Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:22 pmThe general, and quite real, anti-Christian animus that is widely present with such intensity is certainly complex and has certain validity. I’d certainly never deny this and have written a good deal to that topic.

But it can also be critically examined. And that is my point and a valid one.

Dubious drips with that sentiment despite his falsely nuanced disclaimers.

That's an interesting statement. This makes me appear like a hypocrite for having "proclaimed" that an operational myth, a story, or metaphysic is nevertheless necessary or unavoidable during any time in history, past or future. The truth of such becomes our own and not contingent on externals where it's easier to qualify phenomena in terms of true or false.

All life in the cosmos exists at the same level of universal indifference. What carries all self-awareness forward within that milieu of meaninglessness are forever its own indigenous values temporarily denoted as truth. The former remains static; the latter dynamic, subject to inevitable change.

This has been explained through quite a few of my posts, but you still don't get it yet nevertheless presume to judge as "falsely nuanced".

There is very little insight to be gleaned from you that much is clear. One doesn't get a clear perspective on anything by realizing only ONE thing!

Alexis Jacobi" wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:22 pmBut the actual truth, explored by level-headed men, points to very good reasons to recognize value in the processes through which Europe was civilized. And this had so much to do with Christian doctrines such that (in my utterly humble opinion) only a fool would make the effort to deny it.

If "civilized" means "indoctrinated" then you're absolutely right which is exactly what Christianity aspired to and for a long time succeeded in, the Bigger Brother version of 1984. The resemblance is almost uncanny! But as I keep repeating, your abilities to think critically are inoperative in most areas where critical thinking is imperative. It was only during the Renaissance and the advent of printing when the power to dictate doctrine, ex cathedra, started to erode and the "infallibility" of popes began to be questioned.

Do yourself a favor and read some history instead of all your useless manuals on metaphysics.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:22 pmThe canard about the horrors of the Medieval Era is typical as a tossed log of ‘evidence’. But truthfully when the assertion is examined it falls flat. Yet it requires a careful and a nuanced examination to come to that understanding.

In that case, your own "nuanced examination" has misunderstood assuming it was ever "nuanced" or "understood"!

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:46 pm All life in the cosmos exists at the same level of universal indifference. What carries all self-awareness forward within that milieu of meaninglessness are forever its own indigenous values temporarily denoted as truth. The former remains static; the latter dynamic, subject to inevitable change.

Your operative predicate is observable here. You point out, validly, that a great deal of phenomena in the universe is *indifferent*. But in our world the universal indifference does not operate. In our world, in fact, something else operates. Your mistake is exactly in this, and you clearly express it in what you write. How could it be otherwise?

That's an interesting statement. This makes me appear like a hypocrite for having "proclaimed" that an operational myth, a story, or metaphysic is nevertheless necessary or unavoidable during any time in history, past or future. The truth of such becomes our own and not contingent on externals where it's easier to qualify phenomena in terms of true or false.

This has been explained through quite a few of my posts, but you still don't get it yet nevertheless presume to judge as "falsely nuanced".

Here you reveal another foundational predicate. First, all *metaphysics* are human inventions. You state that *operational myths* *story* and *metaphysics* are interchangeable terms, but when you say this you reveal that metaphysics, for you, is a territory of false-projection. It could be this one or that one, and you certainly see that they exist and, I gather, must exist, but in truth you void the category of metaphysical realness and thus of truth of genuine content.

I do not regard you as a hypocrite, I see your ideas precisely for what they are. I do not paraphrase you, I only need to quote you and offer a simply interpretation of what you mean.

The truth of such becomes our own and not contingent on externals where it's easier to qualify phenomena in terms of true or false.

Here, the *passive idea* if I might label it such becomes more active: truth, for you, is 'internal' which means 'personal' and also 'subjective', and it is precisely here that I notice that you define metaphysics quite differently than I would. And therefore it is on this point, and at this point, that we diverge. It is not that I do not understand what you write, in fact it is that you do not understand what I write and why I write it.

I regard your statements as 'falsely nuanced' because you tend to tart up your prose descriptions in such a way that makes them appear well thought-out and also aware of genuine metaphysical perspectives, but you do not seem to get what (my term) *genuine metaphysics* relies on. For this reason in another post I made an effort to explain to Gary that if metaphysics are understood to be and taken to be *real* then they are in this sense *external*. I.e. not mere concoctions invented by a person's subjectivity.

Therefore, the object is to understand metaphysical truths as *real* and with a separate existence from any individual. This certainly does place 'revelatory' knowledge on a different plane that, say, 'hallucinated' which is I think ultimately what you believe.

