Philosophy Now Forum

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:28 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 14, 2020 8:58 am
You have a weird sense of what is real and truth.

I think by "realistic" you mean not weird. I think my philosophy is probably more weird that you presently know.

If one is going to be a philosophical realist, as I understand realism, then there are a few principles that must be in place.

1. The Principle of Presentation. What is present to your awareness exists and what exists can be present to your awareness.
2. One experiences the various things that exist directly and up close. One does not merely think about them indirectly and at a distance.
3. The differences between things are real.
4. Reality comes at me like a lover. Existence is sexual.


The reason I object to all anti-realism is that it is cool and distant and existence is not a lover. It is not sexual. It is socially proper. It finally has no sense of the Other. Of the Other coming at you and beguiling you. Anti-realism is the philosophy of control freaks with nothing to control.

Nah, realistic in this case do not mean not-weird.
As I had stated, realistic means you need to justify the given object is real with verified empirical evidence supported by the finest philosophical critical judgment.

I have already demonstrated the philosophical realists' 'real' external world is not ultimately real but in one perspective is an illusion.
Note your point 2 - for the philosophical realist, there is always a GAP [distance - macro to micro] between what-is-actualized-as-real and what-is-deemed-to-real.

• For example what is actualized as a real Sun is not really-real but rather a 9 minute historical Sun.
  What is actualized as a real Star-X in the sky is not really-real but merely light waves of a 100 light years historical Star. Star-X is real time could have exploded and do not exists at all.

• 3. The differences between things are real.
  Obviously they are real but only relatively real.
  A male is different from a female physically but they are the same human being.
  
  Re Delueze 'difference' he was contrasting against identity, i.e. A = A. Thus he implied A = not-A is real.
  
  4. Reality comes at me like a lover. Existence is sexual.
  The above are your personal views of reality, they are not generally accepted principles of reality.
  
  In reality as evident, to facilitate survival of the species, all humans are programmed with the sexual drive and the impulse to 'love' i.e. bonding.
  These impulses are expressed differently from different circumstances.

Note this from Russell;

Russell wrote:The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.
To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.

The philosophical realist is a bit better than the lay-person but goes no further from the grasp of the external world.

The philosophical anti-realist [Kant and the likes] on the other hand turned inward to his own self and accepts he and humans collectively are part and parcel of reality, thus intricately linked to reality.
It is from this view that the philosophical anti-realist is able to take control of his own life and contribute to humanity instead of forever blaming an independent external world he has no control of.

Note in Buddhism [which you are surrounded with at present] takes on whatever 'sufferings' [dukha] upon oneself and take responsibility to deal with the sufferings via the 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 Fold Paths instead to seeking external parties to blame.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:57 am instead to seeking external parties to blame.

Yes, yes, yes, I know you believe all that. You have told be so many times. I am trying to get you past saying the same old thing.

The Buddhists I am surrounded by are Vajrayana, Tantric Buddhists. They are always on the look out for some spirit that is up to no good and has to be exorcised. You are probably thinking of Western Secular Buddhism. I wonder what they are doing about Covid-19 in the monasteries. Maybe I should walk over and ask.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:15 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:08 am

I think we are irreconcilably different. I cannot understand how someone could be an idealist and you cannot understand how someone could be a realist. That is the end of the story. I do not belong to your idealist community. I am separate. But I doubt you could ever accept that. It seems to go against the very idea of idealism.

In like manner, an atheist will NEVER understand a theist and vice versa. A gay person cannot really understand a straight person and vice versa. And, I suppose, a politically conservative person will never understand a liberal and vice versa. The world is full of irreconcilable opposites and we just have to learn to live with it.

That said, I will be glad to defend my realism against your non-realism as long as you want. I love to write and I eventually put some things I write on this forum into my “book” or blog.

I have no problem understanding how someone would be a realist [philosophical].
By default I was born a realist, i.e. every human is born a realist [philosophical].
I was a philosophical realist and a theist for a long time.

