Christianity

[Harbal]

There is nothing that annoys me about Harbal personally.

That won't remain the case, Alexis.

He is for me a sort of Everyman.

Nothing would please me more than knowing everyman could see through people like you.

I make points in relation to him or about a ‘type’

Let's not forget that you are also a type, Alexis, and I, too, have points to make.

Having reread what I’ve written I’m not unsatisfied.

I'm afraid that I can't say the same. I still have much further to go.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...‘freedom’ from most or all decisiveness and ‘philosophical foundation’ which, of course, is an odd choice on a philosophy forum!

Why the scare quotes around 'philosophical foundation'? What is it that is an odd choice on a philosophy forum?

Quotes “” “” and ‘ ‘ as well as * * are usually for emphasis. I should break the habit.

Most writing in this thread have read very little philosophy. That seems so in Lacewing’s and Harbal’s case. Lacewing makes a case for avoiding all of that. Harbal makes no case at all. It just happens to be his situation.

I’d say having that stance — on a philosophy forum — is a bit odd.

[Lacewing]

I view you as having resolved for a vague ‘freedom’ from most or all decisiveness and ‘philosophical foundation’ which, of course, is an odd choice on a philosophy forum!

I'm questioning the logic and monopoly of conventions. That seems like a worthwhile philosophical endeavor to me. Having a foundation can become stagnant. Don't you ever move between houses and apply what you know to expand on them?

This is all friendly conversation (I hope).

Okay, good for now... although we've both made harsh judgements going back and forth, and I do not trust this to last long.

Hours debating IC?!? Months …

Oh, right!

Inadvertently he helped me tremendously. I overcame him.

I understand. Interacting with him helped me to clarify the types of deception, darkness, and blindness that repels me from a certain kind of theist mindset. In one way I feel sorry for him -- but I hold him completely responsible. He works hard to maintain what he does through all kinds of underhanded means.

I take my own existential standing seriously. I don’t anymore have a choice in the matter. I set forth on this road a long time ago and “the road you travel at a certain point defines you”. The choice made “becomes one’s fate”.

That is one way of doing it... and one way of seeing it. I see life as an ongoing opportunity for exploration and expansion. Each decade, I discover more than I realized in the previous decade. It is an endless landscape. I'm wary of building an empire of thought and living there forever, maintaining it. That may work well for some people, but it does not have to be seen as the only methodology that works well. I continue to seek the clarity that comes from exploring more territory.

There has been nothing but pure advantage gained over these months. For myself personally. I couldn’t care much less if IC got nothing. Or anyone else. I am here for my own purposes.

I'm here for my own purposes too... although I do hope to inspire some people to think beyond currently-held supposed knowns/beliefs.

There is nothing that annoys me about Harbal personally.

Over the years, I have found his dry humor to be insightful and extraordinarily funny to me. I admit it might be a bit painful to be on the receiving end of it at times. But he thoughtfully and simply responds to what people are saying (which might highlight the absurdity of it), and they are responsible for saying it. He's not like those on the forum who indiscriminately spew or parrot loads of nonsense and projections.

I did not know there were people like some of the posters here until I came here. Maybe some here didn't know there were people like me. I think the process can be informative and can help one to gain clarity and mastery in seeing more broadly if that's their goal. We choose how to use it and what to get out of it. Having fun is always a priority to me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nothing would please me more than knowing Everyman could see through people like you.

Oh cool. And when Everyman does see through people like me how does he describe who he sees? What does he have to say? Does he use just one word? Or articulate sentences and paragraphs?

[Harbal]

#Oh cool. And when Everyman does see through people like me how does he describe who he sees? What does he have to say? Does he use just one word? Or articulate sentences and paragraphs?

It's hard to say. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Over the years, I have found his [Harbal’s] dry humor to be insightful and extraordinarily funny to me. I admit it might be a bit painful to be on the receiving end of it at times.

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain. Up to now you’ve been beating me with peacock feathers. It has only tickled. I deserve genuine punishment for my misdeeds. Let loose man! Bring out the sledgehammer. If I am not devastated by day’s end I’ll be sad then angry.

[Harbal]

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain.

I'm not reading it, Alexis Jacobi.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain.

I'm not reading it, Alexis Jacobi.

That hurts! But I guess it can't be helped ...

[Lacewing]

Most writing in this thread have read very little philosophy. That seems so in Lacewing’s and Harbal’s case. Lacewing makes a case for avoiding all of that. Harbal makes no case at all. It just happens to be his situation.

I’d say having that stance — on a philosophy forum — is a bit odd.

Why do you limit your analysis to this thread and to Harbal and I? How about extending it to this forum? Do you really think most people on the forum have read much philosophy? And if some have, does it make a whole lot of difference as to the correctness of their opinions? If so, you could just read their posts.

