Philosophy Now Forum

"Christianity is a whimsical fantasy story designed specifically by humans to use to comfort itself because the reality of their being is much too bleak to imagine otherwise." - DAM

"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life." - FN

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 10:53 am "Christianity is a whimsical fantasy story designed specifically by humans to use to comfort itself because the reality of their being is much too bleak to imagine otherwise." - DAM

"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life." - FN

Christianity supports the poor, the downtrodden, the despised, and the dispossessed.The supernatural theme is disposable and Xity's moral code will remain as a support for the downtrodden, the poor, the despised, and the dispossessed.

I agree with DAM more than I agree with FN. Xity is a comfort to life's losers. But Xity is more than DAM says. Xity has been and still is an idea that has enormously influenced the human past.

For some it is all about belief because that is all they know. There is a vast difference between belief and perception. Humans are capable of both. Perception, a blend of reason and feeling, has a validity that leaves all else alone. In contrast, belief is in the head and is always defending what it believes against all comers secular as well as other believers; even if in the latter only a shade of difference applies.

Belief is identity and has to be defended constantly. With the ability to perceive there is nothing to defend because perception speaks for itself.

Oddly, however completely predictably, we will never get anywhere in this conversation because, as I have been repeating somewhat boringly, we do not share the same predicates. And therefore, even to be able to understand the other person's perspective -- which is possible though we might not agree and perhaps cannot agree -- we would have to put aside our own and try to *inhabit* the perceptual model in which the other person resides.

Belinda, Promethean, DontAskMe, LaceWing, Uwot, and to some extent even Henry, inhabit a rather *private* perceptual world [I may be wrong but deism is well on the road to a sort of atheism] I would contrast their world with the *world* that I, Nick and IC attempt to explain. But each of us even, and as it happens, hold very different definitions; central and core predicates.

I find that on many levels my own view coincides with Nick's -- and for this reason I can relate to and understand the Orthodox Christian position. Interestingly, in a book that IC recently recommended, which I am halfway through (Nihilism: The Root of Revolution of the Modern Age, Eugene Rose), the central predicate is clearly defined and explained. He paraphrases Father John of Kronstadt:

"The soul of man is likened to an eye, diseased through sin and thus incapable of seeing the spiritual sun."

What is referred to? Well, it is obviously, and exclusively, to the person, to a given person, and exclusively to that sole and solitary person, whose vision is affected. What is the 'spiritual sun'? It is a term that you might find in poetry and as such it has no meaning for those who have diseased eyes. (This would be Rose's way of explaining, though I have a different way of understanding lack of the possibility of faith).

Remember though what Gloucester said (King Lear):

"I stumbled when I saw."

Only when the physical eyes were blinded did he begin to *see*. But the perception, obviously, as of a different, interiorly-directed order. What is that? It is very hard to talk about.

Or take Blake's:

"This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye."

So much is expressed here, but if I'd change much to mush I would be better able to communicate with Uwot, Dubious, Promethean and others.

So the curious thing is that Belinda and Promethean want an actionable, practical, this-world activist praxis and for them the mumbo-jumbo that refers to transcendental principles means little (Belinda) and nothing (Promethean). They want something else. And it is not *contemplative prayer*!

IC's position is that without the inner turning, without a perceptual remodel that allows what is referred to by *spiritual sun* to be realized -- that a great deal of activity and bustle is futile. His view is both pessimistic and optimistic, but that is of course another story . . .

Now the interesting thing in reference to Eugene Rose's essay is to consider -- just to consider -- that without the inner realization, without the rebirth that IC and Nick refer to, and without the foundation, the specific foundation, and not just some theoretical reference or allusion to it but direct involvement in it and real belief, real faith, what one then has, what one will then attain (as a mathematical result) is the nihilism Rose refers to. It is the ending of the possibility of belief (in the sense of a genuine, real, lived, experience of faith and this means true inner connection to a real thing known as God) that no matter what one does, no matter what one avails oneself of, it will amount to a step in the direction od descent . . . which eventuates in the full expression of nihilism. (His is a model of interpretation of course).

We are dealing with gradients therefore. But yet the background must be defined: It is the end of the possibility of belief in God. And it is also the project, as I call it, of doing all in one's power to prove to oneself, and then to confirm with others, that God cannot possibly be real. And if God cannot possibly be real, God is not real, and what is unreal must be jettisoned.

This is how the logical project of atheism proceeds, of course. And it is all of this that weaves in and out of these posts and this entire topic.

The final point of Nihilism, the final end of it, is of course suicide. So in one degree or another the nihilistic project, the project of rebellion, is in the destruction of the self. (This is my own interpretation).

