Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

[Nick_A]

Dubious

I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.

The ONLY thing intelligent in this Einstein quote filled with cliche is I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now.

You write this because you don’t understand the whole passage

I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”

You are closed to its meaning so just prefer to condemn it. Condemnation is considered an intelligent reply by secularism. Is it?

[Arising_uk]

... That is why stupid or obnoxious women are sometimes called c_nts. ...

You've got to be American as in the UK this is generally reserved for stupid and obnoxious males. Twat is just for stupid males.

I have yet to endure progressive education.

Mein Gott! Are you saying you're an example of the education you wish to promote!?

[Nick_A]

I do wish to promote my learning which has freed me from blind secular indoctrination. People who can share on that basis give a lot to each other with no need for negativity including verbal abuse and cyber bullying. Einstein understood.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

[Nick_A]

I think that one of the main reasons for verbal abuse and cyber bullying is an inability to respect our own ignorance. Socrates did and was told he had wisdom. We don't respect our own ignorance and lack the humility to begin conscious contemplation with that foundation.

(Simone Weil says: “We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.”)

Many are intelligent enough to feel the limits of inductive reason and are in awe of what the intelligence cannot comprehend. That quality of an open mind can enable a person to "receive" intuitively and as a result no longer need to escape in fantasy or indulge in condemnation. These people are becoming less and less. If the next generations do not enable and encourage those with their natural gifts to develop and give their awakening influence to the world, my gut feeling is that we are doomed

[Arising_uk]

I do wish to promote my learning which has freed me from blind secular indoctrination. ...

I thought you said you didn't have a progressive education? As far as I can tell all you've had is a religious indoctrination.

People who can share on that basis give a lot to each other with no need for negativity including verbal abuse and cyber bullying. ...

And yet from the get go upon this forum you've been nothing but negative and pretty much one of these 'cyber-bullys'(whatever the hell one of those is supposed to be? I guess it to be those who ddisagree with you or ask you questions that you don't want to answer).

Einstein understood.

He definitely wouldn't have understood your theist based 'hermeneutics' nor supported it being taught to the young.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein

You are a cavern dweller as you see everything through your dogma, in fact I can see why you like the marxists. Einstein was talking about a specific type of rote learning that he experienced in his youth, the rest of his life he studied hard in what you call 'the great beast' and spent his life teaching in it and it's methods to his students.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what exactly it is you would teach our youth instead? If it's just the liberal arts and humanities and sciences then I'm all for that but much of our system still teaches such things although lately we've been going do the path of the Yank with sats and league tables, etc along with the ridiculous Yank thing about no-one failing.

[Arising_uk]

I think that one of the main reasons for verbal abuse and cyber bullying is an inability to respect our own ignorance. Socrates did and was told he had wisdom. ...

You've clearly never actually bothered to read Plato's' Socrates but seem happy to spout your ignorance as wisdom.

We don't respect our own ignorance and lack the humility to begin conscious contemplation with that foundation.

It's not about rspecting ignorance, that would be stupid. It's about knowing when you don't know and asking questions to find out.

(Simone Weil says: “We know by means of our intelligence that what the intelligence does not comprehend is more real than what it does comprehend.”)

And it's ridiculous statements like this that makes you and her gnus.

Many are intelligent enough to feel the limits of inductive reason and are in awe of what the intelligence cannot comprehend. ...

Give us an example of something you can't comprehend?

That quality of an open mind can enable a person to "receive" intuitively and as a result no longer need to escape in fantasy or indulge in condemnation. ...

Whereas in fact what such an approach does is allow one to exactly live with a fantasy and indulge in condemnation as you demonstrate so well.

These people are becoming less and less. If the next generations do not enable and encourage those with their natural gifts to develop and give their awakening influence to the world, my gut feeling is that we are doomed.

'We're Doomed I tell you! DOOMED!!' Such stuff is just your apocalyptic religious slips showing.

[Dubious]

Dubious

I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.

The ONLY thing intelligent in this Einstein quote filled with cliche is I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now.

