Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 5:49 pm

You are right, of course. But that is why the advantage I declare that I have -- being here and working through my own processes in relation to the general position of those who bother to participate here -- leaves me always in a favorable position. I gain advantages every day. I never lose.

One learns more from losing than winning.

It seems to me that you keep going down similar paths and ending up in the same place.

The people that I am dealing with here are, really, a veritable cross-section of the people *out there*. They illustrate the general conditions of Occidental men (persons) who have, as I say, been extruded onto the Walmart floor of modernity.

I'm not sure how representative it is. The sample size seems much too small. And it's skewed towards a certain type of person.

If according to you I wind up in the same place, and you equate that with losing, then I am (again according to you) doing fine.

Jokes aside, what do you think I should do that I am not doing? Care to give it a shot?

I think I will accept your amendment: the list is skewed to a certain type (as I assume all of Occidental philosophy might well be)(?)

If according to you I wind up in the same place, and you equate that with losing, then I am (again according to you) doing fine.

Losing is an opportunity learn and change. Those who constantly win, don't learn or change.

Ultimately. it's up to you to decide if you are doing fine or not.

Jokes aside, what do you think I should do that I am not doing? Care to give it a shot?

Either ask different questions of the people here or seek out other people in other forums.

Get out of your comfort zone.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:50 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 2:13 pm Well, you seemed a bit exasperated by how you were being responded to.

My exasperation is really & truly on another plane altogether. (And all of that -- inner stuff -- is not affected by any of this that goes one here).

But yes, that you ask me to clarify to you exactly and precisely where I stand in relation to extremely difficult questions, which hinge into metaphysical and also supernatural issues (for example how I as a person perceive God or what spiritual life means for me -- these are just some of the questions) is bothersome. But you are just one here who does that and a similar thing.

We have to face this fact: the metaphysics of the traditional Catholic Church when examined critically are not and cannot be accepted by any person who writes on this forum. (However, with IC as a possible exception).

And that is really the more interesting issue to be discussed.

I don't know what the word 'can't' means in this context. I don't accept that metaphysics, for reasons I've touched on. Not because it includes what get called supernatural elements, but because of problems specific to its metaphysics, for me.

I'm happy to discuss why I don't accept them: re: the issue that is really the more interesting issue to be discussed. As I said, I have given some of my reasons. But if you have questions on what I've written, or in general, I'm happy to go into them. That puts the shoe on the other foot. You can ask me to clarify to you exactly and precisely where I stand in relation to extremely difficult questions, which hinge into metaphysical and also supernatural issues and I can try to answer. It's not restricted to the supernatual aspect - my criticism of the metaphysics of Christianity/Catholicism. But we can start anywhere you like.

I can also discuss it in a more general way: why people today in general would want Catholicism to be more central.

I'm not sure it speaks well for the metaphysics that IC might go for them. But that's anecdotal snark on my part.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 6:16 pm Either ask different questions of the people here or seek out other people in other forums.

Get out of your comfort zone.

Fair enough. What questions do you think should be asked?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 7:32 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 6:16 pm Either ask different questions of the people here or seek out other people in other forums.

Get out of your comfort zone.

Fair enough. What questions do you think should be asked?

Those who constantly win, don't learn or change.

Resolving to win, when loss occurs, or extracting gain from loss, is a personal choice.

But I do take your meaning.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 7:32 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 6:16 pm Either ask different questions of the people here or seek out other people in other forums.

Get out of your comfort zone.

Fair enough. What questions do you think should be asked?

Well, if you're interested in social decay and the role of the traditional religions, then you could ask how modern society has improved, how the movement away from religion has been positive or beneficial. Or how there could be further improvements in the future. Or if there are any negatives coming from abandonment of religion. Or how would the world be if religion was entirely eliminated. Or what would be the role of spirituality in the post-religion world.

IOW, how is the present state good or better that the past and how will it be good or better in the future?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 8:06 pm Well, if you're interested in social decay and the role of the traditional religions, then you could ask how modern society has improved, how the movement away from religion has been positive or beneficial. Or how there could be further improvements in the future. Or if there are any negatives coming from abandonment of religion. Or how would the world be if religion was entirely eliminated. Or what would be the role of spirituality in the post-religion world.

IOW, how is the present state good or better that the past and how will it be good or better in the future?

Why in Heaven’s name would I ask those questions?

But thanks — I did ask!

(God you people are fucking weird …. )

God help us all ….

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:02 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 8:06 pm Well, if you're interested in social decay and the role of the traditional religions, then you could ask how modern society has improved, how the movement away from religion has been positive or beneficial. Or how there could be further improvements in the future. Or if there are any negatives coming from abandonment of religion. Or how would the world be if religion was entirely eliminated. Or what would be the role of spirituality in the post-religion world.