However upon deeper philosophical reflection and the relevant mental practices, I managed to gather a deeper understanding of reality and of my own self, thus graduating to be a philosophical anti-realist and a non-theist till the present.
Btw, I have not abandoned the concept of the independent empirical external world but have overlapped it with an intra-dependent external_ness of the world.

Yes the world is full of irreconcilable opposites - that is the philosophy of antinomy and dualism.
But there is always unity within diversity as in the Yin-Yang model of complementarity.
What is critical for humans is to recognize this irreconcilable opposites and tread along the Middle-Way as promoted in Buddhism and other philosophy then avoiding the extremes.

You can defend your philosophical realism but where are your justified arguments to support your view?

Where are you trying to go with your philosophy? Are you aiming to grasp "Truth", to help mankind, to have a clear, rational mind, to be a good citizen? For me, philosophy is pleasure only. i think about God and existence and the Platonic Forms and I am turned on. And in the process, I have no doubt failed to be a good citizen and take proper care of my property. I am obsessed with/possessed by God and philosophical thought. If you think I am decadent and immoral, that is nothing to me. I see you as a moral, normal, middle-class, ordinary, good person who is sincerely concerned with helping mankind and you have a philosophy proper to such a person.

It is not "my" philosophy but what is the generic Philosophy-proper.

Note this thread I raised What is Philosophy
Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.

As a responsible citizen of humanity, thus I strives to align with the flow of what the faculty of philosophy is driving me towards.

If your proclivity is merely towards the attainment of pleasure only, then you are veering off from the alignment with the flow of life.
It is "programmed" inherently when one get out of alignment with the flow of life, pain is triggered. Such a pain may be immediate or infuses subliminally.

• For example if one do not eat, there will be the pains of the hunger pangs that drive one to eat food.
  Even if one do not f..k, there will also be pains that drive one to f..k to ease the pain.

It is a personal choice for one to decide to do with one's life and face whatever the consequences. For example Ghandi decided to do his ways and at the other extreme Hitler decided to things his choice and ways.

However, with Philosophy-proper one has first recognize what is general and then flow with it.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:57 am instead to seeking external parties to blame.

Yes, yes, yes, I know you believe all that. You have told be so many times. I am trying to get you past saying the same old thing.

The Buddhists I am surrounded by are Vajrayana, Tantric Buddhists. They are always on the look out for some spirit that is up to no good and has to be exorcised. You are probably thinking of Western Secular Buddhism. I wonder what they are doing about Covid-19 in the monasteries. Maybe I should walk over and ask.

Note my intention was with reference to Buddhism-proper re the 3 schools, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana.

According to Vajrayāna scriptures, the term Vajrayāna refers to one of three vehicles or routes to enlightenment, the other two being the Śrāvakayāna (also known pejoratively as the Hīnayāna) and Mahāyāna.
-wiki

Vajrayana is tantric but there are many different schools of Vajrayana and trantricism.

Those that look for spirit that is up to no good and has to be exorcised are merely from one fringe form of Buddhism that is combined with the old traditional non-Buddhistic religions, thus it is not Buddhism-proper.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:00 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:30 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:15 am
I have no problem understanding how someone would be a realist [philosophical].
By default I was born a realist, i.e. every human is born a realist [philosophical].
I was a philosophical realist and a theist for a long time.

However upon deeper philosophical reflection and the relevant mental practices, I managed to gather a deeper understanding of reality and of my own self, thus graduating to be a philosophical anti-realist and a non-theist till the present.
Btw, I have not abandoned the concept of the independent empirical external world but have overlapped it with an intra-dependent external_ness of the world.

Yes the world is full of irreconcilable opposites - that is the philosophy of antinomy and dualism.
But there is always unity within diversity as in the Yin-Yang model of complementarity.
What is critical for humans is to recognize this irreconcilable opposites and tread along the Middle-Way as promoted in Buddhism and other philosophy then avoiding the extremes.

