find the same thing.
……………….
Of course all humans in a dual system can choose right or wrong and that choice plays out in all times and climes.
……………..

We could -- and probably should -- pause on that thought. For if that's true, then you must be referring to some conception of "right or wrong" that transcends "all times and climes," as you put it. That is, you must be looking at these "systems" from an outside, objective position: for othewise, what basis would we have for calling anything they do, anything that 'fits' the system, "right or wrong"?

And if some "systems" do "wrong," as you say, then such systems are not the ultimate context or arbitors of the good.

Is that what you meant to imply? Because without that implication, one cannot say what you said.
You choose Christ but has he chosen you?
Yes. He has been quite explicit about that. For example, He says, “Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt. 11:28) That's an open offer for anyone. And, of course, I could point to many, many more such offers...like John 3:16, John 1:12-13, Romans 10:9...
Is He on board with your view of human nature...

I'm on board with His. If, on any detail, I'm wrong, it's Him who is right.
...which even though flawed is, as a work of the Creator, at heart pure gold.
This isn't my view...that's your gloss on what you think might be my view, but it's not correct.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Life is not a Puritan hell but a joyous adventure, a novel written by a Master Dramatist that has good and evil, and choices, the diverse paths will merge in a higher age when all is understood.
…………………………………
Very poetic...but not my belief at all, nor anything Biblical, I have to say.
………………………………….
Mankind is no more responsible for good and evil, before choosing, than it is for the dual system it finds itself in
…………………………………
That sounds like Materialistic Determinism, I have to say. I don't now know whose view you're speaking about. It's certainly none of mine.
……………………………….
In this situation “faith alone” is a very dubious doctrine.

Well, if Materialistic Determinism were true, "faith" would not be merely "dubious": it would be impossible. Like everything else, the apparent "choice" involved in faith would merely be an illusion. The fact of predetermination by material causes would be the deep truth of everything.

Of course, then it wouldn't matter at all what one "believed." Belief would have no effect on anything. It would merely be a dumb terminal in the middle of a material cause-effect chain.
………………………..
There is much work to be done and faith alone is not going to accomplish it.
……………………….
I think you don't know what "faith alone" actually means. It refers to the fact that one cannot be saved by works; it does not mean "don't do any works."

Faith itself doesn't mean mere "wishful thinking," and passivity, you know. It means, "Trust God, and then take action on that."

………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………..

So you understand the Christian message exclusively. If that is what you belief fine with me.

You have a way of twisting things. My “I am not on board with that” e.g. I follow the dictum “Judge not that ye be not judged” you twist into I am judging all religions and atheism. Go back and read what I wrote.

As to native peoples as I said they did what they had to do to survive. Your ancestors were amongst them, unless your ancestors came into life fully evolved. The natives had a culture and often psychic imperatives, such as sacrifice, were acted out physically.

If you believe in an ultimate good, as you appear to do, you must see it as being above the fray of relativity. In each era what is relative is different and is acted on. Again I did not say that some systems do wrong. That is your statement.

Good for you that you follow scripture, as you see it, and feel chosen, that must make your day and give you a platform from which to be compassionate to your fellow man, and woman, as well as to society in general.

“Is he on board with your human nature …..” appears to be taken out of context.

The physical world, subject to laws, is to that extent determined. The sun will rise tomorrow. This is the background against which and in which human life plays out. It is reality whether you believe in it or not. Again you misunderstand. Reality is not a doctrine. It is what exists. I want to make clear that I do not believe that there is “predetermination by material causes” that is your terminology not mine. I would not assign that power to matter.

Your explanation of “faith alone” not meaning an absence of works is a clarification. I was going by one of your prior posts in which you appeared to be not in favor of works, indicating that faith alone was sufficient. It is good that you trust and take action. I have no quarrel with that.

It appears that you do not perceive that mankind has a common goal and purpose and that your belief gives you a unique goal and purpose. As I said before that gives you a place from which to be compassionate to the rest of mankind. If you feel you have to proselytize and bring everyone on board that would limit the tapestry of life to one world view and limit the many unique and necessary ways evolution is worked out as a joint enterprise by humanity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:50 pm If you don't know that, you've never had a teenager.

