Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

Prove it!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

Prove it!

Truth is! bro! Comon , smoke up dude.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

How do you remove the perspective of being able to remove the perspective ?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Like I've said, some here, are confused due to language, as it speaks of a condition. Language as to this case, only reports of an actuality, it matters not what labels are used. The condition is true in and of itself, no matter what you call it. The condition is absolute.

I see that as to absolute truth, you are hung up on the "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," problem. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be 'said' to exist and thus make a sound? What is it to 'say' that the sound exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists. And, as far as I'm concerned, this is where absolute comes from. Absolute is the status of a truth when all perspectives (beliefs) of man are removed, such that it is something he may come to know, once he's capable of removing himself, his flavoring the truth, (such that it's actually only belief), of any particular, contained within an objects completeness.

How do you remove the perspective of being able to remove the perspective ?

So you 'believe' it 'impossible' to nullify a percentage of perspective, where perspective comes loaded with preconceived ideas, huh, dude? Wha-cha drinkin, man? It's done every day via the scientific method, are you 'double blind' or what?

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

lancek4 wrote:Cosmology is a logic of a true universe. It is not absolutely true, it is true by virtue of the sense that has been made. The true universe supplies the material for logic and logic supllies the justification of what is true. Nothing arises from nothing. ...and we return to the discussion of the object. The absolute object exists by virtue of what is already known, and what is already known supplies the basis by which we are able to know what is true.

We are not dealing with things, we are dealing with facts.
Perhaps pick up wittgensteins Tractatus Logico Philophicus. See if you can get through that.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:in BLUE

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Lance, I can get through anything I 'want,' I always have and I always will. If you are referring to N's T A-C, I just really don't want to learn anything more about Christianity than I already know. To me learning about Christianity is a 'waste' of time. I never have been nor do I ever want to be a Christian. Remember earlier, back in Sept 2011 I told you that I hated mans GOD, nothing's changed.

Hate is such a strong word. Man's god. Hmmm; what about a god that is not man's ? Just joking.
Yes, I've already explained this to you, a GOD, of mans image, is that to which I refer.

There is one attitude that is a bar against all knowing, that is proof against all reason; that is contempt prior to investigation.

There is nothing that offends me so much as to prevent me from learning about it.
OK, I have tons of books on the Lockheed P3-C Orion, care to learn? Or how about a book on how to pick corn from your feces without getting your hands dirty? How about a book on menstruation and the various ways to deal with it, it comes complete with a coupon that you can redeem at your local store for some discounted tampons? My point is, that it is meaningless tripe, for any particular individual, for any number of reasons.

Christianity has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so I absolutely see no need to learn of it. And if in fact you argue that , so called, USA/world leaders allow it to influence them in their decision making, so what, I vote, I can't see how learning of Christianity would give me the ability to purge all Christianity from, would be, leaders, with a mere thought, so what good is it? I have no need to learn all of the in's and out's of such a 'fantasy' that has been responsible for fucking over peoples lives, they can take their inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and any thing else that's just as evil, and stick them up their arse!!! I don't really want to learn about tampons, and if i were a female I'd probably liken it to a jock strap.

The reason one can 'see no truth' in Christianity is because there isn't necessarily any, only a belief that they refer to as faith, which is just as necessarily real as a flying pink elephant, so why learn of them.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:in RED

lancek4 wrote:I think the word you are looking for is 'trope', and not tripe: pig intestines.

Sure, ones interest surely sculpts what one might be interested in investigating. But I have no contempt if I did need to look into those things.
It's just that I try not to expose myself to things that make me miserable. And as I read any religious text, I'm thinking of Galileo, Bruno and others, the hypocrisy, the BS about golden idols, yet the Vatican contains more gold that Fort Knox, the Genesis BS. It's just not worthy of my time, If I'm constantly shaking my head and crying, what's the fucking point? I'd rather stab my flesh than stab my mind, as flesh heals more readily, as far as I'm concerned. I'm at a point in my life were I just can't take any more bad news, it's just getting to be too much. Trust me when I say that if I knew of an island of forest that enjoyed four seasons, that no one had ever, and would ever find, I'd take my family there and live off the land like it's supposed to be, saying to hell with everyone else, I'm just sick of everyone's BS.

But so far as philosophy, Religion cannot be removed from consideration due to ones bias.
If it didn't exist, would you consider it? It's not about bias, it's about worthlessness. I consider it, just as if it was nonexistent. I guess I could do as a dog and chase my tail, but I prefer to be more productive.

Philosophy is about removing bias.
No, philosophy is about the truth of the matter, and as to that, Christianity bears no fruit, and so is discarded. Look I believe that Jesus was a cool philosopher, and I would like to have talked to him, but that's about it.