Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 5:36 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 5:28 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 5:20 pm
But a free thinker is not someone who lacks a guiding star and a rudder. A free thinker is a principled nonconformist. There is little point in attending a business meeting and be unable to suggest a way ahead.

I couldn't be more grateful for my guiding star and rudder. The way ahead is tangential to the meaningless iteration.

You either take responsibility for what you mean, or you don't. Responsibility creates meaning from "the meaningless iteration". It doesn't matter if your or my meaning is tangential or not. What matters is your or my intention.

Why would I not? I put my name to it. And I couldn't be more intentional.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:51 pm
Largely, what “IC” is to me is a whole range of ideas.

Long understood who your main guide on this site defaults to! I suspect that eventually the complex tango of two losers trying to find each other will reach consummation.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:25 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:09 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 11:10 pm
Oh, I'm a simple, simple minded, simplistic, old simpleton, wee-wee end of the MENSA pool. I always go with consilience. I only know coherent, warranted, justified, true, beliefs. Science, and rationality beyond it. So we know that nature, existence, matter is infinite regardless of the A presentist minority and B eternalist majority theories of time, for example. A, me. Invincibly ignorantly so. Your understandings are doubtless way beyond me, like Lacanian analysis. That's OK. You can stoop, surely? Unless I am beneath contempt. If you have to explain, I can't know.

Unless you're whack, despite appearances so far.

Goo on (that's Leicester, that), try me.

Try you for what? Anything specific in mind? I wouldn't want to misconstrue! In spite of, or because of, your unimpaired clear-headed post, it appears it is I who must stoop, I who have rarely stooped or been stooped by anyone having now become a vagrant in my own domain, in short, dismally stooped. Simply put, I cannot surmount, even remotely, your perspicacious jambalaya of sibylline visions performing an act of Eternal Recurrence as ruled by the intersections of orthogonals creating the illusion of differences.

Aye, nowt changes do it? On average, from a distance, i.e. encompassing the multiverses or getting down to the undifferentiable, unqualifiable, ineffably unknowable dimensionless points of existence. The eternal (not -ist!) infinity of existence is homogenous at every level one way or another, the best it can do is like us. So, does strong uniformitarianism mandate the illusion of differences? Are there no objective measures of difference? The blue sky, the '30s brick, the hydrangeas, the sixth state of matter of my mind they're impinging upon with the need for a pee, yesterday, tomorrow, Ceti Alpha VI are indistinguishable in reality? Complexity isn't real? The homogeneity is complete across all unreal scales?

I have a more simple-minded view; I'm capable of no other!

The measurable differences are denoted by the distance space renders unto objects and what time renders unto events both in collusion merging into the cosmological principle of homogeneity when viewed from a distance of totality...or as Wagner put it in Parsifal...You see my son, here time changes into space.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:32 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:51 pm Largely, what “IC” is to me is a whole range of ideas.

Long understood who your main guide on this site defaults to! I suspect that eventually the complex tango of two losers trying to find each other will reach consummation.

Oh, thanks a million, M. Grumpasaurus!

What an absurd, and typically underhanded, statement.

It appears that underneath you, in your basic motivations, it is nothing more than negative animus.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:12 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:32 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 4:51 pm Largely, what “IC” is to me is a whole range of ideas.

Long understood who your main guide on this site defaults to! I suspect that eventually the complex tango of two losers trying to find each other will reach consummation.

Oh, thanks a million, M. Grumpasaurus!

What an absurd, and typically underhanded, statement.

It appears that underneath you, in your basic motivations, it is nothing more than negative animus.

I admit, I'm turning somewhat sour - nothing to do with age btw - but with the loathsome hypocrisy theists and half theists so rampant on this site interminably provide.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:25 pm Was it God who burned the little girl?

Or was it the humans who call themselves "Israelis" that burned her?

You need to place the blame where the blame actually belongs (on humans, not God).

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:46 pm Just try to imagine God up in Heaven totally aware of this little girl's terrible, terrible agony. And doing nothing.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:45 pm You need to stop assuming that the Creator of this universe is omnisciently aware of everything taking place in the universe - all at once.

God possessing "absolute omniscience" is nonsense!  It is a false concept.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am Sure, if the Christian God [or any other existing God] is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, that would change everything. 

But into what?

Into a more reasonable and rational vision of what God truly is -- which is simply (and "naturally") a fully matured (adult version) of what we (our minds) are.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am And believing what you do about God "in your head" "here and now" is not nearly the same [to some of us] as actually demonstrating His existence.

And what if God (for a very good reason) doesn't want her existence "demonstrated" to the vast majority of humans?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am And, as well, recognizing that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge, you might well change your mind about Him. As I did. A number of times.

