Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing

Yes, it does exist and yes this characteristic about you has occurred to me because of the way you tell people over and over that they are in league with spirit-killing and the great beast. These are hateful attitudes, Nick, and you've done it even when I've made an effort to have a reasonable conversation with you. It's as if you suddenly can't stand the questioning and exploration, and you have to start spewing your venom fast and furious to coat everything in a thick, impenetrable slime. It's like you're trying to obscure anything that would reveal how limited and hateful your position is.

This is the essence of our conflict. You and others believe there is something hateful and ignorant about defending Plato’s concept of the Beast and spirit killing in the young. Spirit killing is the destruction of the natural tendency for wonder and replacing it with curiosity and egoistic self justification. It is repulsive for secular progressives because it assumes human “meaning” associated with a quality of intelligence beyond our comprehension. For you such realization is considered a hateful attitude

Maybe Greta came up with a good description of what a lot of people have apparently seen for themselves. Surely you are aware that I've been blasting your behavior for a long time. It doesn’t matter if you believe you are speaking the truth about other people -- you receive enough feedback to the contrary, so your ignorance and delusion are not justification for such false and hateful accusations. You need to be accountable, and people have a right (and perhaps even a duty) to hold you and your absurdity in check. I'm glad to help when I can.

But the reality is that expressing philosophical ideas is not personal nor are they accusations. We are in Plato’s cave. We are atoms of the Great Beast and secular progressive education causes metaphysical repression leading to spirit killing. Do you read me cursing out Donald Trump or anyone else? It isn’t necessary. These are philosophical ideas which people must be open to before they can be discussed. You and others consider these philosophical ideas to be expressions of hateful attitudes. This is why the subject of education could never be discussed here Emotional preconceptions concerning hateful attitudes would prevent it.

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:46 pm Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying only effect those who have very thin skin and actually care what others on the internet think of them. Most don't care what strangers think of them.

What if people felt the same way when they attended a Buddhist sangha? Suppose the sangha encouraged verbal abuse. Would this be appropriate and considered a sign of progress? If not, why not?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:14 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:46 pm Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying only effect those who have very thin skin and actually care what others on the internet think of them. Most don't care what strangers think of them.

What if people felt the same way when they attended a Buddhist sangha? Suppose the sangha encouraged verbal abuse. Would this be appropriate and considered a sign of progress? If not, why not?

I was under the impression that the verbal abuse and cyber bulling was an internet phenomenon not a face to face experience.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:08 am Spirit killing is the destruction of the natural tendency for wonder and replacing it with curiosity and egoistic self justification.

I've not heard anyone here or anywhere in my circles of life who WANTS or STRIVES for the destruction of the natural tendency for wonder. So why are you accusing INDIVIDUALS, unless it's for your own ego trip?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:08 am For you such realization is considered a hateful attitude

Not at all -- it is your constant accusations against individuals that is hateful. There is no reason for you to be accusing individuals on this forum of these things. You're human... ACCUSE YOURSELF! You are presenting yourself as some higher-than-thou being who can throw all of these accusations at other individuals, and it's just so stupid. You don't know any of these people. If you want to really be effective, go face off with organizations who have some power and influence. If you want to talk philosophy, then talk about it -- you don't need to accuse individuals of these giant dark and destructive traits.

What do you THINK their response is going to be when you label and accuse them in such a way? It's absurd and doesn't accomplish anything. It's just your hateful fury.

I make observations and you call them accusations. Why?

Consider these observations

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

'Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached.” ~ Simone Weil

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." - Simone Weil

I know that those like Greta are strongly attached to emotional defenses so need to project them on to those like me. All my studies have proven to me how psychologically dangerous emotional attachment is. Anyone with a serious interest in philosophy or the essence of religion must first admit their slavery to emotional attachment with the goal of freedom from it. Without this all we do is exchange one attachment and defense mechanism for another making things worse for ourselves.

I observe that we are in Plato’s cave. You call it an accusation. Why? I observe that metaphysical repression leading to spirit killing exists in schools. You call this observation an accusation. Why? What would it take for you to admit that it is a defensive emotional reaction based on projection?

Nick_A wrote:I would like to discuss education but I know it is impossible here. The dominant secular mindset wouldn’t allow it. ...