You surely know that philosophy is a natural practice that humankind has been doing throughout history without reading a certain set of books. For some people, it's a natural inclination to think philosophically about all sorts of things. And that seems like a good reason to be here... certainly more so than what some people use this forum for.

[Lacewing]

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain.

That was based on my statement, which you are now childishly misusing against Harbal (as if it's his claim).

Well, that didn't take long for me to regret talking with you. You're not funny... you just become creepy very quickly when you think you have an 'in'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You surely know that philosophy is a natural practice that humankind has been doing throughout history without reading a certain set of books. For some people, it's a natural inclination to think philosophically about all sorts of things. And that seems like a good reason to be here... certainly more so than what some people use this forum for.

I hope that you do not mind me pointing out that philosophy is really an Occidental thing. It arose in the Greek world. And it is really quite unique when compared to the way other people have gone about similar things.

So to carry on in philosophy is to carry on as an Occidental. And to carry on as an Occidental, though a great deal of diversity is natural, is really a specific thing. It is an activity that is specific. Or you could say encased in and enclosed by certain parameters.

Philosophy of the Occidental sort really DOES presuppose reading certain books. However, I will grant you that thinking and conversing philosophically (in a loose and general sense) is an activity now shared by all who engage through language and conversation in the discussion of ideas.

'Thinking philosophically' requires training. True, one might be born in a circumstance where it is commonly done and one might show signs of being inclined to it but it really does require training. You could get that training listening to and watching people debating on soap boxes at the main square but that proves the point I am making.

I have always, let's say, objected to your view that you can do away with structure and systems but it is not that I do not understand your point. As you know I have often said that even if you break away from all that has gone before ("entrenchment" you call it) you will at some point have to systematize your own view of things if only to make it intelligible. If it is forever vague I can also accept that but there'd be no way to say anything about it one way or the other.

My critique of Harbal should be taken as a general critique not as anything like an *attack*. I have simply made an effort to explain how, in my view, *he* came about. I may be somewhat off the mark (generalizations usually are) but I do not think I am completely off the mark.

Anyway, I am waiting for him to utterly devastate me and -- not wishing to exclude anyone -- please feel free to pile on! This can be (and should be) great fun! If it is done with a certain lightness and panache.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain.

That was based on my statement, which you are now childishly misusing against Harbal (as if it's his claim).

Well, that didn't take long for me to regret talking with you. You're not funny... you just become creepy very quickly when you think you have an 'in'.

You take things too seriously! Humor is sort of childish. It is also somewhat unfair . . .

Why bother to seem to get upset? What possible payoff is there in that?

Okay, good for now... although we've both made harsh judgements going back and forth, and I do not trust this to last long.

Was it . . . something I said?

[Lacewing]

You surely know that philosophy is a natural practice that humankind has been doing throughout history without reading a certain set of books. For some people, it's a natural inclination to think philosophically about all sorts of things. And that seems like a good reason to be here... certainly more so than what some people use this forum for.

I hope that you do not mind me pointing out that philosophy is really an Occidental thing.

I don't mind... I'm just not interested.

[tillingborn]

Most writing in this thread have read very little philosophy...
I’d say having that stance — on a philosophy forum — is a bit odd.

Philosophy Now, the magazine which sponsors this forum, is very much written for the general reader, in many cases by them, and makes no assumption, much less demand of prior knowledge. It would be a bit odd if the editors of Philosophy Now held the members of their forum to a higher standard than the contributors to the magazine.

...philosophy is really an Occidental thing. It arose in the Greek world. And it is really quite unique when compared to the way other people have gone about similar things.

Although the details vary, I can't think of a single idea, or way of thinking that is unique to "Occidental" philosophy. What do you think makes it unique?

Philosophy of the Occidental sort really DOES presuppose reading certain books.

You are setting yourself up for a fall. Which certain books are required reading, and what did you make of them?

'Thinking philosophically' requires training.

You've done it again. What level of training, and where did you do yours?

[Lacewing]

Harbal if you’re reading this: Bring on the pain.

That was based on my statement, which you are now childishly misusing against Harbal (as if it's his claim).

Well, that didn't take long for me to regret talking with you. You're not funny... you just become creepy very quickly when you think you have an 'in'.

You take things too seriously!

Now, that's funny. No, wait, it's just stupid.

Humor is sort of childish. It is also somewhat unfair . . .

Maybe your brand.

Why bother to seem to get upset? What possible payoff is there in that?

It's simply part of the unfolding script between us that logically leads up to me saying "I'm done here with you". Every once in a while, I check back in with an open attitude of connecting, and then I see "nope, still not where I want to be or invest". It happens more quickly now, and that's good.