Philosophy Now Forum

A-uk

In what sense would you accept objective with respect to justice?

It isn’t a matter of me accepting anything. That is what people do when they argue over opinions on subjective justice. You either believe objective justice exists or it doesn’t and we are limited to arguing interpretations of subjective justice.

By the by, tells us what this objective truth is that you propose to be teaching our kids and do you understand Plato's 'Good' as your theistic 'God?

You are the one concerned with indoctrination in philosophy and reliance on “experts”. My concern is for opening minds and agree with how Plato defines the problem.

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

Yes, my idea of God is Plato’s Good or Plotinus’ ONE.

Greta

I speak about abortion because it's your pet peeve, so I respond. For me, it's a matter of MYOB.

You describe the woman concerned with women's rights. I can see that you have no idea much less respect for women who feel women's obligations in regards to sustaining a free society, I know the idea is repulsive to you but you have such a negative attitude that you cannot even understand it intellectually

That is one reason I have such a high regard for Simone Weil. How often do we find people so dedicated to truth they are willing to suffer ideas that they have been conditioned to be repulsed by. Simone was one of those rare ones able to sacrifice indoctrinated self justification for experiential truth. What a wonderful rarity.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:22 am Greta

I speak about abortion because it's your pet peeve, so I respond. For me, it's a matter of MYOB.

You describe the woman concerned with women's rights. I can see that you have no idea ... [ranting]

Case in point. I note that you have ignored all of my post - which was most expansive - except the bit about abortion and women. I made it clear that my view re: abortion is simple - MYOB - and then I moved on to other things of greater interest to me.

Yet you have the incredible gall to accuse me of being obsessed with abortion and women's rights

Ah, now I've found the earlier bit. For God's sake, use the damn quotes properly, you nong.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:17 am Greta

The human condition you complain about is the animal condition. Over the millennia humanity has been trying to escape the brutality and suffering inherent in nature, both without and within. So far, given the mere millennia with which humans have had so far to make sense of these unprecedented and complex social conditions, human beings have done incredibly well!

There have been many mistakes - murder, cannibalism, rape, infanticide, extreme torture methods, superstitious beliefs, wars, the Plague, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, violent colonisation and failure to learn from indigenous people, overuse of fossil fuels and nuclear arms, sustainability, oppression, slavery, the list goes on. Humanity has had to deal with and learn from these traps and mistakes, resulting in uneven, but definite, progress on all fronts - moral, intellectual, political, economic, social, technological. Given that there was no manual telling humans how to handle their powers, how can the species be blameworthy?

But that isn’t what is meant by the human condition. The human condition is what makes hypocrisy a human norm. Animals aren’t hypocrites. Hypocrisy is a result of the human condition. Granted our species has grown in scientific knowledge but our fallen emotional nature is unchanged and varies within people as it always has. Man is capable of both the greatest expressions of compassion and attrocities. You cannot make a scapegoat out of hypocrisy but the seeker of truth seeks to learn why it governs our nature and what it deprives us of as human beings

Is hypocrisy the most important thing in the world? Besides, it's especially ironic coming from you, given you penchant for accusing others of your own faults.

Hypocrisy is only one problem and largely concerns the corridors of power, which have always been hypocritical. Violence and environmental vandalism are of greater concern.

If you think animals can't be hypocrites you are, as always, ignoring the natural world and then pretending that you understand anything in nature. The dominant male in harem style societies refuse to let other males mate with the females of the group. When they are defeated by a usurper, the defeated ex-dominant will still take every opportunity sneak in some mating with females, which he had not long before forbade to other males. Double and "flexible" standards are a standard aspect of power dynamics per se.

Nick_A wrote:You define progress by learned facts. Real human progress is defined by the quality of the human perspective in which facts are used. Where we have gained scientific knowledge, collective humanity is losing its human perspective. It is being forgotten and has to be “remembered.”

You have choices:
1. go with the flow
2. go with the flow and be angry
3. fight for change politically
4. fight for change physically.

Go for it. You won't change anything because you are ordinary, but you will seemingly take your place as one of the already-established combatants of the new world. Reason v religion! Roll right up!

I will personally take my place as an observer. Besides, if regaining what's being lost means being more like you, I'll go with the robots, thanks.

Nick_A wrote:

4 students hit by gunfire at Los Angeles school; 12-year-old girl in custody

Who or what is your scapegoat which enables a twelve year old to become a crazed wounded thing with no respect for human meaning and purpose? We need a scapegoat. Who or what will you blame?

US culture, obviously. You don't see it happening anywhere else to the same extent, not even in war-torn countries in the middle east.

So we need to look at how the US differs from other western nations. Guns and gun culture stand out. Weak welfare safety nets. No universal healthcare. The unfair electoral college gerrymanders. Courts' enthusiasm for the use of custodial sentencing and heavy-handed deterrents (often just breeding new and more expert criminals). Privatised prisons. Excessive focus on the drug war. Tendency to bomb places without fair reason. Inability to laugh at themselves.

Who do you blame? Let me guess ... progressives and secularists!!!

Nick_A wrote:...
Who or what is your scapegoat which enables a twelve year old to become a crazed wounded thing with no respect for human meaning and purpose? ...

