Philosophy Now Forum

A little bit of 'Eastern' wisdom on why Nihilism takes grip on Anglo-Protestant Western Civilization and "MUH Democracy!!!"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt3ljJh9qJs)

phyllo wrote: ↑
But all you have to do is look at all the ideas in Catholicism that Jesus didn't teach.

You are mistaken but only because you are not taking into consideration that, according to the accounts, Jesus spent a long time with all sorts of people in his resurrected form. In Catholic theological lore, similar to the Jewish oral tradition, many things are said to have been revealed and taught.

If the early Christian Fathers didn't teach it either, then one can safely conclude that Jesus didn't secretly reveal it to them.
(And they didn't teach original sin, for example.)

This is one reason why, for Catholics, scripture itself or alone is somewhat discounted by 1) everything believed to have been revealed to the Apostles by the resurrected Jesus; 2) through the continued teaching of the Holy Spirit; and 3) by those saints seen as “illuminated” with understanding.

This raises the question of how it is possible to tell which teachings are authentically from god or truthful about god and which are false, fabricated, self-serving,mistaken or plain nonsense.

Which teachings are "God approved" and which are not.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the Catholic church teaches only "the truth".

And if we have false teachings, then we ought to get rid of them rather than reviving them.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:28 pm
This raises the question of how it is possible to tell which teachings are authentically from god or truthful about god and which are false, fabricated, self-serving,mistaken or plain nonsense.

That is a remarkably easy question to answer.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:50 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:28 pm
This raises the question of how it is possible to tell which teachings are authentically from god or truthful about god and which are false, fabricated, self-serving,mistaken or plain nonsense.

That is a remarkably easy question to answer.

I suspect your answer is that there are no teachings from god because there is no god.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:09 pm Numerous of your interpretations are rather cynical and scathing.

I didn't mean to be harsh, and the way I react depends on context. There are lovely parts of Catholicism and some wonderful people have been ardent members. Some amazing architecture, often lovely rituals. The church spread a lot of general knowledge and it did undermine some hierarchies that needed to be undermined. If you haven't read Flannery O'Conner, stop reading these words and run out and get a collection of her stories. Genius, moving, mysterious, powerful. And very Catholic. And one 'artist' out of many.

I certainly am not complaining. The way we choose to look at something will generally determine what we get out of it, which is what we chose to get out of it from the start.

There are stages in life in relation to these things. I wasn't born judging Catholicism and here also we are in a specific context: should Catholicism become central in the restoration, revival of the West? And why might people be against that - the issue you considered interesting.

Well, in those two overlapping contexts, yes, I am going to focus on the negative. It is required for the second question and unavoidable for the first if there an advocate for this in the dialogue.

If someone was saying this was the worst idea, to have Catholicism in the center, I'd likely start right off that the worst thing to have in the center is the physicalist worldview coupled with current technocrat dreams and abilities, all of which being supervised by varieties of psychopaths. I don't think Catholicism will kill us. The group with the most power in the world right now and their belief system.... may well do it.

One can look at those thing you’ve pointed out in a •critical• mood and determine whatever you are desiring to present (ridicule for example). Yet you could also switch moods and see things in a different light.

Sure.

For example the unity of Europe when Latin was the language of the governing, intellectual and religious class and Catholic liturgy a communal practice. Would you really compare it to the •evils of globalism• that is abhorred today?

The reason I pointed out the irony may not fit your position, but we had not just Europe but MIddle Eastern members on the council of Nicea. So, we have a multicultural, global organization, that ended up influencing sometimes being the power in Europe - not that council but what came after. That organization is spreading a religion that originated in small semitic group outside Europe and it more or less outlawed the previous European religious traditions when it could.

I think the Wizard-ish people of Europe might well have viewed it the way our dear Wizard views the Left. I know, one can be wrong is assessments of what someone would be like in an earlier incarnation at a significantly different time period. At least one part of me thinks that. Another part thinks Wizard would have gladly sacked Rome, The Vatican, Constantinople, etc. if he had a big enough gang of pagans.

I am in doubt as to whether your •interpretive method• will provide you with more than what you have intended from the start, if that makes sense.

Actually I hadn't, before our interaction, thought about Christianity in this way in relation to conservatives. It was resting there in potentia, but it wasn't conscious, even if, in general, I knew all the facts. Now yes, this doesn't show a deep shift in my position, but it's been very interesting to explore this and I am learning things. Further as a kind of pagan - that's the best shorthand I can come up with, I have my own problems with the Left, at least many of the factions in there - just from my being pagan. I used to engage with Peter Kropotkin much more. He thought I was Right Wing . And it's not like I try to find something negative. I had core problems with what he was saying. I have core issues with Catholicism coming to power in the West. I am not digging to find facets to trigger my posts. My reactions are right up front. I think there was something facile in the way he divides reality up in a binary way. And I think the options/responsibility for the current situation are much more complex than you (and Wizard) are presenting.

