Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:Clearly I am not going to get a response. Either my critics the wherewithal or are cowards.

We're not the ones that need a comforting narrative. If that is your main criterion, you can soothe yourself with whatever nonsense you find palliative. But if you really seek direction on how to live, my advice is be honest with yourself.

So, you have no directiionalizing philosophy, eh? Do you know what you're saying? I'm going to discuss that in another thread.

Reflex wrote:So, you have no directiionalizing philosophy, eh? Do you know what you're saying? I'm going to discuss that in another thread.

See you there.

On second thought, I'm going to forgo the other thread and respond to your obnoxious and simple-minded comment,“We're not the ones that need a comforting narrative.” That in itself is your “comforting narrative” — a self-serving, alienating, circular, incoherent and anything but comprehensive narrative — but a narrative nonetheless.

The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can, or should be, satisfied living in a hostile and relentless universe of matter which has decreed that the grave shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire that is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good; satisfied with the knowledge that his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter; satisfied with the knowledge that life must bow to “unyielding despair” or live in denial of one's innermost nature.

It can be argued that religion was necessary in order for early man to “get it together,” but now that we have all the tools in place, religion is an unnecessary burden. Yeah? How is that working out? The non-religious are as divided in their opinions as the religious, but are without religion's basic hope, forbearance and directionalizing influence.

All you've shown is nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

Reflex wrote: The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can, or should be, satisfied living in a hostile and relentless universe of matter which has decreed that the grave shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire that is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good; satisfied with the knowledge that his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter; satisfied with the knowledge that life must bow to “unyielding despair” or live in denial of one's innermost nature.

Fortunately there are those who don’t just accept obvious absurdity as Man’s natural state.

"Even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

That is really the purpose of the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source. In their own ways they seek to awaken our species to its conscious potential revealing meaning and purpose from a universal perspective concealed by our misguided interpretations. From a universal perspective, a Source for creation becomes an obvious necessity.

Nick_A wrote:

Reflex wrote: The presumption is that a fully functioning human being can, or should be, satisfied living in a hostile and relentless universe of matter which has decreed that the grave shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire that is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good; satisfied with the knowledge that his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter; satisfied with the knowledge that life must bow to “unyielding despair” or live in denial of one's innermost nature.

Fortunately there are those who don’t just accept obvious absurdity as Man’s natural state.

Of course some concept of a First Source is necessary if we want to be fully functional human beings, but I suspect I'm not going to get a response from atheists that isn't all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Nick_A wrote:
That is really the purpose of the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source. In their own ways they seek to awaken our species to its conscious potential revealing meaning and purpose from a universal perspective concealed by our misguided interpretations. From a universal perspective, a Source for creation becomes an obvious necessity.

An eagle has more conscious potential than a human being because it doesn't have to work it's ass off 24/7 to earn money to live in comfort on it's own planet, it has to pay to live on it's own planet, well fancy that..wow!

The eagle can fly all over the world without worrying about costly plane fares. Makes human potential look like a joke in comparison.

Dontaskme wrote:

Nick_A wrote:
That is really the purpose of the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source. In their own ways they seek to awaken our species to its conscious potential revealing meaning and purpose from a universal perspective concealed by our misguided interpretations. From a universal perspective, a Source for creation becomes an obvious necessity.

An eagle has more conscious potential than a human being because it doesn't have to work it's ass off 24/7 to earn money to live in comfort on it's own planet, it has to pay to live on it's own planet, well fancy that..wow!

The eagle can fly all over the world without worrying about costly plane fares. Makes human potential look like a joke in comparison.

Your education is deficient. You can't discern the qualitative difference between the thought of the eagle and that of a man. Consider the philosophical implications of Pascal's famous quote: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/394587- ... nature-but

tbieter wrote:Your education is deficient. You can't discern the qualitative difference between the thought of the eagle and that of a man. Consider the philosophical implications of Pascal's famous quote: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/394587- ... nature-but

Pascal has no idea what he is talking about, the quote is wrong.

Man does not know he dies. No one has ever told you you will die because there is no other who could tell you.

This understanding goes much deeper than the illusory knowledge of which you base your existence.

Try again...educated one.

tbieter wrote:

Dontaskme wrote: An eagle has more conscious potential than a human being because it doesn't have to work it's ass off 24/7 to earn money to live in comfort on it's own planet, it has to pay to live on it's own planet, well fancy that..wow!