Well that is twelve-year olds for you.

We need a scapegoat. Who or what will you blame?

Me I'd blame whichever adult it was who allowed a gun to get into a twelve-year olds possession.

Nick_A wrote:It isn’t a matter of me accepting anything. That is what people do when they argue over opinions on subjective justice. You either believe objective justice exists or it doesn’t and we are limited to arguing interpretations of subjective justice. ...

Of course it is a matter for you. If I say to you that objective justice is what the Law is and it is that because of inter-subjective agreement as to what the Law is to be would you accept that as objective justice? If not can you tell me what 'objective justice' is to you?

You are the one concerned with indoctrination in philosophy and reliance on “experts”. My concern is for opening minds and agree with how Plato defines the problem.

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

LMAO! Can you understand the irony in what you've just said? I doubt it as you've not taught yourself to think but just parrot.

Still, can I quote you that in your 'new' world you won't be teaching our kids to read nor letting them read those we call Philosophers?

Yes, my idea of God is Plato’s Good or Plotinus’ ONE.

Not quite the same thing but can I quote you that you don't believe in Christ's father 'God' nor a creator 'God' nor as a being in any sense then?

So what have we learned? First we’ve learned that Greta doesn’t know that hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. She thinks animals do this.

Greta wrote:

You have choices:
1. go with the flow
2. go with the flow and be angry
3. fight for change politically
4. fight for change physically.

Greta calls herself an observer which really means she likes to interpret for purposes of self justification

She omits the essential option which is experiencing both the external world and our inner world with detachment and conscious attention. Rather than choice being limited to mechanical REACTIONS, a person could strive to become capable of conscious ACTION. Of course asserting our choices being limited to mechanical reactions it is necessary to be at least intellectually open to a very politically incorrect idea. It is so insulting that even to mention it may cause the site to crash. So rather than taking all the blame I will quote another so they can absorb the majority of the verbal abuse.

“How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect” ~ Maistre

If true it means that Man in nature is also an effect. We don’t cause anything. We are part of an effect called nature. The secular progressive philosophy is an effect. How can I blame an effect

The additional choice Greta omits is “awakening” – striving for conscious awareness as opposed to mechanical reactions. But since the concept is denied by all those who see the Great Beast as the ultimate form of human consciousness, there is no sense speaking to them of awakening. In their eyes there is nothing to awaken to and no choice other than to battle and choose your weapons.

Greta has her scapegoat. It is “US culture.” She is still closed even intellectually to the idea that we are an effect corresponding with the collective quality of human “being.” She will continue to cast blame as seekers of truth strive to “awaken.”

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:04 pm So what have we learned? First we’ve learned that Greta doesn’t know that hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. She thinks animals do this.

Greta wrote:

You have choices:
1. go with the flow
2. go with the flow and be angry
3. fight for change politically
4. fight for change physically.

Greta calls herself an observer which really means she likes to interpret for purposes of self justification

She omits the essential option which is experiencing both the external world and our inner world with detachment and conscious attention. Rather than choice being limited to mechanical REACTIONS, a person could strive to become capable of conscious ACTION. Of course asserting our choices being limited to mechanical reactions it is necessary to be at least intellectually open to a very politically incorrect idea. It is so insulting that even to mention it may cause the site to crash. So rather than taking all the blame I will quote another so they can absorb the majority of the verbal abuse.

I don't need to justify myself to you

I call myself an observer because I am an observer, you imbecile. Being an observer is otherwise known as "experiencing both the external world and our inner world with detachment and conscious attention". That's why one observes - to see what's going on.

I don't even know what you are talking about with the political correctness bullshit. Just more echoes of your mind, no doubt.

Nick_A wrote:

“How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect” ~ Maistre

If true it means that Man in nature is also an effect. We don’t cause anything. We are part of an effect called nature. The secular progressive philosophy is an effect. How can I blame an effect

The additional choice Greta omits is “awakening” – striving for conscious awareness as opposed to mechanical reactions. But since the concept is denied by all those who see the Great Beast as the ultimate form of human consciousness, there is no sense speaking to them of awakening. In their eyes there is nothing to awaken to and no choice other than to battle and choose your weapons.

Greta has her scapegoat. It is “US culture.” She is still closed even intellectually to the idea that we are an effect corresponding with the collective quality of human “being.” She will continue to cast blame as seekers of truth strive to “awaken.”

I made clear that, since the US is the only country in the world that has the problem of school shootings, then the problem is inherent in the culture. Then you grab that and call it scapegoating.

I have given you the chance to lift your game but you keep failing. Moving on.

Not much point talking to you. An AI chatbot would be less mechanistic and responsive than you, and it could not possibly fail to comprehend the import of its words to the extent that you do.

Arising_uk

Of course it is a matter for you. If I say to you that objective justice is what the Law is and it is that because of inter-subjective agreement as to what the Law is to be would you accept that as objective justice? If not can you tell me what 'objective justice' is to you?

As I understand it objective justice is a qualitative universal relationship between values independent of Man on earth. In other words if Man on earth were destroyed along with its subjective conceptions of justice, only objective justice would remain.