You write this because you don’t understand the whole passage

His thoughts as opposed to his physics are too simplistic not to understand. What I do understand, made abundantly clear by your accumulated posts, is that you are a hero worshiper with not a single original thought of your own. You quote like one whose brain is grooved to perpetually repeat usually the same people using the same terms with the assumption that you understand them completely.

Your sermons at best are merely distorted copies of the few you perennially cite. I wonder how many of them would agree with your assessment of their views! There seem to be no left and right hemispheres in your brain. In its single-mindedness which allows not the least infringement it comes across as a blob which allows no exit from its limitations or ability to self-correct.

It's not an insult to say to say you are a classic failure in the art of thinking whose dominant function is to question conclusions...a process you have resolutely quarantined yourself against. Simply accepting unconditionally what others say, as you have, requires no mental muscle and therefore the same crap constantly repeats like a recording that still broadcasts from a defunct civilization! It's a pathetic way to make yourself important.

As the current POTUS would say who also forces reality and events to conform to his will or illusions...SAD!

[uwot]

OK so uwot does not grasp the relationship between intuition and deductive reason...

It's very simple, Nick, it's called rationalism. We all do it; the fact is that there are some things that we can't explain by looking at the evidence. In some cases that is because the evidence is difficult, or impossible, to discover; for instance, what was going on before the Big Bang. In others, it's because the thing we wish to explain is so complicated that we are only groping towards an answer, an example of which is consciousness. Anyone who is reasonably intelligent, can cobble together a coherent story that is consistent with the facts they are aware of. Someone else might come up with an equally consistent, but completely different story. If they are what you call 'progressive', they are more likely to be inspired to settle the issue by devising an experiment that will provide evidence to support one or other position. If on the other hand, they are the worst kind of conservatives, they will pick up rocks and stone heretics to death. Or, if they are Athenians, give them a cup of hemlock to drink.

...but his explanation of me is classic progressive logic

You flatter me. It was that kind of logic that Thales used to challenge religious orthodoxy in ancient Greece, leading to the astonishing achievements of Greek philosophy, much as Copernicus challenged the orthodoxy of Catholicism and inspired the Renaissance.

...the intent of secular progressive education is to discourage that which promotes the quality of deductive reason leading to the experience of intuition.

And with good reason. As with religious and political nut jobs everywhere, it is not intuition you wish to promote, it is your intuition.

It must do this in order to make secular indoctrination possible.

If there is one thing that "secular progressive education" might claim as a doctrine, it is the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba, take no one's word for it. I would certainly encourage the young to adopt that attitude and when I was a teacher, I did. You, on the other hand, call it "indoctrination", because the result is that your 'authority' is challenged and you make a twat of yourself in defence.

Those who oppose secular indoctrination are called twats. So Einstein is a twat but what does that mean?

Here's something else that Einstein said: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning."

Here are the definitions of a twat:

Don't bother. We know.

[Greta]

... secularism must oppose deductive reason on a large scale because it begins with a source for creation and the process of creation follows a lawful involutionary progression. Secularism which has the bottom up Great Beast as its God must oppose large scale deductive reason and rely on inductive reason, verbal abuse, cyber bullying, and other delights to preserve its supremacy.

Translated to cover for Nick's eccentric use of language:

... modern societies must oppose deductive reason on a large scale because it begins with a source for creation (GOD!) and the process of creation is accidental, not pruposeful. Modern societies base their actions on science (when anti-science theists aren't in power, anyway). The body of knowledge builds in much the same way as we learn via experience as individuals. Thus, modern society tends to reject guesswork in favour of empirical results.

Apparently, rejection of said guesswork is interpreted as "bullying" by those being rejected, although the bullying tends to only come after Nick engages in character assassinations of anyone he deems a "secularist", which seems to almost be a hobby of his. He sees himself as a white knight slaying the dragon of secularism, one who believes that trolling those who believe differently to him is a noble act and blow against such heathens.

Interestingly, while he claims to reject religions because they are also secular, the only people he doesn't attack are right-wing theists.

