Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Okay, Mannie's got the Klingon Death Sword...what you got, Ken?

How about a 12 gauge double barrel. Good enough?

Or a .455 Webley, would that do?

Wyman wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Wyman wrote: Faith in nothing breeds violence to oneself. .

How do you work that out?

Or is it the workings of a feeble American brain that can't understand how to live without making up some shit about the world to feel whole?

I was not taking a dig at atheists. What if you lost faith in the rest of humankind as well as yourself? Not to mention any higher power or purpose? I think people living in such deep despair are more prone to fall into self loathing and even suicide. But I suppose Arising is correct in that I do not actually have evidence.

You are diametrically wrong.
It is Faith that breeds violence. It is a non sequitur to suggest a loss of faith leads to violence. You are not making any sense whatever.

I do not need any faith to avoid suicide. That's mental.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Again the first thing you do is jump to an assumption.

It wasn't an assumption. It was a very simple question. Essentially, it was "on what basis do you wish to resolve our differences of opinion."

Your question was NOT an assumption, but what WAS an assumption IS "You're missing the important point, ken, ..."

YOUR assumption IS that I am missing the "important" point. JUST MAYBE I have been explaining HOW WE CAN resolve our differences all along, BUT you have NOT been listening? Just maybe you have ONLY been continually listening to your own beliefs and assumptions, even when they are completely wrong, and thus you have not read/heard what I have actually been saying.

Even now your very next sentence goes straight into ANOTHER assumption, and another WRONG assumption at that. AGAIN, STOP assuming, and then this will HELP you in learning more about how to really resolve ALL differences.

Immanuel Can wrote:If, as it seems below, your answer is "They can't be resolved,"

HOW WRONG can you get?

ANOTHER WRONG assumption.

I will reiterate, If you STOP assuming and believing, then you will discover HOW easily ALL differences are instantly resolved anyway. The whole point I have been making, which you, yourself, are missing, is ONLY what is in agreement is what IS important. Everything else are just insignificant things. There are NO important differences when viewing ALL things from the perspective of Everything, which can only be done from the truly open Mind. What is seen from the open Mind is that there are just different perspectives with all them having some truth and some wrong in them, which is just a truly and totally natural thing. But what is also found and seen from the truly open Mind is the things that are in agreement, which is what the actual Truth IS.

If you read what I write WITHOUT any assuming you WILL see that I have been saying all along that when you STOP believing any thing, and thus are truly open, then you will notice that when you, yourself, say you know the facts, the Truth is you could well be totally wrong. NOT until you disregard or let go of the belief that you are right and correct, you will never be able to see and understand what it is that I have been saying.

Immanuel Can wrote:then there's no possibility of us talking intelligibly to each other at all, and no possibility of either of us going forward with a line of argument.

You have said this a couple of times already like, 'There is no possibility of us going forward', etc. Have you no arguments? Do you wish to stop talking intelligibly? Your refusal to reply to nor answer My many, many questions is showing Me your dislike to continue this discussion.

In fact you have yet to even argue your stance so far.

Immanuel Can wrote: So if that's what you're saying, then I guess I would say, "Thanks for the chat" and move on...

That was NOT what I was saying. SO, AGAIN ANOTHER WRONG assumption.

Immanuel Can wrote:because unless you and I can settle on a means of resolving differences of view, there's no progress.

The MOST simplest, easiest, and quickest way to resolve ALL differences IS to always remain open, do NOT assume anything, and ask each other clarifying questions, and then openly replying to each other with answers in a truly honest way. So simple really.

Unfortunately, however, YOUR REFUSAL to stop believing, YOUR REFUSAL to stop assuming, YOUR REFUSAL to ask clarifying questions, AND, YOUR REFUSAL to answer My clarifying questions IS the ONLY thing stopping you from moving forward. As I have suggested, if you want to catch up, then you NEED to do what you have to do to move forward. Sticking and staying with your own beliefs and assumptions will NOT allow you to move forward.

