Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 2:05 am I have promised to watch them all.

A promise is nothing. Call me when you're done.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:33 pm harbal: "It doesn't matter how metaphysical you get, nature won't treat you any differently."

Yes, the bear who invades your camp site might eat your face. It's bioautomation. What it does is amoral. It isn't responsible. The man who invades your camp site, now he's a moral agent, a free will. He can choose. And if he chooses to eat your face he 'is'' responsble.

What if he refuses to take responsibility?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:33 pm

Harbal wrote:"Our perceived reality is a mental construct, and although much of what we perceive does have external referents of some kind, things like natural rights are not among them."

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us 'as it is' (*not in its entirety but 'as it is'). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

I think you are totally wrong, but I respect your natural right to be mistaken.

As for natural rights: as these are part & parcel of personhood, you're never gonna find 'em in 'external referents'. You find 'em in men.

We might, between ourselves, agree that there is such a thing as personhood, and that certain rights come with it, but neither personhood nor rights are recognised by nature or the universe. The rights that you speak of, when they exist, only exist by agreement between human beings.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 9:05 pm Hey, there's no finaglin' goin' on.

You readily agreed you'd be angry if someone stole what you considered to be your property.

I asked you why you'd be angry, and you said 'because I would have been deprived of my possession when I wanted it to remain within my possession'.

I find that response opaque and asked for clarification, You'd be angry if someone took your property becuz it's your property?', cuz that sounds, to me, like what you're sayin'.

Just tryin' to get a straight answer. 'Yes, I'd be angry if someone took my property becuz it 'is' my property' or 'no, I'd be angry if someone took my property, becuz of [fill in the blank with your reason]'.

Yes, I agree that we feel we have a right to our life, property and freedom, and we usually behave as if we do, but in reality we only have those rights by virtue of our human laws and legal systems; there is nothing natural about them.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:38 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 9:05 pm Hey, there's no finaglin' goin' on.

You readily agreed you'd be angry if someone stole what you considered to be your property.

I asked you why you'd be angry, and you said 'because I would have been deprived of my possession when I wanted it to remain within my possession'.

I find that response opaque and asked for clarification, You'd be angry if someone took your property becuz it's your property?', cuz that sounds, to me, like what you're sayin'.

Just tryin' to get a straight answer. 'Yes, I'd be angry if someone took my property becuz it 'is' my property' or 'no, I'd be angry if someone took my property, becuz of [fill in the blank with your reason]'.

Yes, I agree that we feel we have a right to our life, property and freedom, and we usually behave as if we do, but in reality we only have those rights by virtue of our human laws and legal systems; there is nothing natural about them.

Well, there is something "natural" about them in so far as they can make sense to many of us, that they can compel many to agree to them. If there is no God, then we (and everything we think and do) are as much a part of "nature" as anything else is. Again, I don't know if there is a "God" to back them up, but I also don't know that there isn't a God. I don't pretend to know more about life, the world, the future consequences of our choices and actions, or anything that happens after a human body turns into a "corpse" but I do know to some degree what I can agree to and what I can't (insert the word "won't" instead of "can't" if you feel doing so is more appropriate). The rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sound very applicable to me. Other "rights" I can't be 100% sure about but those three do seem to be the most fundamental to me. If I reject them, then I would be rejecting for myself things that I myself regard as "sacred" and appreciate to the highest degree.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As far as a right to "property"... that one is much more complex and I don't see how it can be codified appropriately, though, perhaps it can.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 6:43 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:55 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:26 pmI want to believe in the Christian God again.

Then do. Which better theory is stopping you?

Uh, theory?

Well, in a nutshell the theory behind the Christian God is that he created the world in seven days, made Adam out of clay, breathed life into his nostril, put him in a garden where he could eat anything but the fruit of one tree, saw that Adam was lonely, put him to sleep and plucked out one of his ribs to make Eve, who was persuaded by a talking snake to eat the prohibited fruit, for which every person born since has to pay, things got so bad that God drowned the entire population of Earth, including all the animals except for Noah and his family and a breeding pair of every living creature that Noah gathered into a boat the size of a Cathedral that he built all by himself. When that didn't work God sent the Holy Spirit to knock up a virgin to bear Jesus who would be a human sacrifice to pay for Adam and Eve's disobedience, instead of us, and if we believe that, we get to spend eternity with a being who thinks others being punished for your crimes is moral. What's not to believe?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 6:43 pmJust out of curiosity, how is that different from a leap of faith? or a wager?