I highly doubt that any "new information" provided by other humans could overshadow my personal experience of God, as was chronicled in my thread titled: "...My "Burning Bush-like" encounter with God..." which can be reached at this link...

viewtopic.php?t=41452
.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am As for exploring the concept of God up in the spiritual clouds, fine.

But sooner or later, in addition to theodicy, those of my ilk are going to get around to these parts:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path

Again, what if for an extremely good and vital reason, God cannot allow her existence to be "demonstrated" to the vast majority of humans?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am 2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and  religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?

What I am championing is not a "path" to immortality.

No, it is simply a speculative suggestion that all humans are the familial members of the "highest species of being" in all of reality (the same species of being as God).

And as such, immortality is already a "done deal."

In other words, other than perhaps a smidgin of gratitude for having been given the greatest and most amazing gift imaginable (Godhood), absolutely nothing is required of us to do...

(as in no specific paths, no specific religion, no rituals, no hoops to jump through, no nothing)

...in order to hold on to what we already (and will forever) possess.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am 3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

Your obsessive use of the obscure Heideggerian word "dasein," which, according to Google's AI Overview,...

In Martin Heidegger's philosophy, "Dasein" refers to the specific way that human beings exist, often translated as "being-there" or "being-in-the-world". It's not simply about existence, but about the unique way humans are aware of their own existence and how they relate to the world. Heidegger chose this term to avoid the metaphysical baggage associated with other terms like "soul" or "consciousness".

...only adds an unnecessary layer of fog into a conversation.

For if Heidegger chose the word "Dasein" in order to avoid the metaphysical baggage associated with other terms such as "soul" or "consciousness," then he failed miserably to make things clearer by employing that word (at least based on the above definition).

It may just be me, but all it (the term "Dasein") is, is just more clunky baggage added to the voyage, and you should stop assuming that it helps to clarify your arguments.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:46 pm Now, imagine if one of us mere mortals down here on Earth severely burned a child. The outrage would be overwhelming.

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:45 pmYou're kidding, right?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 9:46 pm Maybe it's just me, but I don't kid about severely burning anyone, let alone a child.

Ah,...the old ploy of taking something someone said, "out of context," and then using it to make a condescending point.

Shame on you. For you know, good and well, that what I said was a preface to this...

seeds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 10:45 pmMere mortals here on Earth are indeed severely burning children.  And in the case of the little girl you cited above, they are doing it with weaponry that America...

(my country, and a so-called "Christian" nation)

...has provided, and I am indeed outraged and sickened by it all.  How about you?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:23 am Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that an omniscient and omnipotent God knows of this and does nothing.

Other than in mythological fables and religious lore, since when is it an irrefutable "fact" that the Creator of this universe is "omniscient"?

The only irrefutable "fact" in the situation regarding the torturous burning of the innocent little Gazan girl, is that humans (not God) were the murderers.

And lastly, God did do something.

She has implored us, time and time again, through various means and messengers, not to harm one another, and to treat others as we would want to be treated by them, etc., etc..
_______

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:26 pm I admit, I'm turning somewhat sour — nothing to do with age btw — but with the loathsome hypocrisy theists and half theists so rampant on this site interminably provide.

Well then, do me this favor by

1) separating me from IC (we have extremely different orientations and our views are in no sense similar except that a) I do ‘believe’ that our created world is infused with numinousness and b) that I find a great deal that is of value and respectable in ‘the Christian traditions’), and

2) pointing out in what exactly my ‘hypocrisy’ consists.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:49 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:25 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 12:09 am

Try you for what? Anything specific in mind? I wouldn't want to misconstrue! In spite of, or because of, your unimpaired clear-headed post, it appears it is I who must stoop, I who have rarely stooped or been stooped by anyone having now become a vagrant in my own domain, in short, dismally stooped. Simply put, I cannot surmount, even remotely, your perspicacious jambalaya of sibylline visions performing an act of Eternal Recurrence as ruled by the intersections of orthogonals creating the illusion of differences.

Aye, nowt changes do it? On average, from a distance, i.e. encompassing the multiverses or getting down to the undifferentiable, unqualifiable, ineffably unknowable dimensionless points of existence. The eternal (not -ist!) infinity of existence is homogenous at every level one way or another, the best it can do is like us. So, does strong uniformitarianism mandate the illusion of differences? Are there no objective measures of difference? The blue sky, the '30s brick, the hydrangeas, the sixth state of matter of my mind they're impinging upon with the need for a pee, yesterday, tomorrow, Ceti Alpha VI are indistinguishable in reality? Complexity isn't real? The homogeneity is complete across all unreal scales?

I have a more simple-minded view; I'm capable of no other!

