Philosophy Now Forum

RC

"Well, as long as one has the right, 'feelings,' it doesn't matter what one actually does or thinks," is the philosophy that will ultimately destroy, and is destroying the human race. One might have some sympathy for humanity if all its so-called, "condition," were something foisted on it and not the consequence of it's own choices and actions.

The, "human race," despises true humanity and all it's efforts are in opposition to human success: its governments, religions, ideologies, and worship of gangs (collectives) are all designed to repress those who would not join their headlong rush to destruction and the only human beings worth caring about, those who will not swallow their ideologies, support their agencies of oppression, join their gangs, and actually think for themselves, produce something of value, and make something of their lives, the only human beings capable of civilized relationships with other human beings and the only ones worthy of the designation, human.

Do you believe that the results of society are a choice or do they just happen the way life happens in the jungle which Plato described as the Beast:

In Book VI of his Republic Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society:

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

If Plato is right, isn't the acquired results of humanity worthy of compassion since it isn't natural but just mechanical reactions to natures laws. If we have become abnormal Man who has lost the capacity for conscious choice and become like a beast, isn't that worthy of compassion?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:23 am
If Plato is right, isn't the acquired results of humanity worthy of compassion since it isn't natural but just mechanical reactions to natures laws. If we have become abnormal Man who has lost the capacity for conscious choice and become like a beast, isn't that worthy of compassion?

Who's going to be around to practice all this compassion for a species which has utterly failed itself...and since everything defaults to Purpose, what in hindsight of this failure would be the purpose of all this useless compassion?

It may take awhile, but nature has always been exceptional in junk removal.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:31 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:23 am
If Plato is right, isn't the acquired results of humanity worthy of compassion since it isn't natural but just mechanical reactions to natures laws. If we have become abnormal Man who has lost the capacity for conscious choice and become like a beast, isn't that worthy of compassion?

Who's going to be around to practice all this compassion for a species which has utterly failed itself...and since everything defaults to Purpose, what in hindsight of this failure would be the purpose of all this useless compassion?

It may take awhile, but nature has always been exceptional in junk removal.

The purpose is the reason for Christianity

Romans 7

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Christianity hasn't improved the world by one iota; the opposite is true. It was fraudulent to begin with maintaining itself purely through lies, subterfuge and coercion. Those with the morals of a Trump would have reached high levels in its hierarchy. The horrors Christianity imposed on others, especially indigenous populations, exceeds anything written by H.P. Lovecraft. Christianity and Islam are one of civilization's most potent and longest lasting brain diseases. When Christ got crucified like so many others during the same year - meaning there was nothing special in his execution - that should have been the end of it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:46 am
No clue what you are talking about?
May help if you give examples.

To ask "what" is to automatically reduce truth to an object such as a cup or a pencil. In asking "what" we already reduce truth, through the question, to that of an object which in turn limits the answer to a specific type of phenomenon. In reducing truth to a specific type of phenomenon we limit all available answers as to the question of truth. In trying to understand truth we must open it up to a variety of phenomena such as "who/when/where/how/why" and this can be addressed under the simple question "truth?".

I understand your point in getting to the highest possible precision of what is truth, BUT;

1. What is the purpose with the idea of 'truth'?

2. Truth has survival values to humans.

3. But human are exposed to degrees of threats to survival and opportunities for growth.

4. But re point 1-3 we need to restrict/limit the degree of 'what is truth' to optimize within the known conditions.

What matter is 'what is truth' but we also need to discuss 'what is truth' in various perspectives from the highest possible to the lowest but not to falsehood.

If truth has a survival value one has to look at the truth value of survival.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:30 am Christianity hasn't improved the world by one iota; the opposite is true. It was fraudulent to begin with maintaining itself purely through lies, subterfuge and coercion. Those with the morals of a Trump would have reached high levels in its hierarchy. The horrors Christianity imposed on others, especially indigenous populations, exceeds anything written by H.P. Lovecraft. Christianity and Islam are one of civilization's most potent and longest lasting brain diseases. When Christ got crucified like so many others during the same year - meaning there was nothing special in his execution - that should have been the end of it.

Let's discuss it if you are willing. First, what do you believe a Christian is? Soren Kierkegaard wrote:

People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.

(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Obviously the word "Christian" has lost its meaning in secular society. A Christian seems to be anyone who calls themselves Christian. This is like an MD or a lawyer being a person who calls themselves an MD or a lawyer. It is meaningless. So to discuss it requires first agreeing as to what a Christian is.

Nick, traditionally being a Christian has been defined by belief in the historicity of the Resurrection event.
Xianity , more than any other religion, is defined by what a person believes more than what a person does.
It was this that Kierkegaard wanted to change.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:09 am Nick, traditionally being a Christian has been defined by belief in the historicity of the Resurrection event.
Xianity , more than any other religion, is defined by what a person believes more than what a person does.
It was this that Kierkegaard wanted to change.

This is like modern New Age philosophy. If a man believes he is a woman, then he is a woman. A person calling themselves a Christian should be able to do better than this

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:09 am Nick, traditionally being a Christian has been defined by belief in the historicity of the Resurrection event.
Xianity , more than any other religion, is defined by what a person believes more than what a person does.
It was this that Kierkegaard wanted to change.

I'll bet my house Jesus would want to change it as well. Indeed, he makes a grand effort to do so in the book A Course in Miracles.

Classical Christianity was not faith-dependent and was grounded in knowledge and dedicated to the acquisition of it. But then the Roman Church was constituted and it all went pear-shaped.

A modern Christian may be happy to agree with a Buddhist and a Sufi about the nature of Reality, or may regard these 'other religions' as heretical. So one has to be careful when stereotyping Christians.