Why would I need to have had a teenager, when I've actually been a teenager myself? How does making up excuses for a momentary situation compare to manipulation/distortion of Christianity by (as you say) 'charlatans, fakers, pretenders, salesmen and hucksters'?

Do you think that most pretenders in Christianity are actually and typically trying to pull something over on other people? Or might they BELIEVE (or want to believe) what they're identified with? And maybe they've just got it 'wrong'?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:57 pm...

Owl, respectfully, can you please use the quote function or a better methodology of responding to another person's post? I want to read what you're saying, but this latest post of yours was just a wall of text with some lines inserted every once in awhile. Not being in your head, and not being identified with what are your thoughts and those of others, it is next to impossible to follow the conversation as a third party.

If you are uncomfortable with the quote function, perhaps you can apply a different color to the text of others that you are responding to?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:31 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:57 pm...

Owl, respectfully, can you please use the quote function or a better methodology of responding to another person's post? I want to read what you're saying, but this latest post of yours was just a wall of text with some lines inserted every once in awhile. Not being in your head, and not being identified with what are your thoughts and those of others, it is next to impossible to follow the conversation as a third party.

If you are uncomfortable with the quote function, perhaps you can apply a different color to the text of others that you are responding to?

………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………..

Thanks for your suggestion Lacewing. I appreciate it.

In my prior post it was a little awkward, as you said, as I copied and pasted E. Can’s post in its entirety. It was a response to a prior post of mine.

What is below the double line, however, is my response to that post, if you read that you will get the full text of my response. I hope that this helps.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:29 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:31 pm

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:57 pm...

Owl, respectfully, can you please use the quote function or a better methodology of responding to another person's post? I want to read what you're saying, but this latest post of yours was just a wall of text with some lines inserted every once in awhile. Not being in your head, and not being identified with what are your thoughts and those of others, it is next to impossible to follow the conversation as a third party.

If you are uncomfortable with the quote function, perhaps you can apply a different color to the text of others that you are responding to?

………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………..

Thanks for your suggestion Lacewing. I appreciate it.

In my prior post it was a little awkward, as you said, as I copied and pasted E. Can’s post in its entirety. It was a response to a prior post of mine.

What is below the double line, however, is my response to that post, if you read that you will get the full text of my response. I hope that this helps.

Owl, never mind lace and the other conformists. You post and quote as you see fit. They aren't the boss of you.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 2:50 pm If you don't know that, you've never had a teenager.

Why would I need to have had a teenager, when I've actually been a teenager myself?

Well, right. There's nobody so adept at bending truth as a teenager.

How does making up excuses for a momentary situation compare to manipulation/distortion of Christianity by (as you say) 'charlatans, fakers, pretenders, salesmen and hucksters'?

I thought I made that quite clear, actually.

Do you think that most pretenders in Christianity are actually and typically trying to pull something over on other people? Or might they BELIEVE (or want to believe) what they're identified with? And maybe they've just got it 'wrong'?

Both are possible.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:57 pm So you understand the Christian message exclusively.

Everybody is actually an exclusivist. The belief systems that acknowledge it, acknowledge it. But even those that pretend to be inclusive and omni-tolerant exclude the exclusive beliefs. So there's no such thing as a genuinenly inclusive ideology, really.

You have a way of twisting things. My “I am not on board with that” e.g. I follow the dictum “Judge not that ye be not judged” you twist into I am judging all religions and atheism. Go back and read what I wrote.

I did. I understood what you said. I just showed you the implications of your claim. I'm sorry that offends you, but what's to be done about that?

If you believe in an ultimate good, as you appear to do, you must see it as being above the fray of relativity.

Do you mean "relativity" or "Relativism"? They're not at all the same thing.

The physical world, subject to laws, is to that extent determined.

I think you're mistaking cause-effect for Determinism.