In the end, the whole "Great Beast" and "secularism" rant is about left v right. Basically, Nick is a staunch right winger and Trump fan, so anyone deemed "liberal" is deemed a "secularist" who worships "the Great Beast". According to Nick I worship the Great Beast, and yet I am quite reclusive and have not much to do with anyone. Nonetheless - no God = Great Beast and I'm going to hell, apparently.

[Lacewing]

It must be a type of madness that causes people to think that what they believe and create exists for, and rules over, everyone. Whether it be a God or a Great Beast or a Hell. They then get to tell others "how it is" (how everything is), and how wise it is that they themselves are seeing/believing in such things, and how lost and condemned all others are. What a freakin' convoluted game to play!

Such people don't acknowledge or speak much (if at all) about love and acceptance... for if they did, that would disempower their game. They don't recognize such qualities in others, and they don't demonstrate such qualities themselves. They just rant on madly, demonstrating THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION of their own darkness. Wow.

[Dubious]

It must be a type of madness that causes people to think that what they believe and create exists for, and rules over, everyone.

...a madness which is quite common.

[Nick_A]

Dubious wrote:

It's not an insult to say to say you are a classic failure in the art of thinking whose dominant function is to question conclusions...a process you have resolutely quarantined yourself against.

Uwot wrote:

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:43 am
...the intent of secular progressive education is to discourage that which promotes the quality of deductive reason leading to the experience of intuition.

And with good reason. As with religious and political nut jobs everywhere, it is not intuition you wish to promote, it is your intuition.

Greta wrote:

Apparently, rejection of said guesswork is interpreted as "bullying" by those being rejected, although the bullying tends to only come after Nick engages in character assassinations of anyone he deems a "secularist", which seems to almost be a hobby of his.

The common theme here is that all opposed to the glorification of dualistic secular reasoning deserve verbal abuse and cyber bullying. Of course none of them will even question what it means to reason. To do so would interfere with their indoctrination.

Well at least we cleared that up.

[uwot]

Well at least we cleared that up.

We? Who are you talking to, Nick?

[Nick_A]

It must be a type of madness that causes people to think that what they believe and create exists for, and rules over, everyone. Whether it be a God or a Great Beast or a Hell. They then get to tell others "how it is" (how everything is), and how wise it is that they themselves are seeing/believing in such things, and how lost and condemned all others are. What a freakin' convoluted game to play!

Such people don't acknowledge or speak much (if at all) about love and acceptance... for if they did, that would disempower their game. They don't recognize such qualities in others, and they don't demonstrate such qualities themselves. They just rant on madly, demonstrating THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION of their own darkness. Wow.

It must be a type of madness that causes people to think that what they believe and create exists for, and rules over, everyone. Whether it be a God or a Great Beast or a Hell. They then get to tell others "how it is" (how everything is), and how wise it is that they themselves are seeing/believing in such things, and how lost and condemned all others are. What a freakin' convoluted game to play!

Welcome to philosophy. It seems you are more interested in modern psychology which is fine but accusing Plato as you are doing just seems naïve. His cave analogy if true effects us all. Philosophical pondering invites us ponder the big picture. In this case the hypothesis is Plato’s cave. The concept is insulting for you so why bother with it or the Buddhist parable of the burning house which is similar? Stick with modern psychology and avoid philosophical speculations on the human condition which effects us all and deprives us of our humanity

Such people don't acknowledge or speak much (if at all) about love and acceptance... for if they did, that would disempower their game. They don't recognize such qualities in others, and they don't demonstrate such qualities themselves. They just rant on madly, demonstrating THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION of their own darkness. Wow.

Again, this is psychology. If you want to discuss the three essential qualities of love that is fine. For some reason you and other secular extremeists are repulsed by pondering the big picture and how it manifests as the human condition. That is your choice. But why such animosity against the young who are open to the great questions of philosophy and why support those intent on destroying eros in the young and the quality of their questions?

[Nick_A]

Well at least we cleared that up.

We? Who are you talking to, Nick?

We refers to those here in agreement on the justification of verbal abuse and cyber bullying.