It isn't. Some bets just have really long odds.

Part One

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:26 am ...

Since I describe my purpose here as selfish, and that I am generally just trying to organize my own thoughts, and trying to put in order how I am going to view what is going on around us in our world, I will therefore continue in that vein. Some basic statements can be made which will help -- and note that if I explain something I am simply describing my own processes to others so they can read them, and if it is desired, understand them.

We start with Immanuel Can. First, what is he? One must answer this question first. One must have grappled with what he represents. If IC encountered another Evangelical believer, that believer would say "Yes, he has it all right. He knows what is. He understands what life demands, what God demands, and he is doing it. I am with him." However, nearly everyone else who does encounter IC -- especially here -- differs substantially from him. Some differences are unbridgeable while others are inconvenient hinderances. But between IC and some, even if IC will say that with their imperfect conversions they will, according to his logics, end up in an eternal hell-realm to be tortured by God.

IC is, unquestionably, a *religious fanatic* and a *zealot*. These are not ad hominem terms but terms that accurately describe his religious commitments. In the recent conversation IC critiqued intensely the adaptations and compromises that early Christianity made with fanatic religious commitment and here, to understand, we must linger a moment and define what actually did happen in those early centuries. In brief we must say that Christianity amalgamated into itself a wide range of beliefs, views, perspectives, ethical determinations, and also Greek philosophical ideas and perspectives, and this latter is crucial. The Christianity I describe is best described as Greco-Chritianity.

As I made clear to IC it was right at the start, and immediately, that Hebrew Christianity of a zealous sort made adaptations and compromises with the peoples it began to convert. And this involved syncretism.

[Greek sunkrētismos, union, from sunkrētizein, to unite (in the manner of the Cretan cities) : sun-, syn- + Krēs, Krēt-, Cretan.]

Syncretism (/ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm, ˈsɪn-/)[1] is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Syncretism also occurs commonly in expressions of art and culture, known as eclecticism, as well as in politics, known as syncretic politics.

Nomenclature

The English word is first attested in the early 17th century. It is from Modern Latin syncretismus, drawing on the Ancient Greek: συγκρητισμός, romanized: synkretismos, supposedly meaning "Cretan federation"; however, this is a spurious etymology from the naive idea in Plutarch's 1st-century AD essay on "Fraternal Love (Peri Philadelphias)" in his collection Moralia. He cites the example of the Cretans, who compromised and reconciled their differences and came together in alliance when faced with external dangers. "And that is their so-called Syncretism [Union of Cretans]". More likely as an etymology is sun- ("with") plus kerannumi ("mix") and its related noun, "krasis," "mixture."

Now, when IC turns his mind to these things -- to real historical incidents -- he does not see like a *normal person*, he sees with *the eyes of zealotry*. And this means that he sees through willful imposition. The religionist must impose a view through ideological insertion even if it is not really so. This is what all religious zealotry does and all fanaticism. For this reason we cannot rely on IC for a fair and balanced perspective when it comes to the topics we often discuss.

If this general and preliminary exposition makes it seem that I therefore reject or devalue the Christian contribution to Occidental cultural forms that is a gross misunderstanding. Christianity has been a very important part of the formation of Europe and its influence is extraordinary and profoundly valid. But here, too, we must linger to examine what actually happened in those early centuries. And what actually happened can only be examined through eyes of genuine realism, not eyes of zealotry and fanaticism. Since this is incontrovertibly true, the issue is how shall these early events and processes be discussed? Who will do it? Who is *capable* of doing it? And who will do it fairly? Historical interpretation, as all should know, is fraught and contentious. But here we cannot linger any longer at least for now.

I discuss religion in conjunction with metaphysics. Behind religion stands (IMO) metaphysics. I am not quite a Christian believer but neither am I a Christian disbeliever. Will Bouwman pointed out the core set of Christian beliefs and, obviously, I cannot believe in these nor can any other person writing on this forum except IC who *sees through the eyes of religious fanaticism*.

