Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:31 pm
To challenge somebody's beliefs philosophically is actually to give them a compliment. That compliment is that their beliefs present some challenge worthy of being addressed. It's only when challenging tips over into petty insults, character assassination, slander and so forth that we can talk about "abuse." And none of this have I done to you, as both you and anyone else can see.

Why say someone is wrong for their beliefs that are true for them then?

You have said that to people, you have said they are wrong. Do you believe you have the right to play authoritarian and make that overriding judgement call? can you understand how it is the ''ego'' who becomes threatened in hearing it is wrong... in it's need to be right?

When you know what the 'ego' is perhaps it's worth not giving a damn about Ad hominems?

Afterall, it's all just how the mind abuses itself, it craves to be the knower, when in reality, the mind is only a known concept, and that no one has ever actually seen one....have they? ...see the dilemma?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:31 pm
To challenge somebody's beliefs philosophically is actually to give them a compliment. That compliment is that their beliefs present some challenge worthy of being addressed. It's only when challenging tips over into petty insults, character assassination, slander and so forth that we can talk about "abuse." And none of this have I done to you, as both you and anyone else can see.

Why say someone is wrong for their beliefs that are true for them then?

You don't believe in truth. You've said so, elsewhere. And you claim you want to be beyond "wrong," in a little meadow, by a stream. So your question makes no sense coming from your assumptions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:51 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:31 pm
To challenge somebody's beliefs philosophically is actually to give them a compliment. That compliment is that their beliefs present some challenge worthy of being addressed. It's only when challenging tips over into petty insults, character assassination, slander and so forth that we can talk about "abuse." And none of this have I done to you, as both you and anyone else can see.

Why say someone is wrong for their beliefs that are true for them then?

You don't believe in truth. You've said so, elsewhere. And you claim you want to be beyond "wrong," in a little meadow, by a stream. So your question makes no sense coming from your assumptions.

IC, I can only imagine what my definition of truth is...where was my truth before I came along to imagine it? where will my truth be when I die?

Can we get beyond our beliefs that there is a truth, and see the clarity of the assumed believer?

If you are going to take concepts literally, you will not see the clarity of their actual emptiness.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm where will my truth be when I die?

If it was true in the first place, it will still be true. If it is not, it never was true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:30 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm where will my truth be when I die?

If it was true in the first place, it will still be true. If it is not, it never was true.

Yes, I agree with that.

However, truth can only be imagined. In reality, reality doesn't have a need for truth, it's forever just this mystery that can never be known.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:33 am I believe there is a bit of the human psyche that is not the persona that tells stories.

If only I knew what the heck that is supposed to mean. But you know, we sometime like to make all kinds of weird sounding shit up.

Sorry I can't explain it better. Maybe I'll get better at explaining it.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:03 pm reality doesn't have a need for truth

Reality is the truth. If one has the truth, one is seeing reality as it is. If one sees realistically, it's only ever because what one sees is also the truth.

This is like watching two blind pigs in a hole in the ground trying to talk about the stars.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:35 pm This is like watching two blind pigs in a hole in the ground trying to talk about the stars.

Entertaining, though! But it does get tiresome.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:17 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:16 am ...conventional logic may be useful at times as is the case with mathematics. Every convention (like the types of logic known and mathematics) has evolved because of being able to serve a purpose given a particular period in evolution. So "convention" and "artifact of evolution" may be used interchangably.

But stevie, maths isn't "conventional."

Of course it is. Due to conditionings it may appear to you to be more than that but it isn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:17 pm You can tell that very simply by the fact that it works universally, and works in exactly the same way in all places and at all times. Maths isn't "evolving" at all; nor does a society's failure to grasp a mathematical principle mean that mathematical principle is negotiable. In all places, at all times, it takes a minimum of a 30 meter bridge to cover a 30 meter ravine. There's no playing fast-and-loose with that fact, and it won't be changing tomorrow, or in a billion years.