Until I can understand exactly what you mean when you say something and thus also understand fully from where you are coming from, which can only come from asking you clarifying questions, AND, you answering them, then I do NOT know how to reply to you so that you can understand Me fully. Each person has their own views. I need to know part of those views to better know whey they are coming from, in order so that I can reply in a way so that person can better understand. Your refusal to answer extremely very simple and easy questions, however, for example; "What EXACTLY do you read into in the last of the three pics?" And, "What is the message you see/receive?" leaves nothing for Me to know how to reply back to you.

Immanuel Can wrote:My episteme says things like logic, evidence and data are relevant for arbitrating differences of view. Yours seems to be that NOTHING will ever do the trick, because permanent "openness" (i.e. the condition of never admitting you know anything for sure) is what you expect.

AGAIN another wrong assumption. HOW many assumptions are you going to continue to make and WHY are so many of them completely wrong? I spend MORE TIME showing you your assumptions and HOW wrong they are then actually resolving anything with you.

If I say I am always open, then I decide the condition of 'openness' I have. NOT you. YOUR assumption that what I mean by 'openness' is the condition of never admitting I know anything for sure IS so completely WRONG it is totally hilarious. i think I have told you this before, but AGAIN you either will NOT listen to Me or you will NOT accept what I say. If you stop believing and assuming, then you will see and understand what I want to say.

I have even stated, I KNOW HOW to settle all difference of opinions, even in capital letters, you for some unknown reason miss it. If I say I KNOW HOW to do anything, then how can you and why do you jump to a conclusion like you have here? Could it be that your beliefs and assumptions are blinding you from what I try to write as blindingly obvious as I can? Did you NOT see in My writings "I KNOW HOW ..." and that is part of the reason why you jump to such a completely wrong conclusion as you have here? It appears you want to believe what 'openness' means to you, therefore, that meaning/definition MUST apply to ALL others.

Even your word episteme in "My episteme" here is evidence that you, yourself only, see that your already held views/beliefs/ideas are completely and utterly true, right, and correct, already. Therefore, you are NOT open at all to any other different nor opposing views, etc.

If, as you say, your "episteme" says things like logic, evidence and data are relevant for arbitrating differences of view, and this is what you know and is your "justified true belief", then so be it. There is nothing any one can do to show truth to a person that already believes what they know is true, right and correct.

However, what is the 'logic', the 'evidence' and the 'data', which you believe is relevant for arbitrating differences of view, actually in relation to? Now, let Me make an assumption here this time. You will say they are in relation to "reality" and "truth". Then I will then say, "But reality and truth are relative to the observer, and, I could nearly guarantee that how you view 'reality' and 'truth' will be completely different than I do. Then I will say that how a person is viewing a particular thing then influences how they interpret that thing. You will then tell me but reality and/or truth is in the particular thing not in the interpretation. For example you say texts, writings, or messages hold truth, and that because you insist that you know the facts, then that means other people's interpretations, if different than yours, are wrong. In other words you are not getting anywhere. You, yourself, are going around in circles. You believe you KNOW reality and truth, therefore, any thing other is wrong, from your perspective.

I, on the other hand, say that what is in agreement by everyone IS the only way of knowing Truth. Truth can and is very easily known by knowing 'that' what everyone could be in agreement with, on the proviso that just because something is known there is NO need to believe it, after all we ALL could be wrong. Therefore, even if and when every person is in agreement, then it is always best to remain open, just in case any further or newer Truth comes along.

The trouble with believing (in) any thing is, i think, that no person would believe (in) some thing if they did not believe it to be absolutely true, right, and/or correct. Would you believe in some thing if it were not absolutely true, right, and/or correct? If you want to say, 'Yes", then I will question, "Why?"

So, to resolve ALL differences of opinion IS to NOT believe in any opinion. If an opinion is expressed as, "This is ONLY a view I have", and/or, "This is ONLY what I think is right", then that leaves 'you', the writer/speaker, more open as well as telling the reader/listener that you are open to see/listen to others point of views. Therefore, showing that you are NOT completely steadfast in your opinion also.

I have explained HOW to resolve ALL differences of opinions.