You can defend your philosophical realism but where are your justified arguments to support your view?

Where are you trying to go with your philosophy? Are you aiming to grasp "Truth", to help mankind, to have a clear, rational mind, to be a good citizen? For me, philosophy is pleasure only. i think about God and existence and the Platonic Forms and I am turned on. And in the process, I have no doubt failed to be a good citizen and take proper care of my property. I am obsessed with/possessed by God and philosophical thought. If you think I am decadent and immoral, that is nothing to me. I see you as a moral, normal, middle-class, ordinary, good person who is sincerely concerned with helping mankind and you have a philosophy proper to such a person.

It is not "my" philosophy but what is the generic Philosophy-proper.

Note this thread I raised What is Philosophy
Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.

As a responsible citizen of humanity, thus I strives to align with the flow of what the faculty of philosophy is driving me towards.

If your proclivity is merely towards the attainment of pleasure only, then you are veering off from the alignment with the flow of life.
It is "programmed" inherently when one get out of alignment with the flow of life, pain is triggered. Such a pain may be immediate or infuses subliminally.

• For example if one do not eat, there will be the pains of the hunger pangs that drive one to eat food.
  Even if one do not f..k, there will also be pains that drive one to f..k to ease the pain.

It is a personal choice for one to decide to do with one's life and face whatever the consequences. For example Ghandi decided to do his ways and at the other extreme Hitler decided to things his choice and ways.

However, with Philosophy-proper one has first recognize what is general and then flow with it.

Ok, so that's how you see philosophy. I have no complaint concerning your feelings about the matter. You, of course, know that philosophy is different for me. I don't know or care if you have a problem with that or not.

The same thing could be said about your views of Buddhism. I don't know what the Buddhists here would think of your characterization of their religion. They probably wouldn't care what you think. What scholars think and read in their dictionaries is really not important. What's important is one's head-on encounter with the world. You do have more of a bookish, conceptual view of things.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:00 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:30 am

Where are you trying to go with your philosophy? Are you aiming to grasp "Truth", to help mankind, to have a clear, rational mind, to be a good citizen? For me, philosophy is pleasure only. i think about God and existence and the Platonic Forms and I am turned on. And in the process, I have no doubt failed to be a good citizen and take proper care of my property. I am obsessed with/possessed by God and philosophical thought. If you think I am decadent and immoral, that is nothing to me. I see you as a moral, normal, middle-class, ordinary, good person who is sincerely concerned with helping mankind and you have a philosophy proper to such a person.

It is not "my" philosophy but what is the generic Philosophy-proper.

Note this thread I raised What is Philosophy
Philosophy-proper is the "programmed" [via evolution] overriding mental drive of a neural algorithm to ensure the optimal well-being of the individuals and that of humanity via the meta-development and adoption of whatever mental tools* that is necessary.

As a responsible citizen of humanity, thus I strives to align with the flow of what the faculty of philosophy is driving me towards.

If your proclivity is merely towards the attainment of pleasure only, then you are veering off from the alignment with the flow of life.
It is "programmed" inherently when one get out of alignment with the flow of life, pain is triggered. Such a pain may be immediate or infuses subliminally.

• For example if one do not eat, there will be the pains of the hunger pangs that drive one to eat food.
  Even if one do not f..k, there will also be pains that drive one to f..k to ease the pain.

It is a personal choice for one to decide to do with one's life and face whatever the consequences. For example Ghandi decided to do his ways and at the other extreme Hitler decided to things his choice and ways.

However, with Philosophy-proper one has first recognize what is general and then flow with it.

Ok, so that's how you see philosophy. I have no complaint concerning your feelings about the matter. You, of course, know that philosophy is different for me. I don't know or care if you have a problem with that or not.

It is not based on what I feel.