Nobody denies that a great many things are subject to cause and effect. But that's not Determinism. Determinism is a universal belief that ALL things are governed by NOTHING OTHER THAN material or physical causes and effects. Determinism has no place in it for any other kind of explanation. It does not, for instance, recognize any role for human will or choice in causing things to happen.

Your explanation of “faith alone” not meaning an absence of works is a clarification. I was going by one of your prior posts in which you appeared to be not in favor of works, indicating that faith alone was sufficient. It is good that you trust and take action. I have no quarrel with that.

Yes, fair enough. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

It appears that you do not perceive that mankind has a common goal and purpose and that your belief gives you a unique goal and purpose. As I said before that gives you a place from which to be compassionate to the rest of mankind.

Mankind does have a common ultimate purpose or "telos," to use the Aristotelian word. But that's quite a different claim from saying that everybody actualizes or achieves that telos. Many do not. Many do not, in fact, even try.

If you feel you have to proselytize and bring everyone on board that would limit the tapestry of life to one world view and limit the many unique and necessary ways evolution is worked out as a joint enterprise by humanity.

That is exactly what truth does. It always insists on being right. It always conforms to reality, and reality always conforms to it. It has no place for "tapestries" that do not conform to reality, no matter how shiny and various they might be.

As for Evolution, whatever one takes it to mean, it's clearly not something that mankind is experiencing morally. After the wars of the last century, that much is stunningly apparent. We are no different from our ancient ancestors in terms of wickedness; but our modern technologies give us far more power and scope for evil than our ancient ancestors could ever have. That's an ominous combination, to be sure.

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:16 amEverybody is actually an exclusivist. The belief systems that acknowledge it, acknowledge it. But even those that pretend to be inclusive and omni-tolerant exclude the exclusive beliefs. So there's no such thing as a genuinenly inclusive ideology, really.

Yep, contrary to popular belief christianity is not for everyone.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:03 am
Well, right. There's nobody so adept at bending truth as a teenager.

...except theists!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:53 pm Owl, never mind lace and the other conformists. You post and quote as you see fit. They aren't the boss of you.

Oh ffs Henry! I wasn't trying to be the boss of Owl. Neither am I a conformist. Why must you distort these things?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:54 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:53 pm Owl, never mind lace and the other conformists. You post and quote as you see fit. They aren't the boss of you.

Oh ffs Henry! I wasn't trying to be the boss of Owl. Neither am I a conformist. Why must you distort these things?

Henry is the perpetual adolescent rebelling against Authority. I often smile in sympathy.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 10:54 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:53 pm Owl, never mind lace and the other conformists. You post and quote as you see fit. They aren't the boss of you.

Oh ffs Henry! I wasn't trying to be the boss of Owl. Neither am I a conformist. Why must you distort these things?

Henry is the perpetual adolescent rebelling against Authority. I often smile in sympathy.

Yep, I'm young at heart...

Emanuel Can wrote:

“That is exactly what truth does. It always insists on being right. It always conforms to reality, and reality always conforms to it. It has no place for "tapestries" that do not conform to reality, no matter how shiny and various they might be.

As for Evolution, whatever one takes it to mean, it's clearly not something that mankind is experiencing morally. After the wars of the last century, that much is stunningly apparent. We are no different from our ancient ancestors in terms of wickedness; but our modern technologies give us far more power and scope for evil than our ancient ancestors could ever have. That's an ominous combination, to be sure.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Owl of Minerva response:

I pick the above to respond to, your other responses are your usual rationalizations and I favor insights over rationalizations.

The first paragraph above gives the impression that you are conversant with truth and know exactly what is it. From what source are you conversant with truth, inner realization or scripture? Scripture is words on a page, symbolic expressions of a religious experience. You are experiencing truth second or maybe third hand or more, going back to BC and onwards to A.D. in many languages and
translations, and Dark Ages. Of course if it gives you guidance to be a better person that is good but it is still symbols on a page which makes its way into your head where it may stay as a philosophy or you may assimilate it, which could be difficult as you could draw all the wrong conclusions from it.