But I see through the eyes of metaphysical allegory. I quite literally have no choice in the matter. And I will extend this further and say that vast numbers of people have become incapable of believing in the stories that their forefathers could, literally, believe in as being real, historical descriptions. Some moderns have exited *religious belief* entirely and are *atheists*. But some remain in a shadow-realm where, say, they cannot believe the core story (as Will outlined) but yet they still, somehow, believe in Jesus and even might *have a relationship* on an internal, spiritual plane with this *God* who disciples them and directly them. Others, cleave to the ethical teachings and hold to the practice of them as a sign of their assent, while they would be hard-pressed to describe and defend what exactly they are believing in if forced to defend it in rationalistic terms. The *true believers* of Christianity have a faith grounded not in reason but in irrational faith.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:30 pm
IC is, unquestionably, a *religious fanatic* and a *zealot*.

That, at least, is something you can't accuse me of.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:30 pm We start with Immanuel Can. First, what is he?

Here's the first sign of having lost an argument: going ad hominem. So I know from that exactly how you're actually feeling, and why.

For you, I have done two intolerable things: one is to raise doubts about your leadership in a discussion, by having more precise facts than you've been able to adduce. For example, I knew the exact dates of the Catholic innovations on Mary, and when they were introduced. Most Catholics haven't got the foggiest idea of how and when Mariolatry was brought into their religion, and would be quite horrified to discover that their treasured female icon had not always been the apple of Catholicism's eye, or that Scripture gives absolutely no warrant for the fictions of the perpetual virginity or the "assumption." And that brings us to the second taboo: I've raised questions about Catholicism, and cast doubt on its pedigree. For somebody raised to fear the Catholic condemnations, it would be terrifying even to entertain a thought of Catholicism being less than a secure place to preserve one from the various graphic perditions promised to all who are less than absolutely thorough in their capitulation to the Catholic authorities. So I've taken a hard shot at the foundations of your sense of safety and spiritual security...no wonder you're twisting as hard as you can to get out of it.

I recognize I've made these things uncomfortable for you, and I apologize that it is uncomfortable. But it has been unavoidable, given your determination to pursue the conversation in the direction you have. Some facts are just hard to face. I cannot make them easy for you.

I have to note, though, that to neither problem. do you have a real response. So your only hope is to plunge wildly in some new direction, flash a "shiny object" to derail the factual discussion of Catholicism's history, and try to escape the realization the facts impose on you. So the ad hominem turn is perfectly predictable: it's your quickest and most likely route to derailing the discussion. So is the false triumphalism, the "declare victory and run off the field" approach to finishing the discussion.

However, unfortunately for all that, I am well-fortified against ad hom distractions, and not at all impressed by facile gestures of triumphalism. The main point remains our discussion of Constantine, syncretism, and the failures of the Catholic authorities to be authentically Christian, as evidenced by their manifold departures from Scripture and their politicization of what should have always been a personal faith.

So I won't be following you down the ad hominem rabbit hole you're rather frantically trying to drill, and the facts will remain the facts. One can deal with the facts, and face the challenge, or one can run away -- but running away hurling insults and personal attacks is still very much an action of fear, of failure and of escape. Reality, however, always wins...so avoiding the truth of an important arugment always comes back to bite one.

So on you go. I know exactly where you're coming from, and why. And I know what it signals. I suspect I'm also not the only one who sees it, if anybody else is tuned in.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:22 pm Here's the first sign of having lost an argument: going ad hominem. So I know from that exactly how you're actually feeling, and why.

No, sir. You are absolutely wrong. It is not ad hominem. But you will now use a false-assessment to avoid having to deal with everything I have said, and this is typical of you. I have called you out for this and named it *deviousness* and so have others.

You are a religious fundamentalist, a fanatic, and a zealot. I submit that everyone who writes on this forum and who has communicated with you recognizes that this is what you are. You orient yourself, religiously and then intellectually, within this type of position.

Therefore, to designate you as such is entirely fair and proper.

Now, as a religious fundamentalist you will say, and you do believe, that (for one example) there was a garden, two persons there dropped by God, a snake, and all the rest. Your fundamentalism determines that you believe this. And your fanaticism gets hold of that description and your zealotry defends it against any reasonable, and necessary, alternative.

It is not ad hominem.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:22 pm Here's the first sign of having lost an argument: going ad hominem. So I know from that exactly how you're actually feeling, and why.

No, sir. You are absolutely wrong. It is not ad hominem.

"These are not the droids you're looking for." (Star Wars) That's what you mean. Or "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." (The Wizard of Oz)

"Don't trust your own lyin' eyes, when you can see that my argument has gone totally ad hom."