The measurable differences are denoted by the distance space renders unto objects and what time renders unto events both in collusion merging into the cosmological principle of homogeneity when viewed from a distance of totality...or as Wagner put it in Parsifal...You see my son, here time changes into space.

Nice. Very nice. Sorry! Ah, but, complexity is computable. Entropic. Real. Variable, in value.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:05 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:49 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 8:25 am
Aye, nowt changes do it? On average, from a distance, i.e. encompassing the multiverses or getting down to the undifferentiable, unqualifiable, ineffably unknowable dimensionless points of existence. The eternal (not -ist!) infinity of existence is homogenous at every level one way or another, the best it can do is like us. So, does strong uniformitarianism mandate the illusion of differences? Are there no objective measures of difference? The blue sky, the '30s brick, the hydrangeas, the sixth state of matter of my mind they're impinging upon with the need for a pee, yesterday, tomorrow, Ceti Alpha VI are indistinguishable in reality? Complexity isn't real? The homogeneity is complete across all unreal scales?

I have a more simple-minded view; I'm capable of no other!

The measurable differences are denoted by the distance space renders unto objects and what time renders unto events both in collusion merging into the cosmological principle of homogeneity when viewed from a distance of totality...or as Wagner put it in Parsifal...You see my son, here time changes into space.

Nice. Very nice. Sorry! Ah, but, complexity is computable. Entropic. Real. Variable, in value.

To slightly paraphrase Reginald Perrin's boss, we wouldn't be where we are today if that weren't true.

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi351386649/

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 6:37 pm A ‘drifter’ is I think a real category. If one considers “Sixties radicalism” as a genuine sentiment and idea-based stance against frozen conventions, and a seeking after more human ways of being and acting, to be a “free thinker” makes sense.

But there really is a philosophical (and also a religious) underpinning to the motivating ideas.

A “drifter” would be someone a bit on the spectrum of postmodernism, I think. It could be described as a negation or avoidance of commitment.

And one thing, Martin — I may call you Martin mayn’t I? — is that IC cannot be said to be without commitments.

So you misunderstand why I value his stance and contributions.

It's all beholder's share isn't it Alexis? And I behold you being consiliatory. If you behold me a drifter, fine. Not what I behold in the mirror. Your opening sentence may be blurring drifter via sixties radical to free thinker. I'm not sure. I'm not smart enough by a country mile. But I still behold conciliation. I don't feel like a drifter. As a free thinker I run to the chains of materialism. A nice paradox, no? Although my path through adolescence was nihilst, marxist, fundamentalist... I only became free, after five decades of accelerating de-re-construction, with the grievous loss of God six years ago. Drift? Don't see it. Lower middle class, low end Mensa, ADHD, young, i.e. emotionally immature, for my cohort, neurotic, extroverted blah-di-blah-di-bloody-blah. A very, too late, developer. An atheist republican who's proud to say God Save the King!

The only philosophical motivation I have is staring in to eternity, and trying to be kind because beyond phenomenology is the Rogerian, in the light of eternity. So I'm about my lifespan behind the times. Yeah I'm postmodern in being skeptical to say the least, denying the notion of universal truths, embracing the complexity and contradictions of modern life. Love the architecture. The art. The poetry. In amongst up to the early C20th in all. My favourite film for decades was Blade Runner.

And you must call me Martin! Or anything you please. And yes IC is 110% committed. And should be.

Weak wit there.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:21 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:05 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 7:49 pm

I have a more simple-minded view; I'm capable of no other!

The measurable differences are denoted by the distance space renders unto objects and what time renders unto events both in collusion merging into the cosmological principle of homogeneity when viewed from a distance of totality...or as Wagner put it in Parsifal...You see my son, here time changes into space.

Nice. Very nice. Sorry! Ah, but, complexity is computable. Entropic. Real. Variable, in value.

To slightly paraphrase Reginald Perrin's boss, we wouldn't be where we are today if that weren't true.

https://www.imdb.com/video/vi351386649/

CJ! And Reggie's cat's name was Ponsonby. "He knew the rhubarb crumble sales figures for Schleswig-Holstein, but didn't know the names of the flowers and the trees", from memory. "He didn't know the names of the trees and the flowers, but he knew the rhubarb crumble sales figures for Schleswig-Holstein." not bad.

That, Martin, was very clearly written out and enables me to better understand you and your position. As I said previously: I could not understand, except very vaguely, some of your other posts.

Conciliatory, you say? I think you might mean that in the sense of enabling who you’ve termed “the troll”. That might seem so to you if seen superficially and personally, but I am talking far more about the very foundations of ideas. What undergirds the Occident, therefore ourselves.