So what I would say about you -- the structure of ideas that you work with -- is that you reveal yourself as living in and perceiving from a sort of *idea construct* that functions like a trap. An enclosure. Because in this enclosure your predicates are absolute you are locked in to sets of determined belief. And I submit that your *atheistic posture* is pretty common since it is *speech* (sermonic declaration) that is emitted from your *enclosure*.

Now, to point this out will inevitably draw out of you that grumpy ire which seems always there if backgrounded from time to time. You must insist that things are as you (goddammit!) believe them to be. And if your core view is challenged you sense (this is my opinion) that you will need to modify your predicates. But this is too difficult given the adjustment required so, instead, you lash out at the one -- in this case me -- who takes issue with your simplistic, childish views decked out in adult and serious verbiage.

There is very little insight to be gleaned from you that much is clear. One doesn't get a clear perspective on anything by realizing only ONE thing!

Here I think you are projecting but remain unconscious of it. You seem motivated by one core predicate, thus from you no real insight into the inner dimensions of either Christianity, other religious systems, and also of metaphysics.

You simply repeat, in repeated, gussied-up terms, what you have already stated at least 5-6 times. Trust me, it was understood the first time!

If "civilized" means "indoctrinated" then you're absolutely right which is exactly what Christianity aspired to and for a long time succeeded in, the Bigger Brother version of 1984. The resemblance is almost uncanny! But as I keep repeating, your abilities to think critically are inoperative in most areas where critical thinking is imperative. It was only during the Renaissance and the advent of printing when the power to dictate doctrine, ex cathedra, started to erode and the "infallibility" of popes began to be questioned.

With what I exposed previously in mind now we can move on to genuine operational statements. You start from a 'skewed' base to it is inevitable that your conclusions are going to be contaminated.

*Civilized* does not mean *indoctrinated* you fool, not in the way you are taking it and presenting it. And to go on to say that an allegiance to ethical and moral principles, defined through metaphysical suppositions and that have been defined through theological rumination, is comparable to a communist ideological slave-subject under a repressive thought control regime, is a grotesque exaggeration; and because it is such an exaggeration it amounts to a false statement. Therefore your *nuance* is pseudo-nuance. Your opinions are violences against the actual truth which is more complex. Therefore, when I muse on you I see a man in the grip of the *animus* I have described. Again this is very common, and you, idiot, did not invent this. You are just a mouthpiece for a very common idea or set of ideas.

The problem I notice (in your expressed, determined ideas) is that there is an element or some particles of truth to which you fairly refer. But I can say that in my own experience when reading those who examine the Middle Ages from a fairer and more balanced perspective, the fuller picture offered modifies the sorts of highly prejudiced ideas, dripping with animus, that have you in their grip.

Now, there are some means by which you might modify some of your operative prejudices however they involve reading those frightful *tomes* which have your knickers in a pinch. One being The Thirteenth: Greatest of Centuries by James Walsh. Another The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Etienne Gilson ; and The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser.

Did you notice that word *modify* Mr Grumpy? That is one definite advantage of wide reading (access to our intellectual and cultural library) and that is in the broadening of perspectives and the modification of our often too-fixed perspectives.

Has anyone noticed how Jacobi writes a lot, but says hardly anything? It seems to be symptomatic of something, but what?

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 6:21 am Yes! One can see how potent and exalted the Christian nexus is especially during its most intense period, i.e., the Medieval times. What a horror story that was!

Expound! What has all this "life essence" so long centered in Christianity accomplished?

Again, you start with a prejudiced assertion which lends rhetorical power to the idea you wish to convey, but the idea you wish to convey is not accurate enough. And it does have some validity. To reduce the Medieval Era solely to horror story is to deliberately misconstrue and so again the cards you play reveal your basically skewed perspective. There is literally no era in human history that was not similarly brutal. And in our own Middle Ages there were many gleamings forth of idea-movements that would transform that brutality.

It occurs to me that one of the most important and defensible effects of Christian metaphysical and philosophical doctrine can be located in the conceptions of how *love* is understood. The first area I thought to focus on would be that of the forms and expression of love between a man and a woman, and in marriage -- marriage as a spiritual sacrament -- and the extremely positive effects that the operation of love has been given in the male-female relationship but then in all human relationships. There is certainly a tremendously rocky road in European history, naturally, in the domain of the higher possibility that spiritual and respectful love has allowed, but when the history of the evolution of (matrimonial) love is examined it is uniquely a European category.