I still don't really have a sense of what you, personally want or think is necessary. So, I am working with Catholicism, which includes priests, The Pope, The Vatican, the specific mythology and also metaphysics beyond the portion you emphasize. You have expressed some disinterest in making it about your specific position. Fine. So, here I am reaction to the general idea of Catholicism becoming the source of metaphysics in the West and also bringing up what I think leads to people resisting that - that is the topic you thought was interesting.

It seems like you are drawing conclusions not just about what I mean here, but what perspectives I have and have had, what I am capable of seeing, what I am doing, how the context isn't really affecting what I am doing and so on. It's this context, this point in my life, this topic, my discussion partner(s) and in the context of the way the options are framed: Left toxic decadence and a restoration of Europe along Catholic lines.

Are you seeing anything differently? Haven't you come in with a perspective in this thread and has it changed in any core way?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:58 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:50 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:28 pm
This raises the question of how it is possible to tell which teachings are authentically from god or truthful about god and which are false, fabricated, self-serving,mistaken or plain nonsense.

That is a remarkably easy question to answer.

I suspect your answer is that there are no teachings from god because there is no god.

Well I would have broken it to you a bit more gently than that.

Well I would have broken it to you a bit more gently than that.

No need to be gentle.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a god who does not personally and directly reveal the truth about him-her-it-self ... so a god in the background but not a god on a mountain saying things.

How would one know that what is being said by people about this god is correct and true?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:27 pm

Well I would have broken it to you a bit more gently than that.

No need to be gentle.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a god who does not personally and directly reveal the truth about him-her-it-self ... so a god in the background but not a god on a mountain saying things.

How would one know that what is being said by people about this god is correct and true?

I don't have much knowledge or experience of assessing religious texts, but it seems to me that there would be no way of knowing for sure.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:27 pm

Well I would have broken it to you a bit more gently than that.

No need to be gentle.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a god who does not personally and directly reveal the truth about him-her-it-self ... so a god in the background but not a god on a mountain saying things.

How would one know that what is being said by people about this god is correct and true?

If whatever the message is is appealing enough, then you engage in the practices and see. Do you feel more like you would like or are you more like what you want to be like? What experiences do you have when you engage in the practices? Do they seem to fit?

There are people, and we both know one clear example in the forums, who would only engage in something if it could be proven to them to be beneficial via words on a screen. There's no real curiosity needed. Not reaching toward something. It's just arms crossed, prove it to me, then maybe I'd actually do something. As if there is nothing experiential needed in learning. (and for the person I have in mind, this is the approach to secular and spiritual options: prove it now with words, then I'd maybe consider it)

If whatever the message is is appealing enough, then you engage in the practices and see. Do you feel more like you would like or are you more like what you want to be like? What experiences do you have when you engage in the practices? Do they seem to fit?

IOW, the universe will give you feedback if you engage.

There are people, and we both know one clear example in the forums, who would only engage in something if it could be proven to them to be beneficial via words on a screen. There's no real curiosity needed. Not reaching toward something. It's just arms crossed, prove it to me, then maybe I'd actually do something. As if there is nothing experiential needed in learning. (and for the person I have in mind, this is the approach to secular and spiritual options: prove it now with words, then I'd maybe consider it)

That's because they don't want to waste their time if they engage in the wrong activity. It's certainly possible that you pick the wrong thing.

And then some know that it's all wrong and all of it is a waste of time.

If whatever the message is is appealing enough, then you engage in the practices and see. Do you feel more like you would like or are you more like what you want to be like? What experiences do you have when you engage in the practices? Do they seem to fit?

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:33 pmIOW, the universe will give you feedback if you engage.

That too, though in a sense I am saying: you yourself will give you feedback. Here we are doing our best with limited knowledge. If you take yourself out of the process except as a deduction analyst (your word-based proof passed, your word-based pass failed), you have less change of learning something.

That's because they don't want to waste their time if they engage in the wrong activity. It's certainly possible that you pick the wrong thing.

