Philosophy Now Forum

Like the question of existence, this is also one worth skipping until the end. If it helps, think of it in terms of effective (right) and ineffective (wrong). But the heart of the matter is either confusion or deception. One or the other causes the mix up.

Jaded Sage wrote: One or the other causes the mix up.

Clearly something must be causing it because I have no idea what you're talking about.

The mix up of calling good bad and bad good. Unmixed up good would be called good and bad would be called bad.

Jaded Sage wrote:The mix up of calling good bad and bad good. Unmixed up good would be called good and bad would be called bad.

You still haven't made yourself very clear because you didn't answer my earlier question. Good or bad according to whom? Aren't we just revisiting the old saw that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Surely you're not suggesting that absolute notions of good and bad are valid philosophical constructs.

That's why I asked you to think of them in terms of effective and ineffective. There is less of an according-to-whom factor to deal with. Sharp blades are effective at cutting. Dull blades are ineffective at cutting. Blasphemy gets us to think the opposite or is the thinking of the opposite. And if I may make a semi-play at it: the knife that cuts is a good knife, while the knife that doesn't is a bad knife.

I'm afraid I'm no closer to understanding the nature of the question you seek to explore. You seem to be using a non-standard definition of the word blasphemy so perhaps an example of a blasphemous statement might serve to illustrate your point.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: We have to focus on blasphemy as calling good bad and bad good

Good or bad according to whom?

You heard her!! "WE HAVE TO". You don't have a choice, remember she knows the mind of God.

Maybe the fine wines have obliterated too many crucial neurons, Hobbes, because now I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about either and this is something I can usually figure out.

Obvious Leo wrote:Maybe the fine wines have obliterated too many crucial neurons, Hobbes, because now I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about either and this is something I can usually figure out.

What do you take to mean "We have to focus on....".

Says who?

I'm just a simple country lad and I find it much easier to focus on something when the meaning of what I'm supposed to be focusing on is expressed in simple language. Does anybody know what this fucking topic is actually about?

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm just a simple country lad and I find it much easier to focus on something when the meaning of what I'm supposed to be focusing on is expressed in simple language. Does anybody know what this fucking topic is actually about?

Jaded Sage loves reigning in all the confusion she creates. Simple.

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm just a simple country lad and I find it much easier to focus on something when the meaning of what I'm supposed to be focusing on is expressed in simple language. Does anybody know what this fucking topic is actually about?

Ask J Sage!

marjoram_blues wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:I'm just a simple country lad and I find it much easier to focus on something when the meaning of what I'm supposed to be focusing on is expressed in simple language. Does anybody know what this fucking topic is actually about?

Jaded Sage loves reigning in all the confusion she creates. Simple.

For Sage the world's confusion is her understanding.

Obvious Leo wrote: Does anybody know what this fucking topic is actually about?

I certainly don't and I'm relieved to learn that you don't, either. I was beginning to think it was just me.

Jaded Sage wrote:Like the question of existence, this is also one worth skipping until the end.

Can you let us know when we're at the end so we can skip this drivel and actually get some sense?