In order to have or allow or to create such a social atmosphere where *love* is possible, and can flourish, there has to be a doctrine where the individual, of either sex, is seen as having a sacred kernel. I think that Pauline Christianity shows that in those early communities a woman was seen, or there was a significant effort to see her, as substantially equal in terms of her soul-value vis-à-vis the Divine, but then also as an individual with genuine agency. Christianity quite literally transformed the former status of women (for example in classical Greek society and in Roman society) in ways where *love* (in the sense that St Paul expresses its possibilities in 1 Corinthians) became real and effected possibilities.

The idea of *love* then in a specifically Christian sense and in its matrix -- based as it is in a recognition of the sacredness of individuals (at the level of their soul and as a primary metaphysical tenet) -- is also extended to all people. I am referring here to ideal visions of what is possible of course, and there is tremendous imperfection. However, your question was to point to one area where substantial accomplishment can be noticed.

"Life essence" is a term I put together to refer to an exalted, if idealistic, sense of what we can be -- you know, the admonition that to have 'life in greater abundance' is Divinity's wish for us. Even if very imperfectly implemented, is nevertheless a highly motivating ideal. And it seems to me quite fair to say that it is pretty uniquely a Christian contribution.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:51 pm Has anyone noticed how Jacobi writes a lot, but says hardly anything? It seems to be symptomatic of something, but what?

It's symptomatic of frustration. AJ has clearly read a lot of words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books... Now he wants to do something based upon that which he has read. But what? Figuring out what to do is something some of us face and doing absolutely nothing at all is near impossible, and can only be accomplished in a way that is the least acceptable of all. Is there something even worse than the least acceptable of all that can be done beyond the least acceptable of all? Perhaps. I don't know.

But maybe we should give AJ a hug if he'll let us.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:08 pm But maybe we should give AJ a hug if he'll let us.

Keep your greasy mitts off me you pervert!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:10 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:08 pm But maybe we should give AJ a hug if he'll let us.

Keep your greasy mitts off me you pervert!

I have no "mitts", nor ones that are "greasy", I'm going to give you a virtual hug

[[[hug]]]

It'll be OK, AJ. Many of us are working on the same problem or ones that articulate from it. There are coping skills. My suggestion would be to talk to me for a little while. That might take your mind off of other things which are bothering you.

See here ....

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:19 pm See here ....

Aww, that's so cute. It makes me wish I hadn't clicked on it. You poor thing.

What would you like to talk about, AJ?

Harry asked: "Could it be meaningful to define two types (maybe even origins) of evil: "evil by choice" and "evil by nature"?"

'Evil nature' undercuts free will. That is: a man with an evil nature cannot be a free will. Such a man cannot truly be morally responsible. 'Evil by (or thru) choice' coherently 'fits' with free will.

"is it possible to be both: that, bit by bit, free decision by free decision, a free being chooses to become evil by nature?"

Well, I'd say he, bit by bit, free decision by free decision, chooses evil. His nature, as a free will, is self-corrupted thru choosing that which he knows is wrong. I have to hold out, however, the possibility he may choose to redeem himself. That is, even though thoroughly corrupted, he can still 'choose'. Being corrupted, then, is not irrevocable.

"Do you agree that evidence shows that psychopaths understand what's right and wrong perfectly well; it's just that they choose to use that understanding not to constrain their behaviour and choices but rather to manipulate others?"

I don't know. I guess it depends on the definition of psycho-/socio-path.

I believe the fields of psychology and neuropsychology are irredeemably flawed. Both (and others) are founded on the wholly unproven notion mind is just a product of brain. As such all such disciplines (and their disciples) ought be taken not with a pinch but with a fist full of salt. I'm not inclined to defer to definitions extending from these folks or their religion(s).

"On a dualist understanding (mine), in which consciousness survives biological death, is it in any case possible that psychopaths are - per question two above - "evil by choice" as well as "evil by nature": that, over (potentially aeons of) time, those souls which incarnate as psychopaths have, bit by bit, free decision by free decision, chosen to become evil by nature?"

That would be one (very neat) explanation.

"Thus, if a person by nature happened to desire being enslaved, raped, robbed, and even murdered, and to find those things literally pleasurable and even satisfying, then, although we very probably would consider that person to be perversely constituted, and would probably likewise consider to be perversely constituted anybody who indulged him/her in his/her desire to be enslaved, raped, robbed, and murdered, it arguably wouldn't be morally wrong in those circumstances for the (otherwise) enslaver, rapist, robber, and murderer to commit those acts upon that person given the otherwise-victim's nature which desired and found pleasure and satisfaction in them."