Any chance you could provide some sort of logical way to move forward, with some sort of evidence and/or data? Just saying things like, "My episteme says things like logic, evidence and data are relevant for arbitrating differences of view." IS not helping you. Also, making completely and absolutely WRONG assumptions like, "Yours seems to be that NOTHING will ever do the trick, because permanent "openness" (i.e. the condition of never admitting you know anything for sure) is what you expect." ACTUALLY distorts what I have actually been saying. And, believing in wrong assumptions like that ACTUALLY completely blocks you from seeing and understanding the truth and thee Truth.

Immanuel Can wrote:Okay. But if so, then what? We can't get anywhere.

Your quote here is a great example of yet again another one of your assumptions and another completely wrong assumption at that. It is like you are talking to yourself here, like you have done previously on a few occasions. You ask the questions, then answer them yourself, and then jump to your own, usually wrong, conclusion. If this quote was in anyway meant to be directed at Me, then we can very easily get to the end point, i.e., you learning how to resolve ALL differences of opinions properly. Therefore, WRONG assumption again.

If you really want to get "somewhere", then you will really have to want to stop making assumptions. Would you like to stop making assumptions? It appears you do not as you continue to keep doing it even after I asked you nicely to please stop doing it. Also, do you want to stop believing? Ah that is right, you have insisted something similar to, "We have to believe". "We can not exist if we do not believe".

Immanuel Can wrote:

...you will never be open enough to move forward.

You've got it backwards. My episteme will allow us to move forward. Yours offers us no basis on which to resolve anything.

Your assumption is wrong again. Did you EVER clarify with Me what my actual position IS? Or, have you ever thought to clarify, or have you just been assuming ALL along what it is?

By the way how have I, supposedly, got "it" backwards? You are the one insisting that you have to believe. If you are believing, then obviously you are not open enough to move forward. Your writings, and how many of words we have both produced and we are still only at this point, is enough evidence in of itself that you are not open enough. Therefore, have I really got "it" backwards? If you want to insist that I do, then just show where, when, how, what, and why, and I will be the first one open enough to see it, agree with it, and accept it if it is really true.

SO, My assumption was exactly right above. YOU do believe that your episteme, i.e., your "justified (to you only) true belief", does work for sure. YET, you are unable to or you refuse to answer the main question and the main point I keep asking you. What is, what you call, "reality" and "truth" actually based on? Answer that correctly, which could be agreed upon and accepted by ALL people, then we could move forward with "your episteme" and thus we will find and see and understand real reality and true truth, otherwise what you say is just rubbish.

In other words back up what you say or just let it go.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I on the otherha d have said I KNOW HOW to settle all differences of opionions.

How? Say it again, if you think I'm slow to catch it.

I will give a response like you sometimes give. See above.

What do you mean by, "if you think I'm slow to catch it?"

By just saying, "Say it again," means you are that slow to catch "it" that you have not even caught one bit of "it", have you?

In fact you are still so far behind to catch up you were still believing that because I am completely open then that means I am in permanent "openness", and that is, "the condition of never admitting you know anything for sure", and that, "is what you expect". I do not think you could get any further wrong. Your own writings prove that you have just about NOT caught any thing at all of what I have been saying. Hopefully, after this post that has all changed.

Immanuel Can wrote:

How you and I can very easily settle differences of opinions is the exact same all people can,

Say what it is. I'm listening.

STOP assuming and STOP believing for starters. If you can and will at least try to to do that, then we can actually have a truly logical, reasoning discussion and actually see how much further YOU can actually move forward.

By the way do not just say, "I'm listening", actually prove that you really are.

.





.................................................................






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.





.................................................................






.

Instead of looking for or finding what you disagree with, why not look for and find what you agree with?

"How about a 12 gauge double barrel. Good enough?"

That would be my choice, yeah.

Hard to beat a shotgun.

Sorry, Ken:

But "don't assume" isn't a method of conflict resolution: it's just an assumption on your own side. And "be open" isn't an answer to anything: it's an avoidance of the admission of disagreement. I'm not finding your response is responsive. You reject evidence, data and logic, I can see. But without those tools, we really cannot make progress. And it's not philosophy; it's just "sounding off."