As I had mentioned [in the thread] I had justified with evidence on what I believed is Philosophy-proper.
I have scrutinized more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all sources [Western, Eastern, everywhere] and extract the essence that is common within most of these definitions.

Whatever you claimed to be "philosophy" you ought to be intellectually responsible to justify your claim.

The same thing could be said about your views of Buddhism. I don't know what the Buddhists here would think of your characterization of their religion. They probably wouldn't care what you think. What scholars think and read in their dictionaries is really not important. What's important is one's head-on encounter with the world. You do have more of a bookish, conceptual view of things.

Just as with Philosophy-proper, I have done extensive research into Buddhism and what is Buddhism should be grounded on Buddhism's core principles of impermanence, anatta, dependent origination, 4NT and 8FP, two-truths theory, 4-truth theory, and various main principles.

If anyone think it is otherwise, then justify their claims as to 'what is Buddhism-proper'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:56 am
As I had mentioned [in the thread] I had justified with evidence on what I believed is Philosophy-proper.
I have scrutinized more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all sources [Western, Eastern, everywhere] and extract the essence that is common within most of these definitions.

Whatever you claimed to be "philosophy" you ought to be intellectually responsible to justify your claim.


If anyone think it is otherwise, then justify their claims as to 'what is Buddhism-proper'.

I am at a loss as to why you think a Buddhist must justify his claim to being a Buddhist. Likewise, I certainly feel no need to align myself with what others have thought philosophy is.

It might help if I describe a bit of my intellectual/religious background. I come from the American prairie, where there are no great institutions that guide us. There is only the wind, the vast blue sky, and endless distances ahead. The religion here, at least the charismatic part that I come from, comes more from African shamanism and native Americans. The African part came up from the Caribbean with the slave trade. And from that came Rock-n-Roll. A whole lotta shakin' goin' on. One had direct contact with the Holy Spirit and one learned from that. No one was concerned whether or not we were in line with European institutional thinking. The Spirit guided one's thinking. It is the same thing for me as a philosopher. It is the Spirit that guides me. Not philosophical dictionaries. And it is the Spirit that guides my interpretation of philosophical texts. In Deleuzean terms, it is the Infinitive that possesses me. I am isolated from others.

To justify, to have empirical evidence, to be intellectually responsible are the by-words and phrases today among the intelligentsia. But what does all that mean? It basically has to do with proper formatting. One must submit one’s data to a respectable journal. It must be written up in bland academic prose. It must have corroboration and citations. Of course a bibliography and footnotes are necessary. It must have the look of a peer reviewed submission. The journal’s editor/bishop must give his imprimatur. It’s all very High Church. Mere laymen telling you of their own personal experiences are of no value at all.

Simulacrum. The true Forms are scandalous, erotic and violent. Cum stains and tangled minds. They must be sanitized and fumigated to be socially acceptable. That’s why the Socrates that is taught in the universities is so bland. And the Jesus preached in the churches is so middle-class. The simulacra are rationalizations. The enchantment has been scraped off and politicians can honor them.

Oriental studies in religion, conducted mainly by Kant’s epigoni, turn Hinduism and Buddhism into bland Teutonic intellectualizing. They love to play with Sanskrit, the holy Aryan language. Thick compounding, as thick as a Teuton thigh.

Whenever I discuss Hinduism and Buddhism with “spiritual” Western intellectuals, they inevitably give me Kant and Hegel in Hindu/Buddhist drag. Even Eastern “intellectuals” do the same. I think they are trying to make the whole affair clean and presentable to the Queen, head of the Anglican Church. And they can get a good paying, respectable job at a university.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3HtZMP3BeU I like Sai Baba. I think he was a true Hindu holy man.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:56 am
As I had mentioned [in the thread] I had justified with evidence on what I believed is Philosophy-proper.
I have scrutinized more than 500 definitions of 'what is philosophy' from all sources [Western, Eastern, everywhere] and extract the essence that is common within most of these definitions.

