Philosophy Now Forum

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:30 pm ...the Bible clearly describes atheists...

Again, not a term that was known until the 16th Century. Look it up.

Lacewing wrote:Do you think that everything must be learned or influenced? Aren't these learnings and influences manmade? The angelic realm you look toward is not manmade, is it? Doesn't it seem more likely that spirituality is naturally in all life -- and possibly obscured or tainted by human noise rather than delivered by it?

I would have to ask a few counter-questions to start (somewhat rhetorical): How is it that 'knowledge' arises in the first place? Would it not be true that in the Creation, however one described this event, that 'knowledge' and indeed all possible knowing were part and parcel of it? And just as all forms and entities arise in this Creation, so too do all knowledges? and all things that can be known?

If I thought that 'all things must be received from others' (I think this is what you mean), I would be stuck wondering how it came to be that someone, or anyone, came to understand and know some first thing. When you say 'manmade' you are attempting to abstract man (or a man) from his place, his platform, and existence itself. A man could only 'know' what is there to be known, and what is there to be known must (logically?) be a part-and-parcel of Creation itself. Is there an alternative? I would say that this points to things which could, yet without wishing to murk anything, be spoken of as 'mysteries'. The mystery of existence, being, knowledge' life, beginnings and ends. It s clear, or should be clear, that there are two apparent 'levels' to be considered: One the merely technical and that sort of knowledge that an animal has in limited degree: environmental essentially, and directily relational with the stuff of the environment. But there is another realm, harder to define: abstract, mental, 'metaphysical', epiphenomenal. Meaning and value and so many other assignations reside 'there', if place can be ascribed. It is my assertion that everything we talk about --- this whole conversation and the ability to converse --- is far more than a mere exchange on the topic of environmental facts or elements. When we touch 'value' and 'meaning' we are in another, more abstract domain. I also assert that the 'upper reaches' of this domain are closed to those who do not approach it *correctly*, or for whom it 'does not exist' because its existence is 'impossible'.

I think that when I use the term 'angelic' and refer to Medieval metaphysics, Aquinas, the Schoolment and the former base of our metaphysical structure (The Great Chain of Being), I am at least in one sense employing a trope. But I need to have some ways-and-means to speak to what I mentioned formerly: That within the creation itself all this must have been contained. And in this sense the 'angelic world' as an upper dimension of consciousness to which man can have access (and does in my view have access), is part of the mystery that all things are contained in Being. We notice that they flow out of being and comes into existence, but it is not quite right to say 'man invents' but rather man discovers. I think my view is Platonistic, basically.

You would have to define 'spirituality' before I'd be able to understand the term. Science Fan has also used this term and I have no sense at all what he means by it. My sense when I read what you write is that you think in very feminine terms. I tend to see this as a weakness. 'Spirituality' is in my view something that should be free of mushy sentimentalism. But I define spirituality more in the sense of intellect (intellectus) in the original sense.

You have made one, very simple post, over 1000 times and it all has to do with your feminine 'awakening' from the strictness of a limiting family and religious structure. This is an example of what I mean. It goes nowhere and does very little. But it is part of your sovereign experiece and valid in that.

Next question?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:55 pm ...

Your writing is too convoluted. Perhaps you hope to obscure clarity and avoid broader truths with the stifling blur of your dense and stagnant nonsense.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:55 pm You have made one, very simple post, over 1000 times...

If that were true, then you should understand it without asking clarifying questions.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:55 pm and it all has to do with your feminine 'awakening' from the strictness of a limiting family and religious structure.

Wrong again. You're stuck in your head... so in love with your thoughts... you are!

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:55 pm Next question?

At what age did you transition into being an arrogant asshole, and did church play a part in it?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:34 pm Arising UK even put the contradiction in bold.

Ahh! the excluded middle, I stated that IC did not call Atheists irrational, (implying completely irrational), and IC specified they were only irrational in they're belief in atheism. Are you claiming that to call one aspect of their belief irrational is to say that they are completely irrational?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:10 pm

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:55 pm Next question?

At what age did you transition into being an arrogant asshole, and did church play a part in it?

He was probably born that way so there was probably no transition, but then you very nicely say that about everyone, at least everyone worth responding to.

Why do you imply that a church played a part in it, most arrogant assholes claim that they don't go to church?

It is a deliberate misunderstanding to see anything I said as desire or need to be an 'asshole'. The only thing that I can see might be objectionable is:

"My sense when I read what you write is that you think in very feminine terms. I tend to see this as a weakness. 'Spirituality' is in my view something that should be free of mushy sentimentalism. But I define spirituality more in the sense of intellect (intellectus) in the original sense."

This is a strict statement of fact as I see it. Deal with the content. Understand it.

She asked a question and got a fulsome answer. But the answer is not to her liking.

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:52 pm...

Doc, until you start answering and stop ignoring the questions I've asked you, I won't be answering yours.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:07 pm She asked a question and got a fulsome answer.

"Fulsome"? I think you mean "Dull and then some".

thedoc wrote:Ahh! the excluded middle, I stated that IC did not call Atheists irrational, (implying completely irrational), and IC specified they were only irrational in they're belief in atheism. Are you claiming that to call one aspect of their belief irrational is to say that they are completely irrational?

There is nothing irrational about atheism. It is just the not holding of a belief in your 'God' and given there have been hundreds of 'God's' and that many believe in a different 'God' or 'God's' than you it appears to be a rational position to take with respect to all the 'God's' or even your 'God'. That IC says I'll be punished for such just makes me think that your 'God', if it exists, is pretty immature and irrational.

You asked a question, Lacewing, why don't you select the part you do understand and comment. What is the point of asking a question if you have no intention of accepting the answer? (That is why we must begin from good-faith).

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:14 pm

thedoc wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:52 pm...

Doc, until you start answering and stop ignoring the questions I've asked you, I won't be answering yours.

Promise?

BTW, there is nothing in Atheism that forms the basis for morality, morality is up to the individual, in case you hadn't noticed.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:10 am You asked a question, Lacewing, why don't you select the part you do understand and comment. What is the point of asking a question if you have no intention of accepting the answer? (That is why we must begin from good-faith).

You really are an optimist.

thedoc wrote:Ahh! the excluded middle, I stated that IC did not call Atheists irrational, (implying completely irrational), and IC specified they were only irrational in they're belief in atheism. Are you claiming that to call one aspect of their belief irrational is to say that they are completely irrational?

What do you mean by 'rational' and 'irrational' here? As mad people can be completely rational.

A man had a flat tire on his car and pulled over right in front of an insane asylum. While he changed the tire one of the inmates was watching him through the fence. In the process of changing the tire he placed the lug nuts on the edge of a culvert and inadvertently knocked them all into the drain where they disappeared. The inmate watching then suggested that he take one nut off the other wheels to hold the spare on long enough to get to a station and replace the missing lug nuts. The man was surprised and said "That's a good idea, how did you think of that?" The inmate replied, "I'm in here because I'm crazy, not stupid."

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:02 am What do you mean by 'rational' and 'irrational' here? As mad people can be completely rational.

Standard American definition, look it up, if you dare.