nihilism

[Immanuel Can]

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things?

How could I? Degrees of, "what?" You have refused to say what, "these things," are?"

Well, I'll tell you everything I know. We can start here. John writes,

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them.

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

[popeye1945]

iambiguous

Again, though, we need to discuss these things out in a particular world understood in a particular way given a specific set of circumstance in which we are all able to agree about some things [in the either/or world of empirical truths] but disagree about other things [in the is/ought world of conflicting moral and political and spiritual value judgments]. Authentic lives then and there.
[/quote]

I can make little out of this other than a muddying of the waters, I have no idea what to do with this.

[RCSaunders]

Or were you not aware there are degrees in these things?

How could I? Degrees of, "what?" You have refused to say what, "these things," are?"

Well, I'll tell you everything I know.

That shouldn't take long!

[Sorry. I just couldn't resist. Please know I'm just pulling your leg.]

We can start here. John writes,

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled, and no place was found for them.

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them; and they were judged, each one of them according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

You could have just provided the reference. I'm quite familiar with the passage.

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of the nature of that description, that is, literal vs metaphor [what exactly is a, "lake of fire?"] since it cannot be totally literal, would you agree that what is being depicted is meant to picture some kind of suffering or torment of those, "thrown into the lake?" If not, what is it actually depicting?

[Immanuel Can]

You could have just provided the reference. I'm quite familiar with the passage.

Then why ask?

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of the nature of that description, that is, literal vs metaphor [what exactly is a, "lake of fire?"] since it cannot be totally literal, would you agree that what is being depicted is meant to picture some kind of suffering or torment of those, "thrown into the lake?" If not, what is it actually depicting?

Something very unpleasant, I should think. As you point out, some have speculated on it involving physical suffering, others mental suffering, others alienation from all things good, others that it involves loneliness or misery of some kind. Terms like "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are said to go on there. But there is, of course, no reason why these are mutually exclusive options, is there?

What is very clear is that it is a place of conscious torment, and of distance from God and all the things associated with Him...life, health, wisdom, joy, light, happiness, and so on.

But we can establish all that on additional references, if you care to see them.

For example, we could look at the incident of the Rich man and Lazarus, as described by Christ Himself:

"...the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he raised his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his arms. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’" (Luke 16)

Or when Jesus advised,

"...if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished..." (Mk. 9:47-48)

Hmm. Well, if it's better to lose members of your body then to end up in a place, then I'm thinking it's not a place you want to end up.

Or again, when Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13:14)

A place called "destruction"? Again, a place worth avoiding, no?

I could supply many more such examples, of course.

Have you enough specifics yet?

[RCSaunders]

You could have just provided the reference. I'm quite familiar with the passage.

Then why ask?

I certainly don't want to get into a discussion of the nature of that description, that is, literal vs metaphor [what exactly is a, "lake of fire?"] since it cannot be totally literal, would you agree that what is being depicted is meant to picture some kind of suffering or torment of those, "thrown into the lake?" If not, what is it actually depicting?

Something very unpleasant, I should think. As you point out, some have speculated on it involving physical suffering, others mental suffering, others alienation from all things good, others that it involves loneliness or misery of some kind. Terms like "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are said to go on there. But there is, of course, no reason why these are mutually exclusive options, is there?

What is very clear is that it is a place of conscious torment, and of distance from God and all the things associated with Him...life, health, wisdom, joy, light, happiness, and so on.

But we can establish all that on additional references, if you care to see them.

For example, we could look at the incident of the Rich man and Lazarus, as described by Christ Himself:

"...the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he raised his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his arms. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’" (Luke 16)

Or when Jesus advised,

"...if your eye is causing you to sin, throw it away; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished..." (Mk. 9:47-48)

Hmm. Well, if it's better to lose members of your body then to end up in a place, then I'm thinking it's not a place you want to end up.

Or again, when Jesus said,

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13:14)

A place called "destruction"? Again, a place worth avoiding, no?

I could supply many more such examples, of course.

Have you enough specifics yet?

Based on what you've written and referenced and my first question, in response to your question, "explain how the price 'reality' exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please," to which I asked: "Price?" Something, "pays," for wrong acts? What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

And to make clear exactly what I was asking, asked again, "I don't care where or when, in this world or some other, or whether you call it, "justice," or, "retribution," or, "what one deserves," [or] "Divine Judgment and ultimate justice," ... The question is, wherever or whenever it happens, what exactly does Divine judgment or justice consist of? What is it, exactly, one gets when they get Divine judgement or justice?

Would it be fair, then, to say, you believe the, "price," or, "just desserts," or "Divine Judgment" or "ultimate justice," consists of some kind of torment or suffering?

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

Ask God. Judgment is His, not mine. He will make it, and He will be dispensing it; nobody's asking me to do so.

All I can tell you is that you'll get what you deserve: "Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap." And if you read the passages I gave you, maybe you can place yourself on that spectrum of possibilities. What have you "sown"? Only you (and God) know.