Whatever you claimed to be "philosophy" you ought to be intellectually responsible to justify your claim.


If anyone think it is otherwise, then justify their claims as to 'what is Buddhism-proper'.

I am at a loss as to why you think a Buddhist must justify his claim to being a Buddhist. Likewise, I certainly feel no need to align myself with what others have thought philosophy is.

Your 'at a loss' infer a 'lack of' in that subject.

• 1. Buddhism is grounded on what the Buddha's core principles and nothing else.
  2. A Buddhist is one who practices Buddhism.
  3. Therefore a Buddhist's beliefs and practice must be justified to the Buddha's core principles and nothing else, surely not to Jesus' Muhammad, Moses' and others' teachings.

As I had stated the individual can align to what he likes but you have to understand what is a Category Mistake;

A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.

Thus you cannot represent 'Philosophy' as what Philosophy is generally accepted within the philosophy community, e.g. in this Philosophy Now Forum.

It might help if I describe a bit of my intellectual/religious background. I come from the American prairie, where there are no great institutions that guide us. There is only the wind, the vast blue sky, and endless distances ahead. The religion here, at least the charismatic part that I come from, comes more from African shamanism and native Americans. The African part came up from the Caribbean with the slave trade. And from that came Rock-n-Roll. A whole lotta shakin' goin' on. One had direct contact with the Holy Spirit and one learned from that. No one was concerned whether or not we were in line with European institutional thinking. The Spirit guided one's thinking. It is the same thing for me as a philosopher. It is the Spirit that guides me. Not philosophical dictionaries. And it is the Spirit that guides my interpretation of philosophical texts. In Deleuzean terms, it is the Infinitive that possesses me. I am isolated from others.

To justify, to have empirical evidence, to be intellectually responsible are the by-words and phrases today among the intelligentsia. But what does all that mean? It basically has to do with proper formatting. One must submit one’s data to a respectable journal. It must be written up in bland academic prose. It must have corroboration and citations. Of course a bibliography and footnotes are necessary. It must have the look of a peer reviewed submission. The journal’s editor/bishop must give his imprimatur. It’s all very High Church. Mere laymen telling you of their own personal experiences are of no value at all.

Simulacrum. The true Forms are scandalous, erotic and violent. Cum stains and tangled minds. They must be sanitized and fumigated to be socially acceptable. That’s why the Socrates that is taught in the universities is so bland. And the Jesus preached in the churches is so middle-class. The simulacra are rationalizations. The enchantment has been scraped off and politicians can honor them.

Oriental studies in religion, conducted mainly by Kant’s epigoni, turn Hinduism and Buddhism into bland Teutonic intellectualizing. They love to play with Sanskrit, the holy Aryan language. Thick compounding, as thick as a Teuton thigh.

Whenever I discuss Hinduism and Buddhism with “spiritual” Western intellectuals, they inevitably give me Kant and Hegel in Hindu/Buddhist drag. Even Eastern “intellectuals” do the same. I think they are trying to make the whole affair clean and presentable to the Queen, head of the Anglican Church. And they can get a good paying, respectable job at a university.

Noted your above points.

For you to narrow your criticism to merely "intellectuals" is too narrow and shallow as a counter.

However you need to realize all the above humans actions in your points are reduced to;
1. -what is good for humanity
2. -what is evil for humanity.

What is imperative is all humans must strive towards the 'highest good' for humanity sake and avoid and prevent the bad and terrible evil acts from humans.

All that I had adopted and presented so far is not merely "intellectual" [which is from one specific part of the brain] but rather is driven by the faculty of philosophy in the brain that utilize all the relevant tools, e.g. critical thinking, wisdom, logic, rationality, intelligence, morality/ethics, deep reflection, "spirituality," relevant mental practices, etc.