The eagle can fly all over the world without worrying about costly plane fares. Makes human potential look like a joke in comparison.

Your education is deficient. You can't discern the qualitative difference between the thought of the eagle and that of a man. Consider the philosophical implications of Pascal's famous quote: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/394587- ... nature-but

It's not a question of a deficiency in education, but a difference of perspective. Dontaskme seems to be coming from a kind of idealism found in the book Ask the Awakened. It's a good book and very appealing because it's full of wise sayings and deep insights. For all that, though, I found it to be rather it empty for the very reason Pascal cited in the link you posted.

Reflex wrote:

It's not a question of a deficiency in education, but a difference of perspective. Dontaskme seems to be coming from a kind of idealism found in the book Ask the Awakened. It's a good book and very appealing because it's full of wise sayings and deep insights. For all that, though, I found it to be rather it empty for the very reason Pascal cited in the link you posted.

Maybe Dam is being influenced by a book. All I know is that this "I am God" belief is common in New Age philosophy. In reality it is an empty glorification of egotism. You create your own reality, you are God. You can elevate yourself to the god status by tapping into the force. Sun Myung Moon: "Man is incarnate God", Yogi: "Be still and know you are God." Satanist Michael Aquino says, "We are not servants of some God, we are our own gods!" Shirley MacLaine shouts, "I am God! I am God! I am God!"

Nick_A wrote:Reflex wrote:

It's not a question of a deficiency in education, but a difference of perspective. Dontaskme seems to be coming from a kind of idealism found in the book Ask the Awakened. It's a good book and very appealing because it's full of wise sayings and deep insights. For all that, though, I found it to be rather it empty for the very reason Pascal cited in the link you posted.

Maybe Dam is being influenced by a book. All I know is that this "I am God" belief is common in New Age philosophy. In reality it is an empty glorification of egotism. You create your own reality, you are God. You can elevate yourself to the god status by tapping into the force. Sun Myung Moon: "Man is incarnate God", Yogi: "Be still and know you are God." Satanist Michael Aquino says, "We are not servants of some God, we are our own gods!" Shirley MacLaine shouts, "I am God! I am God! I am God!"

The "I am God" doesn't bother me. The Impersonal Life was a big influence and it's not entirely wrong, but what it lacks is structure.

Reflex wrote:

The "I am God" doesn't bother me. The Impersonal Life was a big influence and it's not entirely wrong, but what it lacks is structure.

Isn't structure a double edged value? Granted structure is necessary to achieve a goal and for humanity to evolve. But on the other hand Hitler gave structure to Germany. Was its goal desirable to anyone but a Nazi? Structure is good for the open mind reflecting human conscience but they seem to be a small minority in the world. Take away the BS and people as whole want prestige. And if a particular political and or religious structure can promise prestige and 42 slightly used virgins, who knows what structure can produce.

Nick_A wrote:Reflex wrote:

The "I am God" doesn't bother me. The Impersonal Life was a big influence and it's not entirely wrong, but what it lacks is structure.

Isn't structure a double edged value?

Of course it is, but it's the price we pay for being human.

We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.

This is the kernel of the mystery of our being-as-persons. The roots of our being lie beyond ourselves, in God. The fulfillment of our being lies in God, through others.

Dalek Prime wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Just out of curiosity, which explorer made it past peak expansion and back for you to know this as fact? Just curious, as a dumb provincial. Gonna go drool on my bib, now.

I never claimed it as a fact, I said it was my understanding based on what scientists have theorized about the universe. And they would be the same scientists who have come up with the theories about the universe.

Do you not recall my recent thread regarding an argument with a lecturer of philosophy? By your logic, I should not have argued with him, because he's the 'expert'. Look, physicists can theorize all they like. They can't see it though, or prove it either. So, what do you want me to do? Cave?

Sometimes "experts" get it wrong, but usually they have access to equipment that I do not have, so I need to trust that they know what they have observed and have made the correct interpretation of that data. The example you quoted was an opinion that could not be verified through observation or experimentation, or the interpretation of data.

Reflex quoted:

We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being.

This is the kernel of the mystery of our being-as-persons. The roots of our being lie beyond ourselves, in God. The fulfillment of our being lies in God, through others.

I've read and have come to believe that the potential for Man's being is enormous. However living in Plato's cave, most reject this potential in favor of glorifying the Great Beast which is a dead end. However technology has advanced and methods of killing have become much more sophisticated making our survival a serious question.