[RCSaunders]

What exactly would you regard as appropriate payment for what you regard as evil?

Ask God. Judgment is His, not mine. He will make it, and He will be dispensing it; nobody's asking me to do so.

All I can tell you is that you'll get what you deserve: "Whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap." And if you read the passages I gave you, maybe you can place yourself on that spectrum of possibilities. What have you "sown"? Only you (and God) know.

That is not what I'm asking you!!!

You quoted or wrote in your descriptions: "involving physical suffering," "a place of conscious torment," "for I am in agony in this flame."

All I'm asking is, do you believe the, "price," or, "just desserts," or "Divine Judgment" or "ultimate justice," or "what the unredeemed deserve," consists of some kind of torment, suffering or agony??

[Immanuel Can]

You quoted or wrote in your descriptions: "involving physical suffering," "a place of conscious torment," "for I am in agony in this flame."
All I'm asking is, do you believe the, "price," or, "just desserts," or "Divine Judgment" or "ultimate justice," or "what the unredeemed deserve," consists of some kind of torment, suffering or agony??

I thought the Scripture was quite clear on that. So I can't understand your perplexity.

You find all the words you quote in Scripture; and if God says it, that's how it is.

[RCSaunders]

You quoted or wrote in your descriptions: "involving physical suffering," "a place of conscious torment," "for I am in agony in this flame."
All I'm asking is, do you believe the, "price," or, "just desserts," or "Divine Judgment" or "ultimate justice," or "what the unredeemed deserve," consists of some kind of torment, suffering or agony??

I thought the Scripture was quite clear on that. So I can't understand your perplexity.

You find all the words you quote in Scripture; and if God says it, that's how it is.

I wasn't perplexed, I was gun shy of your answers and wanted to be certain you weren't going to add some twist or slant to it, because it took so many posts to get you to finally provide a specific answer to my question.

I am satisfied with your last answer. At another time I'll comment on it.

Thank you!

[Immanuel Can]

I am satisfied with your last answer. At another time I'll comment on it.

Thank you!

Good to know.

You're welcome.

I'll look forward to it.

[iambiguous]

THE STONE
Navigating Past Nihilism
BY SEAN D. KELLY at the NYT
Kelly is chair of the department of philosophy at Harvard University

The Times’s David Brooks argued recently...in a column discussing Jonathan Franzen’s novel “Freedom,” that Franzen’s depiction of America as a society of lost and fumbling souls tells us “more about America’s literary culture than about America itself.” The suburban life full of “quiet desperation,” according to Brooks, is a literary trope that has taken on a life of its own. It fails to recognize the happiness, and even fulfillment, that is found in the everyday engagements with religion, work, ethnic heritage, military service and any of the other pursuits in life that are “potentially lofty and ennobling”.

So, how do we go about pinning down which rendition reflects the most accurate portrayal of American culture these days? Is it more in sync generally with quiet desperation or with a fulfilling happiness?

My guess is that here we will see others more or less as we see ourselves. But tap me on the shoulder when the definitive study comes out that finally settles it once and for all. Let alone the argument able persuade me of which frame of mind all rational men and women ought to embrace.

Then the part where this is measured more in terms having or not have found an overall meaning in your life, or the extent to which you have acquired a lifestyle that allows you to simply enjoy yourself. A good job, money in the bank, family and friends, good health etc.

Things like philosophy and religion [or even politics] may not play any really significant part at all in it. Nihilism? What's that?

There is something right about Brooks’s observation, but he leaves the crucial question unasked. Has Brooks’s happy, suburban life revealed a new kind of contentment, a happiness that is possible even after the death of God? Or is the happy suburban world Brooks describes simply self-deceived in its happiness, failing to face up to the effects of the destabilizing force that Franzen and his literary compatriots feel? I won’t pretend to claim which of these options actually prevails in the suburbs today, but let me try at least to lay them out.

Here, it is important to note that this article was written way back in 2010. Before all of the events that unfolded to make it the world we live in today. A world perhaps closer to the quiet desperation end of the scale?

But that's how speculations of this sort work for me. There is what we think "here and now". Then something [or many things] happen and we no longer think that way at all. How is this not rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Indeed, today we may well be on the cusp of a nuclear exchange with Putin and Russia. How much contentment and happiness will still be around given the "death of God" if that happens?

Consider the options in reverse order. To begin with, perhaps the writers and poets whom Brooks questions have actually noticed something that the rest of us are ignoring or covering up. This is what Nietzsche himself thought. “I have come too early,” he wrote. “God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown.”

No doubt about that, of course. Some will take God and religion -- which gives their own life essential meaning and purpose -- all the way with them to the grave. Nothing that happens will persuade them otherwise. And, in part, because God and religion will always be the "best bet" around.

I'd go there if I could.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600

[iambiguous]

Of course: Ethics. With a capital E. Ethics as defined and then deduced into existence didactically/theoretically/analytically in a world of words that make no real connection to the world of actual human interactions like the examples I noted above.