What a ridiculous thought.

The purpose of modern progressive education as I’ve witnessed it is to create indoctrinated automatons in service to the state. ...

So much like Plato's aim then.

I believe the purpose of education is to create the environment allowing students to become human beings. ...

So you keep saying but what does it mean and more to the point what would it entail?

The secular mindset seeks to teach facts. ...

Not really, in the main it's to teach them to read and write so they can find out things for themselves.

Human education enables the student to experience and inwardly verify a human perspective within which facts have their place. ...

So basically to choose only those facts which support this 'experience' and to ignore those that don't? What or how is this 'experience' done or taught, how is it 'inwardly verified' and what is this 'human perspective'?

This would never be possible here simply because secularists do not appreciate what a human being is, the human condition, and how it deprives us of a human perspective. ...

I don't think you mean a human perspective rather a subservient relationship to some imaginary being, i.e. your 'God'.

There are a minority in the real world who do distinguish between a human education and social indoctrination. I haven’t encountered them here so it would be foolish for me to take the responsibility of starting a thread on education which would be ridiculed into oblivion doing more harm then good. Sometimes you have to let sleeping dogs lie.

If it was a good idea I doubt ridicule could do much against it.

“The one continuing purpose of education, since ancient times, has been to bring people to as full a realization as possible of what it is to be a human being. Other statements of educational purpose have also been widely accepted: to develop the intellect, to serve social needs, to contribute to the economy, to create an effective work force, to prepare students for a job or career, to promote a particular social or political system. These purposes offered are undesirably limited in scope, and in some instances they conflict with the broad purpose I have indicated; they imply a distorted human existence. The broader humanistic purpose includes all of them, and goes beyond them, for it seeks to encompass all the dimensions of human experience.” —Arthur W. Foshay, “The Curriculum Matrix: Transcendence and Mathematics,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1991

"What it is to be a human being" is open to interpretation, what is yours? What does it involve?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 4:10 pm I make observations and you call them accusations. Why?

Such are not observations -- they are accusations made against individuals in the form of absolute claims about what that individual does or doesn't believe or accept/reject, which you cannot fucking know, and regardless of that individual's repeated feedback to you to the contrary. Also, as I've repeated for you countless times, you accuse individuals of being spirit-killers and in service to the great beast; there is no reason for you to make these accusations against individuals -- that is dishonest and hateful, and unnecessary for making your broader philosophical observations or points.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

Yes, this is what you do.

I know that those like Greta are strongly attached to emotional defenses so need to project them on to those like me.

And there's an example of you projecting.

'Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached.” ~ Simone Weil

Since you are so attached to your ideas and the ideas of your heroes, perhaps that is what is creating your own illusion that keeps you from interacting with other people in an honest and open way.

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." - Simone Weil

Can you clarify and expand on the meaning/wisdom you see in that? The wording is not very clear.

All my studies have proven to me how psychologically dangerous emotional attachment is.

Surely there are many factors involved in emotional attachment... and many degrees to be considered. For example, your attachment to your ideas and the ideas of your heroes to such an excessively large degree does seem like it has been psychologically dangerous for you, and which we can observe by how you have turned it on people indiscriminately. But not all emotional attachment is so excessive/extreme.

Anyone with a serious interest in philosophy or the essence of religion must first admit their slavery to emotional attachment with the goal of freedom from it.

It's often difficult to respond to the things you say because there seem to be so many distortions built into the way you put it together. But I'll give it a go on your statement above.

I think that emotional attachment is a natural part of being human, which can have a broad range from simple to complex based on many factors. Philosophy and religion are BORN from the human realm and are manifestations of its limitations and stages of human evolvement -- they would not exist without it. Do you disagree?

What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who can "detach" from emotional attachment can THEN see the REAL TRUTH in philosophy and religion. Is that correct? To me, the idea of detaching from that which we are fully a part of, sounds like a superficial position which could be used as a false and destructive platform for the human ego to proclaim exalted separation from others. I do understand the value of "detachment" in various ways and for various reasons, Nick -- I just think that the idea to transcend being human is unrealistic and suspiciously extreme.