Yeah, nobody's going to do that for you, AJ. We can't help but see it for exactly what it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:22 pm For you, I have done two intolerable things: one is to raise doubts about your leadership in a discussion, by having more precise facts than you've been able to adduce. For example, I knew the exact dates of the Catholic innovations on Mary, and when they were introduced. Most Catholics haven't got the foggiest idea of how and when Mariolatry was brought into their religion, and would be quite horrified to discover that their treasured female icon had not always been the apple of Catholicism's eye, or that Scripture gives absolutely no warrant for the fictions of the perpetual virginity or the "assumption." And that brings us to the second taboo: I've raised questions about Catholicism, and cast doubt on its pedigree. For somebody raised to fear the Catholic condemnations, it would be terrifying even to entertain a thought of Catholicism being less than a secure place to preserve one from the various graphic perditions promised to all who are less than absolutely thorough in their capitulation to the Catholic authorities. So I've taken a hard shot at the foundations of your sense of safety and spiritual security...no wonder you're twisting as hard as you can to get out of it.

I recognize I've made these things uncomfortable for you, and I apologize that it is uncomfortable. But it has been unavoidable, given your determination to pursue the conversation in the direction you have. Some facts are just hard to face. I cannot make them easy for you.

You have done no such *intolerable* thing. Because I do not give a fig about how Mariolatry came to be. And I am not here defending Catholicism as a Catholic apologist.

I defend Catholicism for a wide and expansive group of other reasons. But these are not based on a faith-relationship. They are based mostly on *cultural solidarity*.

For somebody raised to fear the Catholic condemnations, it would be terrifying even to entertain a thought of Catholicism being less than a secure place to preserve one from the various graphic perditions promised to all who are less than absolutely thorough in their capitulation to the Catholic authorities.

But here you have nicely pointed out something important, but it has to do with your structure of belief: If you disbelieve any aspect of it -- I am here referring to your fundamentalist beliefs -- you will by your own admission be 'dammed' to eternal torture by the god that you refuse.

So let's rewrite your admirable paragraph:

For somebody raised to fear the Evangelical Christian condemnations, it would be terrifying even to entertain a thought of Evangelism being less than a secure place to preserve one from the various graphic perditions promised to all who are less than absolutely thorough in their capitulation to the Christian ideological authorities.

And that is where you locate yourself, Immanuel. And that is why I describe you as a fanatic and a zealot.

I regard no part of the Story (the description that is given as if it is a history or a chronology) as being real. The Story contains messages and meaning however, and at a metaphysical level. These must be discerned.

All of this has gone over your head. To such a degree that you wrote the paragraph I quote here and you genuienly believe that you have said something that makes me uncomfortable.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:48 pm We can't help but see it for exactly what it is.

Who is this plurality to which you refer?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:48 pm We can't help but see it for exactly what it is.

Who is this plurality to which you refer?

Again, at least you and me, if not any others looking on. We both know you're being ad hom and evasive. Your response reads like, "I'm not being ad hominem, and you're a _______, and a__________, and a _____________ for saying I am."

Too funny, I have to say. And horribly transparent. Why not just give up the ad homs, and deal with the subjects we were actually discussing? For even if you prove me to be Adolph Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ghengis Khan all rolled into one, that says NOTHING about whether or not a particular claim I made was true or false.

And you know it. You're not that naive. So come on, AJ...maybe you should pull yourself together and get back on subject. The truth is, nobody's buying the dance routine. Not even you.

Gary: "Why do you think that change was made?"

Hell if I know.

"Was the early draft right and the final draft a mistake?"

The early draft was preferable to the later.

"Here's my take on the documents: Does all that make sense to you?"

It's fine, as far legalisms go.

Personally, I prefer the Articles of Confederation.

And, if I truly had my way, this...

*A Charter

I-A man belongs to himself.

II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

-

To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended...

I-a local constabulary

II-a local court of last resort

III-a border patrol

IIII-militia

Establishing any or all of these safeguards, or variations of these safeguards, is at the discretion of individual communities, however: as citizens are the final safeguard it is strongly recommended no other safeguard be established without the oversight of militia.

...would be the 'constitution' I choose.

*that's a remnant from my days as a minarchist, not so long ago

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 4:26 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 2:05 am I have promised to watch them all.

A promise is nothing. Call me when you're done.

Pick one:

1] Absolutely shameless!
2] Absolutely shameless!
3] Absolutely shameless!
4] ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!
5] ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!