Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:Ammendum: humanity is diverse. To propose that we may all fall under a common ethic is what are known as 'golden ages' of culture, and they always achieve such commonwealth by somehow successfully denying that humanity which does not conform to the commonwealth's norms.

One could say the every one is on board now with the democratic capitolism, that they have all 'entered modernity' and in this sense we could say that a common ethics of some sort is in effect.
But even so, we might say that you and I have a common ethics, but I'm sure we would disagree on many issues. And, there are those who do not even come close to our agreements, and yet iwe exist with them in a certain harmony. Then those with whom we can find less agreement. Law is the only recourse to this diversity.
Them we have the impetus behind our system which breeds a type of intellectualism and education which asserts itself upon others as a type of progress for the benefit of humanity, all the while denying those people their rights as human beings, their absolute truths, when all they are doing is making a living, it is seen as expendible. The journals of anthropology are filled with fouls like this.

And there is no sign of it getting better, only groups that work to enlighten others to this problem and hopefully get them compensation. Yet noone cares.

Everyone is self interested. To assert that there will one day be a great realized truth is the same as beleiving there will be a great reckoning. And answering for sins.
And even this last is a self centered project.

And there are those who don't want a new world order, who are quite intelligent and educated.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Spheres, you write well and have an interesting take on life.



Do you have any published works?



.

Bill, you do me a great honor in your query, and I don't take it lightly, Thank You!

I consider that, a great responsibility, and though I have thought about it, I have not as of yet. I think that my problem in that accomplishment would be that, I would never believe it complete, such that it may end up under constant revision.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

chaz wyman wrote:Given SoB's version of what the Abs Truth is supposed to be leaves me with one single and undeniable truth, and that is humans will never approach such a thing, as it is not in their nature nor in their psychological constitution to search or perceive for such a thing as described.
Indeed, I would go further to suggest that such an aim is utterly antithetical and a clear impediment to the human understanding of his own reality. Far from sharing a perspective with Kant, SoB is so far removed from Kant's conception of the synthetic a priori as it is possible to be, and has simply missed the point of Kant's canon of work. It is as if SoB thinks he can sieze the transcendental object and ignore the simple fact that the moment such an object is presented to the subject it looses its status. Such a thing is as inconceivable and the thing-in-itself, and has to submit to our subjective categories of experience.
It is almost as if SoB has read a different philosopher all together.
SoB's views are far better suited to the naive Objectivism of Ayn Rand and her 'back of the cereal packet' conception of Kant.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

Godfree wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

Truth is not mans creation ,,,????
that has to be the most confused statement I'v heard in awhile ,
truth is a mans invention , just like language and science etc ,
what you seem to be saying is , to know reality is the aim ,
which is what I have always been saying ,
there is only one reality , and it is that reality which I seek ,
if you are going to wait for proof , or prove religion true ,
you will be waiting forever , and there will be no proof ,
So SOB , does this mean until we "prove religion or god is real"
that you are an Atheist ,and if not WHY NOT ,??????

Godfree wrote:To help me better understand you, Godfree, and your truth: against what do you propose your atheism? What is God? Can you tell me ? Then I might better understand your Truth position.

Godfree wrote:God without religion ,,???
sure ,, monkey invented god ,
god was the force behind the natural forces ,god of thunder , god of the forest ,
god was an ignorant response to natural events ,
it became a convenient lie to explain the unexplainable ,
why did that happen , "it was gods will, who are we to judge god "
if you look at all the primitive cultures around the world today,
you will still find religion in it's original form ,
the NZ Maori have a similar belief ,
the god concept was invented long before man spread himself around the globe,
which is why each culture has this original form .
it was only recent times that god became a tool for government ,
a stick with which to beat the peasants , obey or die ,
god doesn't exist , we fantasize about god , we hope and pray it's real ,
but it's not , it's an illusion , delusion ,,insanity ,,,!!!!!