Since you cannot specify any way we can resolve our disagreements, I thank you for your time and your exhaustive efforts at reply. But I can honestly think of no way to resolve differences, since you accept none.

You are, of course, quite welcome to continue in that vein if you are so inclined; others will have to take up the gauntlet as you throw it down -- I find I have no inclination, nor sufficient time, for back-and-forths with no agreed-upon mechanism or prospect of resolution.

Be well.

thedoc wrote:

Wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:I doubt there's any evidence to show that nihilists commit suicide any more than religionists.

I don't think they keep records of that sort of thing. It would be difficult to take a poll.

Why don't you conduct a Seance to find out. And let us know.

I don't think my dry humor plays well on internet forums. Oh well.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Wyman wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
How do you work that out?

Or is it the workings of a feeble American brain that can't understand how to live without making up some shit about the world to feel whole?

I was not taking a dig at atheists. What if you lost faith in the rest of humankind as well as yourself? Not to mention any higher power or purpose? I think people living in such deep despair are more prone to fall into self loathing and even suicide. But I suppose Arising is correct in that I do not actually have evidence.

You are diametrically wrong.
It is Faith that breeds violence. It is a non sequitur to suggest a loss of faith leads to violence. You are not making any sense whatever.

I do not need any faith to avoid suicide. That's mental.

Violence is there regardless of faith or lack of faith. Faith directs it. I shouldn't' have used word 'breed'. The state of nature is war, Hobbes.

Wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Wyman wrote: I don't think they keep records of that sort of thing. It would be difficult to take a poll.

Why don't you conduct a Seance to find out. And let us know.

I don't think my dry humor plays well on internet forums. Oh well.

Neither does mine, welcome to the club.

Wyman wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Wyman wrote:
I was not taking a dig at atheists. What if you lost faith in the rest of humankind as well as yourself? Not to mention any higher power or purpose? I think people living in such deep despair are more prone to fall into self loathing and even suicide. But I suppose Arising is correct in that I do not actually have evidence.

You are diametrically wrong.
It is Faith that breeds violence. It is a non sequitur to suggest a loss of faith leads to violence. You are not making any sense whatever.

I do not need any faith to avoid suicide. That's mental.

Violence is there regardless of faith or lack of faith. Faith directs it. I shouldn't' have used word 'breed'. The state of nature is war, Hobbes.

The state of nature is also co-operations, family, friendship and compassion.

Immanuel Can wrote:Sorry, Ken:

But "don't assume" isn't a method of conflict resolution: it's just an assumption on your own side. And "be open" isn't an answer to anything: it's an avoidance of the admission of disagreement. I'm not finding your response is responsive. You reject evidence, data and logic, I can see. But without those tools, we really cannot make progress. And it's not philosophy; it's just "sounding off."

How MANY times do you have to be told? Do NOT assume anything. YOU are only making a fool of yourself here. For example, you assume I reject evidence, data and logic. HOW ffffing stupid are you? When have I EVER said anything that even closely implies that?

Of course you will NOT answer this question because you can NOT find the answer.

YOU are so blind that this is beyond funny now.

You say "it's just an assumption on your own side", WHERE and WHY. Where is the alleged assumption and WHY is it so. Point it/them out specifically. Unlike you I have shown where your assumptions are AND WHY i think they are. You have yet to do any such thing.