"Ethics," with a capital "E" is a discipline. The capital is no more insidious than the capital on the world "English."

Okay, take your disciplined grasp of Ethics "to the world of actual human interactions like the examples I noted above."

Someone speaking the English language or someone being English is not going to generate much in the way of ethical conflict.

Right?

Instead, among the English speaking population, it is when the discussion revolves around moral and political and spiritual value judgments in conflict, that we are far more likely to encounter the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

You choose the conflict and the context and let's examine this...existentially.

dasein

You really can't help yourself, can you? You keep using this undefined word of yours.

Even Heidegger didn't do that.

Right. Dasein defined in Being and Time.

Now, what I prefer however are those here who think they grasp Heidegger's "didactic, analytic, scholastic, academic" definition of Dasein and are willing to examine it in regard to the manner in which I speculate on the existential meaning of dasein as it pertains to the accusations leveled against him in regard to fascism, the Nazis and the Jews.

Which approach do you think will be more pertinent to the "human condition" insofar as we examine the moral and political value judgments that we have come to embody? His Dasein or my dasein?

Again, let's take the discussion to a particular set of circumstances in which our own value judgments come into conflict and explore the big D and the little d dasein.

Ever and always: define, define, define!

As though there aren't words such that any definitions a "serious philosopher" might provide us with are only as relevant as the particular context in which his or her definition is used.

No, the problem is the opposite: there are, in fact, as I have shown you, so many definitions for dasein that nobody can possibly guess which one you're trying to use.

The one I use revolves around this particular [subjective] assumption:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Which has resulted in "I" becoming "fractured and fragmented" in regards to conflicting goods.

A problem you don't have becasue existentially you have been able to take your own subjective "leap of faith" to the Christian God. Objective morality? No problem. It's right there in The Book...Scripted for all Christians.

Thus: Define "Freedom". Define "Justice".

No good philosopher would undertake a treatise on these terms without trying to define them.

But apparently, you would?

But I'm not taking individual philosophical assessments of freedom and justice to a treatise: "a written work dealing formally and systematically with a subject."

I'm taking the "didactic, analytic, scholastic, academic" conclusions reached in the treatise out into the complex and convoluted world of actual human interactions where freedom and justice for some revolve more around "I" or "we", around capitalism or socialism, around religion or atheism, around deontology or utilitarianism, around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.

[Immanuel Can]

...we are far more likely to encounter the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

This sentence has no meaning. One does not "encounter" a "manner," and nobody knows what you "construe" as the meaning of whatever-the-heck-you-mean.

Right. Dasein defined in Being and Time.

You're claiming to use the word the way Heidegger used it? Then it's not "your" dasein.

Which approach do you think will be more pertinent to the "human condition" insofar as we examine the moral and political value judgments that we have come to embody? His Dasein or my dasein?

Nobody knows what "your dasein" means. You never said.

No, the problem is the opposite: there are, in fact, as I have shown you, so many [/i]definitions for dasein that nobody can possibly guess which one you're trying to use.

The one I use revolves around this particular [subjective] assumption:

"Revolves around"? Too vague.

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein

One of the most basic rules of definition is that you cannot use the word you're trying to define IN the definition itself. If you do, your definition is nonsensical and circular, and fails to communicate anything.

So fix that.

Thus: Define "Freedom". Define "Justice".

No good philosopher would undertake a treatise on these terms without trying to define them.

But apparently, you would?

But I'm not taking individual philosophical assessments of freedom and justice

Dasein.

No reasonable philosopher would use that word without defining it.

[bahman]

Joseph Stalin killed around 20 million people, and died old and in his bed. Mao died of a heart attack at 82, having killed 65 million of his countrymen. Jeffrey Epstein raped at least 36 girls, as young as 14, before he finally slipped on a bar of soap and hanged himself.

So explain how the price "reality" exacted from them was anywhere comparable to what they got away with, please.

Oh. I thought you believe in God!

I do.

And I also don't believe Joey Stalin or Mao "got away with" what they did. I know they will be judged for it, and I'm quite sure that God can repay them aptly for all they did -- and will. So I can be at peace with that fact.

But pointing to the Great Judgment, as proper as it is, is of no consolation to an Atheist who thinks life works out fairly. In this life, at least, it's very obvious it does not. Anyone who thinks it does cannot possibly be thinking of specific enough cases.

I'm able to admit that fact to myself. I can be unafraid, and be a realist about the injustices of life, because I know justice is coming. But somebody who does not know that will have to find some way to lie to himself, or else deal with the fact that this life, the life in this world, is often unjust..a condition he has to believe is permanent and irremediable.

God, if there is any, won't pay. They have to pay themselves. God, if there is any, won't judge. They have to judge themselves. To be honest, the story of Christian God does not make any sense to me.

[Immanuel Can]

God, if there is any, won't pay.

Not yet. But soon. You'll see.