You can't leave behind human brain and you can't leave behind the conditionings your brain has undergone. So ...? This is not to say that mathematics doesn't have its application in the current human sphere. Of course it has.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:17 pmIn all places, at all times, it takes a minimum of a 30 meter bridge to cover a 30 meter ravine. There's no playing fast-and-loose with that fact, and it won't be changing tomorrow, or in a billion years.

Er, it is bollocks.

I for one would not want to cross a bridge over a ravine where both the bridge and the ravine are 30 metres in length and breadth . Mate...I think you want at least a 40 metre bridge over a 30 metre ravine.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:03 pm reality doesn't have a need for truth

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:25 pmReality is the truth. If one has the truth, one is seeing reality as it is. If one sees realistically, it's only ever because what one sees is also the truth.

Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known by the only knowing there is which is you, and that knowing is who you are, you are the only knowing that can be known, which is this immediate not-knowing consciousness, or God.

One doesn't have truth, one is truth. And one thing cannot know or see itself, it can only be itself.

You as reality, do not need truth to be, you are already being truth. Need is illusory, in the sense that you need knowledge to know you know. However, you are already the knowing. This immediate knowing cannot know it knows, it doesn't need to, it's already known.

I know this sounds absurd, but it takes a deep dive into the rabbit hole to discover it's real meaning. Some people don't go there for fear of what they instinctively know they won't find, and so they turn back to land of fantasy and imagination where they know they know they exist...the dream of pretense.

.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Reality is the truth. If one has the truth, one is seeing reality as it is. If one sees realistically, it's only ever because what one sees is also the truth.

Apart from your own qualia, how do you know what is real and what is not real?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:43 pmJust out of interest uwot - was much said about 'Christ'? If so, I'd imagine it was about discounting any validation to his existence?

Well atto, me old mucker, as the title 'God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction' implies the book is more about the characters as they are portrayed in the bible than whether either god or Jesus are or were real. The old testament gets 27 chapters; the final chapter 28 'What about Jesus?' starts by making the point that "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30) For which reason the atrocities highlighted in the previous just shy of 300 pages apply to the boy as much as the daddy.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:56 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:43 pmJust out of interest uwot - was much said about 'Christ'? If so, I'd imagine it was about discounting any validation to his existence?

Well atto, me old mucker, as the title 'God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction' implies the book is more about the characters as they are portrayed in the bible than whether either god or Jesus are or were real. The old testament gets 27 chapters; the final chapter 28 'What about Jesus?' starts by making the point that "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30) For which reason the atrocities highlighted in the previous just shy of 300 pages apply to the boy as much as the daddy.

Beyond the preaching atheists that at least (though non-believing) comprehend the big hypocrisy of the bible - an ALL "loving God" .....yet we are in fear of this entity, if only by some judgement..where it turns out HE is a total C**T beyond what Christ went through!

IF I had a pound for everything presumed to have been said in the bible - whether by atheists or theists - I'd have a bit of cash.

Fact is, most on either side talk shite that is NOT even in the bible. - not that i give much more than a steam off my poo for buy_bull shite..

I watched a bit of U-Tube on the Barker dude.

Seems - everything HAS TO BE TRUE as per Bible or NOT. (hence easy target shooting akin with Dawkins)

Ridiculous.

Hence the ridiculous presumption that it is either SCIENCE or THEISM - the two are mutually exclusive. Well of course - if one is to accept the bible as ALL the word of some 'God' - i'd jump onto the science side. But they are not mutually exclusive - within reason.

From the U-tube doc - Barker starts talking about the """miracles""" as if they were performed by some bloke - (called Jesus)

What miracles? - it only takes someone with a fathoming of the sub-atomic scale of reality to comprehend that it is plausible for MATTER to change form at will - IF - IF - there is a 'God' - all this Jesus had to be was a bloke-----was interfaced to this sub-atomic system --- the kind of stuff I have witnessed - it's not "magic" it's not "miracles"

To be honest. I'd love a conference with Dawkins\Barker etc.. with the RIDICULOUS suggestions and presumptions they make about the entire theist mindset.