In all traditions religion comes from a lineage and is transmitted by someone who is qualified to transmit it, not from self-appointed frauds or hucksters. You do not favor the Gnostics but they were light years ahead of their time and even of our time. They were naive in not understanding that without transmission religion ends up in the head. They thought transmission of the original truth, would be ongoing. Instead it was fated not to be realized but theologically transmitted and fought over.

As to evolution it takes place on three levels; physical, psychological, and spiritual. The physical is mostly done, unless one believes in trans humanism, the psychological and the spiritual needs a whole lot of work. I agree with you that we are between a rock and hard place; similar to the hell of Sartre’s existentialism. Hell is not just other people, hopefully there is an exit.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:17 pm The first paragraph above gives the impression that you are conversant with truth and know exactly what is it. From what source are you conversant with truth, inner realization or scripture?

Both, of course.

And you surely believe that you are also at least somewhat "conversant with truth"; for for a person to say "I am in nowise aware of any truth" would mean, "I have no wisdom," or "I am incapable of knowing anything" -- hardly wonderful claims, I'm sure you agree. So we all believe we know some truth. The difference is going to be how much truth one knows and about what things.

Nobody knows truth in its totality, except God Himself, it's true; but it's not at all unreasonable to say one knows some truth. To illustrate, you cannot drink the Pacific Ocean; yet you can hold some of it in a cup. No matter how big the "ocean" of truth is, it is quite ordinary that every one of us is capable of holding some part of it. In fact, that's one good description of human beings -- creatures that strive to know things, to understand the truth of them. We are, ourselves, the "cup" designed to hold some part of the "ocean" of truth.

Scripture is words on a page,

Well, so are many things. A physics textbook is "words on a page." So is a recipe, a set of directions to a destination, and a legal document. The relation of truth to any of them is not contingent on that fact. What matters is, "Are the words true?"

...symbolic expressions of a religious experience.

No, that's perhaps a diary, or some sort of journal. Scripture is much more than that. It certainly describes some people's spiritual experiences, but it is also history, poetry, prognostication, moral instruction, narrative, propositional truth, and all kinds of other things, too. There are 66 books in the Bible; and that gives scope for a great deal of very different literary forms and ways of expressing truth.

You are experiencing truth second or maybe third hand or more, going back to BC and onwards to A.D. in many languages and
translations, and Dark Ages.

Well, no: but even were that so, the great thing about truth is that is always truth. It matters not how old or new it is. Age is not related to truthfulness.

...you could draw all the wrong conclusions from it.

Sure I could, if I'm careless. Or I could read more carefully and draw the right ones from it.

I'm not sure of the point...

In all traditions religion comes from a lineage and is transmitted by someone who is qualified to transmit it,

Not once it's written down. Words don't move, no matter how long they sit on a page. To be sure, the interpretation of words is complicated by the passage of years and changes in culture; but the words themselves remain what they are.

You do not favor the Gnostics but they were light years ahead of their time and even of our time.

"Ahead"? In what sense?

As to evolution it takes place on three levels; physical, psychological, and spiritual.

We actually have no proof for any of the three, in regard to human affairs. Human physiology, psychology and spiritual condition have remained consistent over all the years of recorded history we have. Any appeal to a belief that human beings are "getting better" in some way will find no grounds in history. It will have to come from some sort of gratutious faith.

I agree with you that we are between a rock and hard place; similar to the hell of Sartre’s existentialism.

No, i think Sartre was too grim.

I understand his reasoning, and if I believed, as he believed, that we are simply "thrown into" existence without purpose, meaning or direction, I suppose I might be similarly grim about it. But it's ridiculous, I think, to call this world "Hell." It has both suffering and beauty in it, and Hell has absolutely none of the latter.

The truth about the latter Existentialists -- like Sartre, Beckett or Camus, is that they were not actually convinced the world was totally awful. Rather, their sense of suffering came from being hung up between life as suffering and life as beauty and joy -- (as Hardy put it) "the gleam and the gloom," not from being shuttered in some stygian pit of unrelenting misery.

But I wonder what you think of that.