1) that's a kind interpretation and I am sure that is a factor 2) you cannot help but choose: it's a choice to sit back and demand proof in words.; it's a choice to not try anything different experientially; it's a choice to be skeptical and invest in that skepticism...just as, of course, following your interest and trying something, including an experiential component, is a choice. All of these are choices with practices. And any of them can be wrong. Everyone has, already, a worldview (or mishmash of worldviews) with its practices. These may already be a poor choice or as you say wrong. And there may be different right answers for different people. Waiting for the proof that should convince everyone...I think that's confused on a number of levels. You are not simply waiting, you're recommitting to the choice you've made or had made for you.

And then some know that it's all wrong and all of it is a waste of time.

But can they face the fact that they don't know and that also whatever they are doing may be a waste of time or worse.

Phyllo wrote: This raises the question of how it is possible to tell which teachings are authentically from god or truthful about god and which are false, fabricated, self-serving, mistaken or plain nonsense.

What you might actually be saying, without getting to it, is that there is no way to know. God is said to reveal •truths• to men but the receptor is always that man.

Which teaching are "God approved" and which are not.

My answer is those that are also in harmony with clear, well-reasoned and communal thought. The community of intelligences — those who think things through in collaboration.

I hope that you are not suggesting that the Catholic church teaches only "the truth".

But that is ultimately what we are circling around. My view is that general Catholic doctrine, especially social doctrine, comes very close. So the ethical and moral principles seem sound.

And if we have false teachings, then we ought to get rid of them rather than reviving them.

Certainly you have your eyes fixed on at least one or two …

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:04 pm There are stages in life in relation to these things. I wasn't born judging Catholicism and here also we are in a specific context: should Catholicism become central in the restoration, revival of the West?

I am bike touring so won’t be able to process much till later this evening.

A 15 km climb, two cups of coffee, and back at it …

But my answer here — I am still gathering information of course — is yes if Catholicism is taken as core, operating ideas and ethical admonitions. The spiritual core of it is what is doubted by many, and this I understand.

The reason? Catholicism and Greco-Christianity is woven into the fabric of our civilization’s being and our very selves. The more we realize this, the better.

That too, though in a sense I am saying: you yourself will give you feedback. Here we are doing our best with limited knowledge. If you take yourself out of the process except as a deduction analyst (your word-based proof passed, your word-based pass failed), you have less change of learning something.

Yes, but "you yourself" are a part of the universe and you always function within the context of the universe.

I also use the word 'universe' to indicate an objective element to the feedback. It's not purely subjective as might be suggested by "you giving yourself feedback", although there are definitely subjective aspects.
Some might go as as far as to say that it's all "in your head". I don't agree with that.

1) that's a kind interpretation and I am sure that is a factor 2) you cannot help but choose: it's a choice to sit back and demand proof in words.; it's a choice to not try anything different experientially; it's a choice to be skeptical and invest in that skepticism...just as, of course, following your interest and trying something, including an experiential component, is a choice. All of these are choices with practices. And any of them can be wrong. Everyone has, already, a worldview (or mishmash of worldviews) with its practices. These may already be a poor choice or as you say wrong. And there may be different right answers for different people. Waiting for the proof that should convince everyone...I think that's confused on a number of levels. You are not simply waiting, you're recommitting to the choice you've made or had made for you.

One can intellectually justify sitting and waiting for proof as "gathering more information" . And for many, it requires less energy and effort than going out and trying something, anything.

Waiting for the proof that should convince everyone...I think that's confused on a number of levels.

That's a particular view of philosophy ... that there ought to be one optimal answer. And that one ought to wait for that answer to arrive on the screen.

What you might actually be saying, without getting to it, is that there is no way to know. God is said to reveal •truths• to men but the receptor is always that man.

I'm saying that one needs to verify these truths in some way.

I'm also getting at the fact that "men say that God reveals truth to men in 'these' ways". Is that really the process? Isn't that process indistinguishable from fabrication, lies, babble ...?

My answer is those that are also in harmony with clear, well-reasoned and communal thought. The community of intelligences — those who think things through in collaboration.

But the "clear, well-reasoned and communal thought" has agreed to ideas like original sin and the trinity. And virgin birth, the eternal virginity of Mary, papal infallibility, eternal damnation ...

Ideas which I find to be questionable. I'm not alone in that evaluation.

But that is ultimately what we are circling around. My view is that general Catholic doctrine, especially social doctrine, comes very close. So the ethical and moral principles seem sound.

If one looks at doctrines like original sin or eternal damnation, surely those can't be considered sound?
Guilt for something that another has done. Eternal punishment for a temporary failure. The unfairness seems blatantly clear.

Certainly you have your eyes fixed on at least one or two …

More than two, but one or two is enough to start.