Many people claim to transcend being human in one way or another -- a lot of them come to this forum -- and they all have different platforms that they claim are supreme. Have you noticed this? You see, for me, that demonstrates a broad range of experiences, manifestations, and degrees of intoxication. It doesn't make sense to say that any single path or view is supreme above the others. It makes much more sense to say that all of it is a manifestation of being human... and it's natural. What would hating that accomplish?

Rather than attaching to some idea of ultimate truth, I feel drawn to broaden my scope of view (in whatever ways and at whatever pace I can handle) to accept the ever-widening range of possibilities and manifestations that are discovered. There are limitless facets... all reflecting... and I don't take any of them too seriously because there are always so many others! Can you see how that is a useful state of detachment? In addition, I try to have love and acceptance and a sense of humor for all of it -- even when I wrestle with it (as I do with you or anyone else on this forum). I think wrestling is just a part of the whole package... and I'm trying to love and see humor in the WHOLE package. What a SHOW we are!! Do you see that? It really is very funny.

Your "platform" (like many others) seems focused on rejecting the whole package...yes?, and that sends up warning flags to me. It doesn't seem realistic -- it seems contrived for some personal purpose of one sort or another. Why would we need to deny the vast field of experience and awareness, and claim some pristine view individually? That would be like rejecting part of our human body in favor of another part -- how is that realistic or helpful?

I'm happy to continue discussing our views/ideas in this way... but if you start throwing accusations at me as I described in the first paragraph, that will be the end of it. There is no reason for you to do that in order to make your points.

Lacewing

Such are not observations -- they are accusations made against individuals in the form of absolute claims about what that individual does or doesn't believe or accept/reject, which you cannot fucking know, and regardless of that individual's repeated feedback to you to the contrary. Also, as I've repeated for you countless times, you accuse individuals of being spirit-killers and in service to the great beast; there is no reason for you to make these accusations against individuals -- that is dishonest and hateful, and unnecessary for making your broader philosophical observations or points.

“Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie” ~ Russian Proverb

During our daily lives we prefer to be kissed with a lie. There is nothing wrong with this since we are just looking to justify ourselves and be happy rather than being disturbed. But there is a minority who invite being slapped with the truth.

"……………does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" Jacob Needleman

I believe there is. I know the world is against it but there is this human need for the inner experience of perennial truth that some become open to. They become aware of it through nature, real philosophy, and the essence of religion

I'm happy to continue discussing our views/ideas in this way... but if you start throwing accusations at me as I described in the first paragraph, that will be the end of it. There is no reason for you to do that in order to make your points.

What would be your purpose for discussion? We would have to be open to being slapped with the truth if it can be considered real philosophy or the essence of religion rather than feelgoodism. That is why most will prefer sharing lies. Which would you want; being slapped with the truth as the greats of the past have described or kissed with a lie?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:40 pm “Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie” ~ Russian Proverb

What you are doing is NOT "truth" -- so what's the point of your fucking quote?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:40 pm What would be your purpose for discussion?

To broaden understanding, but I can see that you're unable to participate in such a thing.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:40 pm We would have to be open to being slapped with the truth

Well, since you're only into slapping people with lies and learning nothing yourself, there's no point in going further with you.

Personally... I like kisses of truth. Neither of which appear to be behaviors you can master. So, fuck off and Merry Christmas.

Can you imagine the response to the attempt at a meaningful discussion on human education. It wouldn't be possible. Progressive secular indoctrination would rise in negative righteous indignation leaving nothing but ashes. That is the modern way.

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:15 pm I find your language abusive.

How is the word "fuck" abusive?

Do you think that lying about being a prophet, manipulating and slithering to avoid truth, and never answering reasonable questions is noble?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:43 pm Can you imagine the response to the attempt at a meaningful discussion on human education. It wouldn't be possible.

Not with you, because you're apparently only here to be dishonest and self-righteous in your quest to express your hateful fury.

People have asked you politely to explain what your solutions are, but you claim it's impossible here... so why are you here, if not to do what I just said above?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:15 am

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:15 pm I find your language abusive.

How is the word "fuck" abusive?

Do you think that lying about being a prophet, manipulating and slithering to avoid truth, and never answering reasonable questions is noble?

Why bring Obama into it?

bobevenson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:15 pm I find your language abusive.

Lacewing just got confused. She meant to say have a good fuck and a lousy Christmas. That would have been politically correct. We all make mistqkes.