Still, can I quote you that in your 'new' world you won't be teaching our kids to read nor letting them read those we call Philosophers?

To the contrary I would allow them to experience the purpose of philosophy which is to remember what has been forgotten as it relates to wisdom.

Not quite the same thing but can I quote you that you don't believe in Christ's father 'God' nor a creator 'God' nor as a being in any sense then?

The ONE is also a trinity beyond the limits of time and space. The Christ within creation is in the image of the father but within the limits of time and space. No contradiction there.

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:34 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:04 pm So what have we learned? First we’ve learned that Greta doesn’t know that hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. She thinks animals do this.

Greta wrote:

You have choices:
1. go with the flow
2. go with the flow and be angry
3. fight for change politically
4. fight for change physically.

Greta calls herself an observer which really means she likes to interpret for purposes of self justification

She omits the essential option which is experiencing both the external world and our inner world with detachment and conscious attention. Rather than choice being limited to mechanical REACTIONS, a person could strive to become capable of conscious ACTION. Of course asserting our choices being limited to mechanical reactions it is necessary to be at least intellectually open to a very politically incorrect idea. It is so insulting that even to mention it may cause the site to crash. So rather than taking all the blame I will quote another so they can absorb the majority of the verbal abuse.

I don't need to justify myself to you

I call myself an observer because I am an observer, you imbecile. Being an observer is otherwise known as "experiencing both the external world and our inner world with detachment and conscious attention". That's why one observes - to see what's going on.

I don't even know what you are talking about with the political correctness bullshit. Just more echoes of your mind, no doubt.

Nick_A wrote:

“How can we be so willfully blind as to look for causes in nature when nature herself is an effect” ~ Maistre

If true it means that Man in nature is also an effect. We don’t cause anything. We are part of an effect called nature. The secular progressive philosophy is an effect. How can I blame an effect

The additional choice Greta omits is “awakening” – striving for conscious awareness as opposed to mechanical reactions. But since the concept is denied by all those who see the Great Beast as the ultimate form of human consciousness, there is no sense speaking to them of awakening. In their eyes there is nothing to awaken to and no choice other than to battle and choose your weapons.

Greta has her scapegoat. It is “US culture.” She is still closed even intellectually to the idea that we are an effect corresponding with the collective quality of human “being.” She will continue to cast blame as seekers of truth strive to “awaken.”

I made clear that, since the US is the only country in the world that has the problem of school shootings, then the problem is inherent in the culture. Then you grab that and call it scapegoating.

I have given you the chance to lift your game but you keep failing. Moving on.

Not much point talking to you. An AI chatbot would be less mechanistic and responsive than you, and it could not possibly fail to comprehend the import of its words to the extent that you do.

You have no idea of what either conscious attention or emotional detachment is. If you did you would admit how far you are from sustaining either.

A person can have more than one scapegoat.

All i can say is thank the powers that be that we are not married. Sheesh!

Can you imagine what it must be like for some kid in school to have the realization that they are surrounded by older emoting things with no conception that they are creatures of blind reaction. How do they keep their sanity when the secular progressives are striving to destroy their spiritual awareness and become "normal?" How do they avoid the demands of the crowd to join them and cast blame? Their only hope is to discover sources that have the same questions they do. it isn't easy but their need will find them.

Only fools fight in a burning house. Those who live by defining scapegoats will always be the fools fighting scapegoats. The true seekers of truth realize the house is burning and desire to escape blind slavery to group attachments which attack scapegoats. Their efforts can lead to far more meaningful results.

Nick wrote:

Only fools fight in a burning house.

That illustrates the wisdom of the enlightenment view of religion . The enlightenment view is founded not upon faith but upon reason which is available to everyone and never varies.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:18 am Nick wrote:

Only fools fight in a burning house.

That illustrates the wisdom of the enlightenment view of religion . The enlightenment view is founded not upon faith but upon reason which is available to everyone and never varies.

Both faith and reason easily fall victim to corruption and the creation of scapegoats to justify it. Consider Hitler’s statement on the Armenians. He uses reason to justify genocide. That’s really nothing to be proud of IMO. As usual the problem is the human condition people don’t want to admit which results in corruption

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Nick wrote:

He uses reason to justify genocide.

No. Sophistry is not reason.

Nick_A wrote:As I understand it objective justice is a qualitative universal relationship between values independent of Man on earth. ...

Give me examples of these independent values and then show me this 'qualitative universal relationship' between them?

In other words if Man on earth were destroyed along with its subjective conceptions of justice, only objective justice would remain.

Give me an example of this 'objective justice'?

To the contrary I would allow them to experience the purpose of philosophy which is to remember what has been forgotten as it relates to wisdom. ...

And how would you do this?

The ONE is also a trinity beyond the limits of time and space. ...

How do you know this?

The Christ within creation is in the image of the father but within the limits of time and space. No contradiction there.

'Father'? So not Plotinus then but a cobbled together 'secular version' of Christianity that you say you abhor.

In all of the above you seem to be unwise in the Socratic sense as you are speaking about what you cannot know but maybe I'm wrong, so tell me how you know such stuff?