Without effective philosophical thinking, critical thinking, and the likes, you will not have the awareness and mindfulness that the SPIRIT that you are aligned with could be an EVIL SPIRIT which has driven so many to commit evil deeds that are negative and detrimental to humans and humanity.

The EVIL SPIRIT's evilness could range from low [1/100] to high [99/100].
Where the evilness is high it is obvious, e.g. where people are driven to mass murder, genocides, and the likes.
However where the evilness is low [lying, stealing, petty crimes, negative behaviors, etc.], it is not so noticeable and people will continue to do it to the detriment of themselves and humanity.

This is why humans must progress from their inherited animal thinking to effective philosophical thinking, critical thinking and other tools to ensure the individual[s] are guided to be aligned effectively and optimally to the highest good [from low to high].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3HtZMP3BeU I like Sai Baba. I think he was a true Hindu holy man.

Sai Baba had contributed to a lot of good but he was also surrounded by many scandals [sex] and exposures of his miracles [tricks].
Google "Sai Baba scandals" and you get loads of hits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am

Thus you cannot represent 'Philosophy' as what Philosophy is generally accepted within the philosophy community, e.g. in this Philosophy Now Forum.

I agree. My thoughts and words are definitely not what the vast majority of people on this forum think of as philosophy. Nor what the typical college student thinks philosophy is. I have a hard time thinking of where I would find like-minded people today. Nonetheless, I push on. Someday I may find my readers. Please note that I came of intellectual age in the 1960s when it was fashionable to be disruptive and anti-establishment. I think some of the Beat Poets would have understood. Now is a very conservative time and young people want to be respected. I'm unfazed by the tumultuous silence I receive on this forum.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am
Sai Baba had contributed to a lot of good but he was also surrounded by many scandals [sex] and exposures of his miracles [tricks].
Google "Sai Baba scandals" and you get loads of hits.

Every holy man that I have ever encountered has been surrounded by scandals, including the Little Buddha here in Nepal. Tantra and sex and violence go together, though many Trantriks try to present a respectable interpretation of that. A simulacrum of the real thing. Your moralism is not a real part of Hindu religion, in spite of what you read in books. Religion and the gods are all immoral. The atheists are right about that.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am

Thus you cannot represent 'Philosophy' as what Philosophy is generally accepted within the philosophy community, e.g. in this Philosophy Now Forum.

I agree. My thoughts and words are definitely not what the vast majority of people on this forum think of as philosophy. Nor what the typical college student thinks philosophy is. I have a hard time thinking of where I would find like-minded people today. Nonetheless, I push on. Someday I may find my readers. Please note that I came of intellectual age in the 1960s when it was fashionable to be disruptive and anti-establishment. I think some of the Beat Poets would have understood. Now is a very conservative time and young people want to be respected. I'm unfazed by the tumultuous silence I receive on this forum.

Since the last 5 years in this forum I noted you are one of those who is most on to more serious 'philosophy' with what you have posted and where you deviated I had already pointed that out.

Prior to 5 years ago [thereabout] there were many who were more rigorous with their philosophical presentations. These days most the posters are very superficial and has no hesitation to cling on to falsehoods [the SJW].

Note Buddha was very anti-establishment which a 180 degree shift to the then existing theistic paradigm of the Vedic establishment but the Buddha presented his views with solid arguments.
The philosophical anti-realist present very novel and counter views to the default view of an independent external world.
Note Hume counter to the typical causation but he argued soundly his way through.

Point is one can be disruptive and anti-establishment but one has to present their views objectively with sound arguments. Else it would merely be some ungrounded mystical views.

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am
Sai Baba had contributed to a lot of good but he was also surrounded by many scandals [sex] and exposures of his miracles [tricks].
Google "Sai Baba scandals" and you get loads of hits.