IOW, how is the present state good or better that the past and how will it be good or better in the future?

Why in Heaven’s name would I ask those questions?

But thanks — I did ask!

(God you people are fucking weird …. )

God help us all ….

Okay, what questions do you think you could ask so that you get a different/better result than what you are getting now?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 7:07 pm I don't know what the word 'can't' means in this context. I don't accept that metaphysics, for reasons I've touched on. Not because it includes what get called supernatural elements, but because of problems specific to its metaphysics, for me.

It was cannot. And what I wrote was:

We have to face this fact: the metaphysics of the traditional Catholic Church when examined critically are not and cannot be accepted by any person who writes on this forum. (However, with IC as a possible exception).

It’s pretty plain, man. To conceive of the Incarnation, to participate in the Mass at its level and purpose, even to conceive of Providence and even more of Grace or Charity, all depend on a metaphysical picture.

No one on this forum (that I am aware of, except IC) actually believes in a divine force (even when describing it abstractly) of God et cetera.

But perhaps you have a different view.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:05 pm Okay, what questions do you think you could ask so that you get a different/better result than what you are getting now?

I do not have any interest in determining how others respond. Therefore I can’t care too much about their choices or what results.

It’s you that had the problem, for sone reason or other.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:05 pm Okay, what questions do you think you could ask so that you get a different/better result than what you are getting now?

I do not have any interest in determining how others respond. Therefore I can’t care too much about their choices or what results.

It’s you that had the problem, for sone reason or other.

Why are talking to people?

Why do you respond when they reply?

Why are you here?

Why do you care if society is decaying or declining or thriving? What difference does it make?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:21 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:15 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:05 pm Okay, what questions do you think you could ask so that you get a different/better result than what you are getting now?

I do not have any interest in determining how others respond. Therefore I can’t care too much about their choices or what results.

It’s you that had the problem, for sone reason or other.

Why are talking to people?

Why do you respond when they reply?

Why are you here?

Why do you care if society is decaying or declining or thriving? What difference does it make?

1) to see and understand how they organize their perception of things.
2) to clarify my own views.
3) no better place. So I work with what lies to hand.
4) civilization is definitely in decline (that requires explanation — I mean what civilization is).

And people very definitely are suffering dissolution. I know plenty of them. (Spiritually and in other areas).

What ultimately matters to me is my own status. My status does suffer (is affected by) the general decline, that is true, but I am very uncertain what I can do (for anyone).

How about you? How would you answer each question?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:12 pm It was cannot.

Yes, but there are a number of ways that modal verbs can be used.

We have to face this fact: the metaphysics of the traditional Catholic Church when examined critically are not and cannot be accepted by any person who writes on this forum. (However, with IC as a possible exception).

It’s pretty plain, man. To conceive of the Incarnation, to participate in the Mass at its level and purpose, even to conceive of Providence and even more of Grace or Charity, all depend on a metaphysical picture.

Sure, I understood that.

In that post you said:

We have to face this fact: the metaphysics of the traditional Catholic Church when examined critically are not and cannot be accepted by any person who writes on this forum. (However, with IC as a possible exception).

And that is really the more interesting issue to be discussed.

I responded:

I'm happy to discuss why I don't accept them: re: the issue that is really the more interesting issue to be discussed. As I said, I have given some of my reasons. But if you have questions on what I've written, or in general, I'm happy to go into them. That puts the shoe on the other foot. You can ask me to clarify to you exactly and precisely where I stand in relation to extremely difficult questions, which hinge into metaphysical and also supernatural issues and I can try to answer. It's not restricted to the supernatural aspect - my criticism of the metaphysics of Christianity/Catholicism. But we can start anywhere you like.

I can also discuss it in a more general way: why people today in general would want Catholicism to be more central.

I'll even focus on some potential subtopics, some mentioned, some not:
1) because of some of the side effects of the CC's views on sex and the body: systematic priest perpetrated sexual abuse
2) because of the born-in-debt metaphysics in CC metaphysics
3) because of many of the things that happened when the CC has been a central power in the lives of people
4) because the incarnation story includes sacrifice in a way that functions as a kind of generalized guilt trip
5) because of the implicit distaste for nature
6) because of the anti-political, anti this life stance of Jesus
7) because of the unbelievable metaphysical thread involved in Hell
8 ) because the metaphysics is out of balance between the male and female - even down to birthing the universe.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 9:30 pm 2) to clarify my own views.

And yet people asking about your views seemed to annoy you.

1. I talk to people because I'm interested in what they have to say. I hope to learn something from them.

2. I respond to people because that's how one has a conversation/discussion.

3. I'm here and elsewhere. I'm here until I lose interest and leave or until something prevents me from being here.

4. I care about people. Therefore, I care about the society we live in. I do not desire decline or decay.