PeteJ wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:34 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:09 am Nick, traditionally being a Christian has been defined by belief in the historicity of the Resurrection event.
Xianity , more than any other religion, is defined by what a person believes more than what a person does.
It was this that Kierkegaard wanted to change.

I'll bet my house Jesus would want to change it as well. Indeed, he makes a grand effort to do so in the book A Course in Miracles.

Classical Christianity was not faith-dependent and was grounded in knowledge and dedicated to the acquisition of it. But then the Roman Church was constituted and it all went pear-shaped.

A modern Christian may be happy to agree with a Buddhist and a Sufi about the nature of Reality, or may regard these 'other religions' as heretical. So one has to be careful when stereotyping Christians.

Does Jesus' claim: "You know them by their fruits" endorse your claim, PeteJ ?(Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:30 amChristianity hasn't improved the world by one iota; the opposite is true. It was fraudulent to begin with maintaining itself purely through lies, subterfuge and coercion. Those with the morals of a Trump would have reached high levels in its hierarchy. The horrors Christianity imposed on others, especially indigenous populations, exceeds anything written by H.P. Lovecraft. Christianity and Islam are one of civilization's most potent and longest lasting brain diseases. When Christ got crucified like so many others during the same year - meaning there was nothing special in his execution - that should have been the end of it.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:22 amLet's discuss it if you are willing. First, what do you believe a Christian is? Soren Kierkegaard wrote...:

As a touchstone of the Cartesian Man (Cartesian Self) there is no greater definition, I think, than that supplied by Kierkegaard. I read him a long time ago and considered much of what he wrote extremely insightful and stimulating. In spite of disagreeing with some of his views the differences still leave an imprint based on the brilliance of how they’re expressed. As the first true existentialist, his Leap of Faith concept seems to me not so unlike Nietzsche’s Will to Power idea, the former being invested in the latter for it to function. Leap of Faith is also not so different from N’s Eternal Recurrence which requires the illogic of faith to accept to the point of loving it. I think Nietzsche himself would have noticed a similarity. The Leap of Faith concept goes beyond its usual religious affiliations requiring belief more than truth - of which Nietzsche was already aware - to stretch the psyche beyond its encountered limitations.

But I’m not interested in discussing it further. You and I are too far apart on everything to make a conversation viable which we never yet managed to do.

To make matters easier, becoming a Christian takes place in three steps.

The first is the wish to be Christian. Something at the depths of a human being is attracted to meaning not felt in the world. It is offered by Christianity.

The second step is the ability to be Christian. It is one thing to wish it and another to be able to be Christian. St paul describes above our inability to be Christian through our own efforts. It needs the help of the energy of the Holy Spirit.

The third step is to be Christian. It is the transition from the wish to be and becoming Christian. The wish to be Christian is a pre-Christian while a Christian follows in the precepts of Christ. Becoming able is the Christian effort. That is why there are so few Christians

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:10 pm To make matters easier, becoming a Christian takes place in three steps.

The first is the wish to be Christian. Something at the depths of a human being is attracted to meaning not felt in the world. It is offered by Christianity.

The second step is the ability to be Christian. It is one thing to wish it and another to be able to be Christian. St paul describes above our inability to be Christian through our own efforts. It needs the help of the energy of the Holy Spirit.

The third step is to be Christian. It is the transition from the wish to be and becoming Christian. The wish to be Christian is a pre-Christian while a Christian follows in the precepts of Christ. Becoming able is the Christian effort. That is why there are so few Christians

So how is all you say different from say, Islam, or Judaism?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:34 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:10 pm To make matters easier, becoming a Christian takes place in three steps.

The first is the wish to be Christian. Something at the depths of a human being is attracted to meaning not felt in the world. It is offered by Christianity.

The second step is the ability to be Christian. It is one thing to wish it and another to be able to be Christian. St paul describes above our inability to be Christian through our own efforts. It needs the help of the energy of the Holy Spirit.

The third step is to be Christian. It is the transition from the wish to be and becoming Christian. The wish to be Christian is a pre-Christian while a Christian follows in the precepts of Christ. Becoming able is the Christian effort. That is why there are so few Christians

So how is all you say different from say, Islam, or Judaism?

Islam doesn't accept the Trinity and Judaism refers to pleasing a personal God. Christianity is centered around the the meaning of the Cross.

Christianity is a perennial tradition so its essence always was.

St Augustine said, "The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called "Christian."

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:44 pm
To ask "what" is to automatically reduce truth to an object such as a cup or a pencil. In asking "what" we already reduce truth, through the question, to that of an object which in turn limits the answer to a specific type of phenomenon. In reducing truth to a specific type of phenomenon we limit all available answers as to the question of truth. In trying to understand truth we must open it up to a variety of phenomena such as "who/when/where/how/why" and this can be addressed under the simple question "truth?".

I understand your point in getting to the highest possible precision of what is truth, BUT;

1. What is the purpose with the idea of 'truth'?

2. Truth has survival values to humans.

3. But human are exposed to degrees of threats to survival and opportunities for growth.

4. But re point 1-3 we need to restrict/limit the degree of 'what is truth' to optimize within the known conditions.

What matter is 'what is truth' but we also need to discuss 'what is truth' in various perspectives from the highest possible to the lowest but not to falsehood.

If truth has a survival value one has to look at the truth value of survival.

There is no problem with that.
The truth [in alignment with reality] of survival is that ALL* humans are "programmed" to survive till the inevitable.
* all means normal human beings, those who have suicide tendencies are not normal as per DSM-V.