Every holy man that I have ever encountered has been surrounded by scandals, including the Little Buddha here in Nepal. Tantra and sex and violence go together, though many Trantriks try to present a respectable interpretation of that. A simulacrum of the real thing. Your moralism is not a real part of Hindu religion, in spite of what you read in books. Religion and the gods are all immoral. The atheists are right about that.

Hinduism is not a religion per se.
It is merely a term that represent all the religions 'Within of the Hindus river' in the Indian Continent.
As such within all these Hindu religions [including tantric], there will be those that are aligned with the 'good' while some will tend toward the 'evil.'

I had argued in the Morality section, empirical evidences of humanity has verified the trend of humanity since it emerged as trending towards the 'good' and avoiding what is 'evil'.

Therefore humanity must avoid what is identified as 'evil' inclined religions within Hinduism and promote those that are promoting the good.
Note,

• Virtue, right conduct, ethics and morality are part of the complex concept Hindus call Dharma - everything that is essential for people, the world and nature to exist and prosper together, in harmony.
  -wiki

Thus where there is immoral sex, violence and evil within any Hindu religions, then it must be avoided.
Note one of the extreme religion of Hinduism;

• The cannibal monks of Varanasi: Indian tribe feasts on human flesh, drink from skulls and live among the dead. Feared across India, the exiled Aghori monks of Varanasi feast on human flesh and reside near cremation sites in search of spiritual enlightenment.
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trav ... tribe.html

• The Aghori (Sanskrit aghora)[2] are a small group of vamacharic ascetic Shaiva sadhus. They engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, smear cremation ashes on their bodies, and use bones from human corpses for crafting kapalas (skull cups) and jewellery. Their practices are sometimes considered contradictory to orthodox Hinduism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori

Surely in time, the Indian Government must ban such an evil inclined religion and group.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:21 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am

Thus you cannot represent 'Philosophy' as what Philosophy is generally accepted within the philosophy community, e.g. in this Philosophy Now Forum.

I agree. My thoughts and words are definitely not what the vast majority of people on this forum think of as philosophy. Nor what the typical college student thinks philosophy is. I have a hard time thinking of where I would find like-minded people today. Nonetheless, I push on. Someday I may find my readers. Please note that I came of intellectual age in the 1960s when it was fashionable to be disruptive and anti-establishment. I think some of the Beat Poets would have understood. Now is a very conservative time and young people want to be respected. I'm unfazed by the tumultuous silence I receive on this forum.

Since the last 5 years in this forum I noted you are one of those who is most on to more serious 'philosophy' with what you have posted and where you deviated I had already pointed that out.

Prior to 5 years ago [thereabout] there were many who were more rigorous with their philosophical presentations. These days most the posters are very superficial and has no hesitation to cling on to falsehoods [the SJW].

Note Buddha was very anti-establishment which a 180 degree shift to the then existing theistic paradigm of the Vedic establishment but the Buddha presented his views with solid arguments.
The philosophical anti-realist present very novel and counter views to the default view of an independent external world.
Note Hume counter to the typical causation but he argued soundly his way through.

Point is one can be disruptive and anti-establishment but one has to present their views objectively with sound arguments. Else it would merely be some ungrounded mystical views.

We live in a time of high moralism. Everyone preaches high minded ethics and humanistic morality. We also live in a time of nominalism and idealism. Moreover, atheism is the soup du jour. Young intellectuals now feel they must be atheistic to be accepted by their peers. Every time has its own way of being disruptive and anti-establishment. I am able to present my ideas with phenomenological rigor. Still, there are certain things that are rock bottom and cannot be proven. That the world I see is real and not a figment of my imagination is one of those.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:38 am

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 5:26 am
Sai Baba had contributed to a lot of good but he was also surrounded by many scandals [sex] and exposures of his miracles [tricks].
Google "Sai Baba scandals" and you get loads of hits.