Again and as I said: I am interested in how these ideas, and the collapse of belief, and the grasping anew after belief, and the reconstruction of metaphysics as that is happening, plays out in real time (and my largest field of interest is this bizarre phenomenon known as “America”). I am not interested in personal spats, upset, bad feelings and all the rest of what too often plays out in these conversation.

My term “drifter” was not, is not, intended personally. And you confirmed the sense that I pick up from you. You described your “drift” and I do not say it is a bad thing. It is something that is happening around us.

Obviously, I am more interested (personally) and more involved with re-grounding. And I read a lot of material by people also drawn or compelled toward that process.

I only became free, after five decades of accelerating de-re-construction, with the grievous loss of God six years ago.

This seems to explain why you gravitate to this thread and the interchanges here that, I gather, irk you.

Fairly typical on this forum, it seems to me. The opposition to ‘belief’ and ‘believers’ generally follow a standard formula.

GK Chesterton on Christianity:

I will not call it my philosophy; for I did not make it. God and humanity made it; and it made me.

Of course this is true for all of us Westerners -- even us atheists and agnostics. Hostility toward Christianity sometimes seems like a form of self-hatred.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 12:54 am GK Chesterton on Christianity:

I will not call it my philosophy; for I did not make it. God and humanity made it; and it made me.

Of course this is true for all of us Westerners -- even us atheists and agnostics. Hostility toward Christianity sometimes seems like a form of self-hatred.

LIFO. Grandiose old Chesterton's Thomist God is my, humanity's, cultural construct. And superfluous therefore. Philosophy is human. We make us That's humble.

Where appropriate, like here much of the time, I am hostile to the evils of Christianity being declared good in terror. I naturally hate those evils that embrace me and I reciprocated. And I work on transcending that self hate, and embracing all I have been and the humanity that made me. As a Rogerian should. And being Rogerian I can see the arc of the moral universe evolving in Christianity still. I much prefer Catholic (including Orthodox) Christianity to Lutheran-Calvinist. I literally loved Francis, saw him once, even John Paul I when I was a rabid anti-Catholic. And like the idea of Pope Bob. We can do business together Alexis. Despite your being part of the axis of evil : ) One way or another being an apologist for the humanity of God.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:34 pm That, Martin, was very clearly written out and enables me to better understand you and your position. As I said previously: I could not understand, except very vaguely, some of your other posts.

Conciliatory, you say? I think you might mean that in the sense of enabling who you’ve termed “the troll”. That might seem so to you if seen superficially and personally, but I am talking far more about the very foundations of ideas. What undergirds the Occident, therefore ourselves.

Again and as I said: I am interested in how these ideas, and the collapse of belief, and the grasping anew after belief, and the reconstruction of metaphysics as that is happening, plays out in real time (and my largest field of interest is this bizarre phenomenon known as “America”). I am not interested in personal spats, upset, bad feelings and all the rest of what too often plays out in these conversation.

My term “drifter” was not, is not, intended personally. And you confirmed the sense that I pick up from you. You described your “drift” and I do not say it is a bad thing. It is something that is happening around us.

Obviously, I am more interested (personally) and more involved with re-grounding. And I read a lot of material by people also drawn or compelled toward that process.

I only became free, after five decades of accelerating de-re-construction, with the grievous loss of God six years ago.

This seems to explain why you gravitate to this thread and the interchanges here that, I gather, irk you.

Fairly typical on this forum, it seems to me. The opposition to ‘belief’ and ‘believers’ generally follow a standard formula.

I can be gnomic. As can you. We dance and get closer. I tend to be gnomic in response to the gnomic, 'elegantly matching' idiolect.

Our getting closer, conciliating, has happened whilst you were already conciliating with IC, yes. So he's not your troll. Has he reciprocated? Explicated his ideas beyond wooden literalism? You are far more orthogonal to that than poor Iam. But is it fruitful? Or has it settled in to an epicyclic orbit? Is there an expansion of that? Does it cover more and more space?

My collapse of belief is trivial, infinitesimal and non-representative, even though my beliefs were acquired from America. I brainwashed myself in to Armstrongism from the age of 15 in '69, because of how they grasped the nettle of Hiroshima and Auschwitz. It took 50 years of de-re-construction to stop believing in an instant.

I didn't regard the term drifter as ad hominem. Much! (no irony). I went with the information flow. Against my will often. Finally against my desire.

I feel I have re-grounded, as much as is possible at 71, in my lower middle class mediocrity; I only attained the technical middle class, not the professional after all, ADHD will out. For which I'm grateful, the key to happiness. I'm the dim but dogged bloke on the bus, whose moral and intellectual development has come through much, long, failure. Still.

And why I will have commonalities with un- dis-believers. And believers.