The Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

I see a convoluted explanation, that you believe is clever, which seems to be how you place all your responsibility (fear), for your contributions or lack thereof, in the same basket as your denial, and the hope that the world is without end; that 7 billion strong with no end in sight, is not more than the archaic predictions of old, and may in fact be the inkling of truth, that they actually caught a glimpse of, (I mean, at what point shall the cup overflow anyway?), and in the face of global warming, is not indicative of ecosystem imbalance, such that you have to worry about the lives of your progeny; and that your careless whimsical concerns, when considering today's environmental indicators, in their relative blanket of individual comfort, is actually the main part of the problem.

You wield no logic, as you deny the evidence of facts that are right before your eyes, and instead build a thought process of faith, to negate your fears and/or feed your desires!

You man of faith, you!

"The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say." -Peart-


P.S. I truly wonder how many are here just to hone their skills at argument, however illogical, and how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe that most relativists are here just for argument, no matter how absurd, because of fear, and that most absolutists are here for 'the' truth, no matter how painful, despite the fear.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I maintain that our present worry or concern about our destroying the world and ourselves, the perception thereof that informs the 'of paramount' imperative, is no more true in the actual scheme of the world and universe that that same idea and concern that the Maya or Aztecs or Zuni had about the world coming to and end becaus of their 'sins'. Ours now is only more true or has a quality as from a ' better understanding' or more comprehensive perspective exactly because it is Our idea, it has come out of Our mythology that informs Us, its constituents, as to what is True. We have no purchase upon what is 'actually' happening to an 'actual' world, only Our world which is the Truth of our World. It is only our perception, a necessary operation of our adapted brain to construct meaning out of the objects before us. It has only truth in the sense that it is our consciousness establishing itself in A world, its own world of meaning. But the meaning is not 'really' attached to any True object 'out there'.
The universe just does what it does; we are not separate from it.

I see a convoluted explanation, that you believe is clever, which seems to be how you place all your responsibility (fear), for your contributions or lack thereof, in the same basket as your denial, and the hope that the world is without end; that 7 billion strong with no end in sight, is not more than the archaic predictions of old, and may in fact be the inkling of truth, that they actually caught a glimpse of, (I mean, at what point shall the cup overflow anyway?), and in the face of global warming, is not indicative of ecosystem imbalance, such that you have to worry about the lives of your progeny; and that your careless whimsical concerns, when considering today's environmental indicators, in their relative blanket of individual comfort, is actually the main part of the problem.

You wield no logic, as you deny the evidence of facts that are right before your eyes, and instead build a thought process of faith, to negate your fears and/or feed your desires!

You man of faith, you!

"The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, what ever the hopeless may say." -Peart-


P.S. I truly wonder how many are here just to hone their skills at argument, however illogical, and how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe that most relativists are here just for argument, no matter how absurd, because of fear, and that most absolutists are here for 'the' truth, no matter how painful, despite the fear.

First, I'd like to say that it's a pleasure to argue with you, because you seem, for the most part, to be an honest man. I can be an SOB, but be assured that I'll always give credit where credit is due, and you deserve credit for the honesty displayed in your following message below, subsequent to my previous pointed commentary. This is one thing I need to learn from you. I seriously applaud you! Bravo!

Indeed; I do not deny my part of fear and denial. Every human being's truth stated can be reduced upon an argument that identifies fear, denial and faith.
I do not claim that I do not function in this world with the same mativations to do what is best for humanity and my childeren and nieghbors: this is the containment arena in which I have myself: I cannot marally Do anything else. I have to work, I have to have concern for others, I have to try despite my fears, I have toi try to identify where I may lack and overcome my liimitations.
To me, that much as to everyday living is only philosophy colloquially. I do not deny nor have I ever denied that I understand what you are saying, and indeed we only disagree upon some particular items as would have any debate of how to best procede in activity.
I am not arguing how to address such concerns. I am not arguing ethics. It is more ontology.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The existence of global warming at human hands ontologically exists, as well as mass destruction via nuclear weapons, both having the potential to wipe out mankind, there is no ontological doubt. Sight ontological facts that support your belief that we are immune from our foolishness. But please don't ignore the facts of global warming, ecosystems (symbiosis) crumbling, the almost total depletion of fish in our oceans, the death of coral reefs, the 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950, which is responsible for 50% of our atmosphere's oxygen, the depletion of the magnetosphere which keeps our atmosphere and water from blowing past the outer reaches of our solar system, etc.

All ontological facts, as in they truthfully exist, and that they are a result of mankind's incapability of seeing the big picture and addressing it in the face of his selfish desires. These truths are increasing/decreasing extremely fast and I see no comparable movement of mankind to curb his activities that are responsible.

Ontologically, my case is all but proven via the scientific method![/color]

lancek4 wrote:To answer enigmatically: I can still fight the battle with all my heart, nobility and pride regardless of whether or not I know how the war will turn out.

I do not have to have a hope or yearning that my side will win the war to make me whole heartedly be the warrior.

I don't find this perplexing, but I like it!
But of course, I hope you're ever only speaking of the war of words.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You man of faith, you!

how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe..

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You man of faith, you!

how many actually care about the truth, in the facts, that lie before them.

I believe..

you too?

what is the difference if one man likes to argue and the other likes to find out the truth? "The Meaning of ‘Meaning’", in philosophy now articles section, rewritten here "the truth of truth" and "arguing the arguing"? do you see the joke? do you see man doing what ever for the sake of gods, even crying? you ask why oh why? "god is god"? do you see the joke now? and the logic inside it too? if you need only to believe then you need only to believe? as logical as the others logical ideas like yours? inner logic is the case in every truths and truth systems like religions? and strong feelings also of course? truth lies in those feelings? so what is the the truth of feelings, a joke too?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

do you assume a lot - in the face of truth?

have you considered the possibility if your truths are based to your assuming: "i assume this..where the..face of this truth"? your stories may be logical stories, whole, integrated, watertight structures but do they hang from your assuming? like the gods believers hang from their assumed gods own words and stories? sorry my english.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I assume this would only make sense to a jokster.

where the real survival of the fittest/natural selection resides, and in the face of this truth the jester fades into obscurity.

Argument for the sake of argument, is all about the ego's of small minds, in the face of truth.

do you assume a lot - in the face of truth?

have you considered the possibility if your truths are based to your assuming: "i assume this..where the..face of this truth"? your stories may be logical stories, whole, integrated, watertight structures but do they hang from your assuming? like the gods believers hang from their assumed gods own words and stories? sorry my english.

lancek4 wrote:...And one ring to bind them.

lancek4 wrote:...And one ring to bind them.