Every holy man that I have ever encountered has been surrounded by scandals, including the Little Buddha here in Nepal. Tantra and sex and violence go together, though many Trantriks try to present a respectable interpretation of that. A simulacrum of the real thing. Your moralism is not a real part of Hindu religion, in spite of what you read in books. Religion and the gods are all immoral. The atheists are right about that.

Hinduism is not a religion per se.
It is merely a term that represent all the religions 'Within of the Hindus river' in the Indian Continent.
As such within all these Hindu religions [including tantric], there will be those that are aligned with the 'good' while some will tend toward the 'evil.'

I had argued in the Morality section, empirical evidences of humanity has verified the trend of humanity since it emerged as trending towards the 'good' and avoiding what is 'evil'.

Therefore humanity must avoid what is identified as 'evil' inclined religions within Hinduism and promote those that are promoting the good.
Note,

• Virtue, right conduct, ethics and morality are part of the complex concept Hindus call Dharma - everything that is essential for people, the world and nature to exist and prosper together, in harmony.
  -wiki

Thus where there is immoral sex, violence and evil within any Hindu religions, then it must be avoided.
Note one of the extreme religion of Hinduism;

• The cannibal monks of Varanasi: Indian tribe feasts on human flesh, drink from skulls and live among the dead. Feared across India, the exiled Aghori monks of Varanasi feast on human flesh and reside near cremation sites in search of spiritual enlightenment.
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/trav ... tribe.html

• The Aghori (Sanskrit aghora)[2] are a small group of vamacharic ascetic Shaiva sadhus. They engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, smear cremation ashes on their bodies, and use bones from human corpses for crafting kapalas (skull cups) and jewellery. Their practices are sometimes considered contradictory to orthodox Hinduism.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori

Surely in time, the Indian Government must ban such an evil inclined religion and group.

Yes, I know all about the agori or sadhus. Villagers call them jhogis (yogis) and the children are afraid of them. The adults will tell you that they have powerful mantras and you must give them something to eat or they will utter a bad spell against you. There is no way the government will ever banish them. They are an integral part of religion. Here is a very good book on the topic - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2tmnhgx37ogj ... e.pdf?dl=0

tapaticmadness wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:41 am We live in a time of high moralism. Everyone preaches high minded ethics and humanistic morality. We also live in a time of nominalism and idealism. Moreover, atheism is the soup du jour. Young intellectuals now feel they must be atheistic to be accepted by their peers. Every time has its own way of being disruptive and anti-establishment. I am able to present my ideas with phenomenological rigor. Still, there are certain things that are rock bottom and cannot be proven. That the world I see is real and not a figment of my imagination is one of those.

The fact is humanity is naturally driven in progressing and trending [very slowly] towards higher and higher morality with the greater triggering of the DNA-based inherent faculty of morality with the human brain.
Note the clue re Mirror Neurons in the human brain [as those of the higher primates].

• In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

So it is not a choice but increasing morality is the natural progression of evolution.
Note the positive trend in the reduction of chattel slavery since 1000 to 500 years ago to the present which is driven by the invisible hand of morality within.
Why we need to philosophize about it is to find ways to expedite the moral process to counter the increasing volatility of evil rising within the world at present.

Theism at present is still a critical necessity for the majority due to the intrinsic inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.
Thus peer-pressure atheism is not effective at present and you will note many such atheists naturally are driven to theism when the internal existential crisis is triggered strongly. It is said, "there are no atheist in foxholes."
Those who are able to extricate themselves from theism into atheism more effectively are those who has the inclination for critical thinking to note God is illusory [evil in some cases] and they are able to rise above the pull of the existential crisis.

Even then the most hardcore atheist can fall back into theism especially during old age when his rational inhibitors are overridden by the forces of the existential crisis.

Note;

• https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
  Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.

This is why the world one time most notable hardcore atheist - Anthony Flew turned to God [deism] and shock the whole atheist community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew


Btw, note how I argued most of my points above and elsewhere with arguments and evidences not just based on personal views [opinions, belief] without supporting evidence.