If such a person existed, it would mean, to me, such a person is crazy as a shithouse rat.

Thing is: there are plenty of crazy folks in the world and many -- particularly those obsessed with a fetish -- often enjoy bein' submissive and bein' humiliated. But even these poor, sick bastards still lay claim to themselves.

What I'm sayin': morality (what is permissible between and among men) isn't, can't be, mutable. Nor can there be multiple strains of morality. What apples to one, if we're talkin' about moral fact, must apply to all, or it's just moral opinion.

"Thanks for your thoughts."



-----

Mannie pondered: "From where, then, comes any inclination to choose evil, if not from some harkening in the nature of the chooser?"

As I say: evil is a free will preying on another free will. That is, a person chooses to ignore another's right to his own life, liberty, and property, treating him as a commodity. He self-corrupts, is corruptible, but it does it doesn't follow he is innately corrupted. If he were adulterated from the start, that, it seems to me, short circuits his status as a free will. This harkening, then, is not his evil nature.

You ask, 'why, if he understands the choice is wrong, does he choose to it?' I admit: congenital corruption is a good answer...it just doesn't sit right with me. The 'evil nature', as I say, precludes, or seems to preclude, one's status as a free will. It smells of determinism.

Frankly, I find it easier to accept the idea of Screwtape's nephew, who sits on a shoulder whisperin' in an ear, than a congenital stain.

-----

iam, with incredulity, (rhetorically) asked: "So, with a straight face, henry is going to tell us that his best buddy IC has not made every effort to bring him over to accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior?!!"

I can't say if Mannie gave it his best shot. Only he can say. I tell you this, though (for what it's worth): when we talk to each other, we actually talk 'to' each other. Our conversations are not exercises in one-upmanship. We don't agree on many things. We always, however, respect one another and are, therefore, respectful 'to' one another. I believe Mannie is an honorable man; I'd like to , believe he thinks the same of me.

-----

iam asked (rhetorically): "What's the skinny here with you and IC and Jesus Christ?"

I've defined my relationship with Mannie just above. I have nuthin' more to say on it, to you or anyone. As for Jesus and Mannie: talk to Mannie. As for Jesus and me: I have a great deal of respect for the man as he appears in The Jefferson Bible.

-----

iam (rhetorically) asserted: "Anyone who truly did believe they had demonstrable evidence that a God, the God, their God did in fact exist would do everything in their power to spread the news."

Why? I, for example, believe it is possible to demonstrate (the possibility of) God's existence. I've offered what I see as the chief evidences, multiple times, in-forum. But, I certainly haven't done 'everything in my power to spread the news'. Why should I?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:19 pm See here ....

AJ, would you like to talk about the movie scene you posted and/or the narrator or narration of it?

If so, I'll start the discussion:

It appears to me that we are missing what the other major character of the two in the scene does after the one who is smaller in physique, who sees himself in the other after their hug, goes to sleep. I have not seen the full movie nor even so much as a 10th of it (I only know it's called "Fight Club"), however, in the snippet, we next see the one who is smaller in stature resting comfortably. But what has happened to the other? Can the one smaller in stature truly rest comfortably when the fate of the other is not known?

That's my take on the scene. I imagine (maybe incorrectly) that it is the two of us fighting and perhaps you identify with the one with the larger physique. I cannot say that I identify with either of them. Is my imagination wrong? Do you not identify with the one with the larger physique? And if not, how do you identify yourself in the context of the scene? Or do you place yourself in the scene at all?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:42 pm I certainly haven't done 'everything in my power to spread the news'.

And don't think it isn't appreciated, henry.

In any case, thank you for not responding yet, AJ. I sense that you are truly kind for taking your time. I have done the same with mine.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 3:04 pm It occurs to me that one of the most important and defensible effects of Christian metaphysical and philosophical doctrine can be located in the conceptions of how *love* is understood.

Dubious:

Thinking it over, and referencing Christian influence, another area of verifiable and important development and evolution is in that of “conscience”. You know, shame cultures and shame ethics compared with guilt cultures and guilt ethics.

To be (merely) ashamed by what others think or say was the convention, but to internalize ethical and moral principles, to which one assented morally — that is I think a higher dimension. A conscientious man and one with a conscience is (largely) a Christian creation.

Related to conscience one should recognize responsibility as having evolved through Christian influence. Not to say that it is not a complex and fraught area (feeling or belief), still the sense of guilt changes how one becomes (or does not become) responsible.

Ok Mr Quacking duck I give you the floor.

Make it good …