You say evidence, data and logic, based on reality is all there is to knowing truth. Therefore, on YOUR "logic" there should be no disagreements at all because there would NOT be any difference of opinions. And, you would KNOW this because you say you KNOW the facts. I am all for evidence, data and logic. But you are too stupidly blind to KNOW this FACT. The difference between you and I IS I will always check the "evidence", the "data" and the "logic", whereas, you will just believe them, blindly and in faith, correct? For example if the bible says it is right because god wrote the bible and god says the bible is right, then you are the same kind of a fundamentalist person who believes what you are told BECAUSE you are also told "IT IS RIGHT". Have you even thought about the suggestion that if you were born into islam and brought up in a way that taught you to kill others in the name of islam, then you would be probably be dead by now. You are the exact type of person who would grow up to be the actually fundamentalist who would go and blow them self up to kill as many "infidels" as you probably could. In fact you would not have to be born into islam and brought up that way to read the koran the wrong way, you actually are doing that RIGHT NOW. If islam equated to violence, as you so believe it does, then every islam follower would be violent now. Are ALL the over 1.5 Billion followers of islam violent? If not, then how could islam equate to violence?

If as you suggest, I am just "sounding off", then can you explain WHY you do NOT answer ANY of My questions? Are you to stupid to, to scared to, to ashamed to, to afraid to, or any other reason you can give? But let Me guess you will not even attempt to answer this question also. Do you actually KNOW what philosophy once meant? Or, do you just do your own "philosophy" now? You have proven countless times throughout this post that if a view/thought does not fit in with you, then that view/thought is WRONG. On that very logic you have NO idea how to see reality and find truth. You ONLY believe you do.

Immanuel Can wrote:Since you cannot specify any way we can resolve our disagreements, I thank you for your time and your exhaustive efforts at reply. But I can honestly think of no way to resolve differences, since you accept none.

I HAVE explained quite specifically HOW to resolve ALL disagreements, not just the ones between you and I. BUT, you are so blinded by beliefs and assumptions, that you are incapable of seeing My specific examples.

By the way I do NOT thank you at all because of your absolute refusal to go into any depth at all. You have NOT attempted to even answer any of My clarifying questions, and you inability to ask me any questions for clarity and just make wrong assumptions instead proves how all along WRONG you are and have been.

You also are too afraid of going where I am leading you, i.e., showing other how blinded you really are from the Truth in Reality. That is the exact reason why you continually do not want to discuss with Me any further.

I CAN and HAVE already backed up what I have said. I have even continually invited you to challenge Me and question Me, but either you do not want to or are incapable of doing it. Either way you are afraid what will come to light if you did.

Immanuel Can wrote:You are, of course, quite welcome to continue in that vein if you are so inclined; others will have to take up the gauntlet as you throw it down -- I find I have no inclination, nor sufficient time, for back-and-forths with no agreed-upon mechanism or prospect of resolution.

Be well.

You can quite if you like. But your inability to prove that evidence, data and logic is the answer to resolve any or all disagreements and differences of opinions is the real reason you are leaving. You are unable to answer My question regarding what is the evidence, data and logic actually based upon. Your response of "reality" is obviously totally inappropriate and inaccurate. You are also unable to argue your point with any sound logical arguments at all.

In fact your whole perception that islam equates to violence is so totally wrong that it is laughable to say the least. This distorted thinking is caused by your obscuring blinding beliefs and ill-informed assuming, which still believes "Kill the infidels" MEANS what ONLY you, yourself and a very few other fundamentalists, actually thinks it means. If "Kill the infidels" in the koran means what you think it means, then there are over 1500 million followers of islam who are NOT really doing a good job of following islam, hey?

Just maybe you do NOT actually KNOW the facts as you propose you do. Just maybe the true facts are NOT what you want them to be, so you will believe anything otherwise, then make your assumptions and judgement calls based on those beliefs.

By the way you say evidence, data and logic is the way to move forward, so why do you NOT show any evidence, data nor logic in how these things is the way to move forward? Is it because you can NOT? Or, some other reason?

Evidence, data and logic are ACTUALLY great things to use if, and only if, true, right and correct evidence, data and logic is being used. You believe so much in these three things so WHY do you, yourself, NOT use any or all of them to back up what you believe. I have certainly used evidence AND logic to back up what I have stated.

"The state of nature is also co-operations, family, friendship and compassion."

Indeed. Often you need folks covering your ass as you go to plunder the next town over.

My family, my friends: my tribe.

Man cooperates so as to more effectively compete.

.







...........................................................









.

Yep, two individuals, workin' together, can do marvelous things.