I think this is why I refer to the duality of the inner position (the position of faith, however tenuous) in contrast to the outer position. The outer position is what one opts to do in this world, the way one expresses one's values. And this can go in so many different directions. But the inner position, if one can hold to it, is the anchor.

I do trust to principles that transcend precise definitions. These principles are good, beauty, and truth. Together they act like a magnet to iron filings except that we are not lifeless like iron filings and we refuse to sort ourselves into preconceived patterns.

Alexis

Oddly, however completely predictably, we will never get anywhere in this conversation because, as I have been repeating somewhat boringly, we do not share the same predicates. And therefore, even to be able to understand the other person's perspective -- which is possible though we might not agree and perhaps cannot agree -- we would have to put aside our own and try to *inhabit* the perceptual model in which the other person resides.

It is more basic then that. It isn't a matter of arguing predicates but who has been born from above.

1 Corinthians 2:14

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. This offers a new conscious perspective that most will reject before experiencing it. I'm more interested in learning from those who have been born from above than arguing what cannot be understood.

Simone Weil was born from above in order to write and live as she did.

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.
Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.
This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

The reality is that the human condition prevents the ability for this quality of attention. It can only be acquired by conscious will opening to conscience which the world rejects. Simone describes a theoretical possibility but a practical impossibility for all but the few needing to awaken at the expense of the growls of the Great Beast.

The essential purpose of Christianity is to provide, through Jesus' sacrifice, the reconciling force through the Spirit Which makes it possible for our lower animal nature to live as it should with our higher conscious nature as the harmony of the soul described by Plato. The third force reconciles the duality of the conflict between above and below from above and allows the lower to serve the higher. But without being born from above, who knows what above and below refers to for the reality of our own collective human being? Without being born from above a person is limited to arguing secular duality and remains unaware of the vertical direction referred to in the Emerald Tablet:" As above, so below.

As we are, our animal nature dominates our higher nature and what can become conscious. We are governed by negative emotions essential for artificial self justification. The energy of the Sprit makes it possible to inwardly turn towards the light and Man can become consciously normal in which the lower serves the higher and Man becomes capable of expressing higher values such as universal love as opposed to being restricted to subjective animal love and the wars it produces.

Nick,

Is Man born free or does human being exist between two worlds making us a slave to the struggle between these two forces manifesting s above and below? The frightening truth is that Man is not free but only has the potential "TO BE."

Man, each man, every man, is born free. The principal lie of what you call the beast or the great beast is that man is not free and that he must earn freedom (that freedom or, more properly, self-possession is bestowed), or that he can never be free so he best settle down and wear the leash like a good pup.

As to man's role in the struggle: he's a player, not a slave; he brings to the struggle his own causal and creative power; man is the wildcard neither side can take for granted or dismiss.

It means respect for the laws that make freedom possible. As society devolves and becomes more fragmented in the battle for rights, Society loses its respect for these essential laws

Law (as in legalisms, legislation) is, at best, codification of natural law, at worst, just directions backed up by a club. Freedom can be supported by legislation or undercut by it, but freedom doesn't extend from it.

Those essential laws are the natural, self-evident principles: They can be recognized (and codified, if need be) or ignored and violated; man, at his best, embodies them, but they originate with the Creator.

If a person demands to be protected from theft, have they given up a necessary right or are certain rights necesary to be given up for the sake of freedom.

Inviolate & Inalienable. Agreein' to follow a convention is not an agreement to refrain from self-defense. No one gives up a natural right. Freedom and one's natural right to one's self (life, liberty, property) are one and the same.

Is it worth sacrificing the freedom to kill for the sake of freedom from the intent of BLM and Antifa?

I don't understand the question.

Who decides who is "worth killin"?

As I reckon it: killin' is permissible in self-defense, defense of the other, and defense of property (with property as cause, one must take care, cuz there's always a schmuck [hi, age!] lookin' to divorce reason, common sense, and sanity from the discussion and accuse one of bein' willin' to kill over a toothpick).

Since we have learned that government leads to corruption, we are better off without it in the cause of the good capable for human being. The government is only concerned with power and not the good so struggles against awakening ideas

Yes, we're better off without government (governors, legislators).

who stops the imaginary belief in "progress?"

You do.

We don't IMO have natural rights but we do have the potential for conscience to evolve. A person can evolve to feel objective conscience. A world believing in objective conscience could produce a super civilization. Spinoza explains

Natural rights is simply, as example, your right to yourself (your life, liberty, and property). You are yours. What you mix yourself with thru effort is yours. Man is a creature of reason, conscience, and freewill. None of us need to evolve anything. We do, I think, need to choose better.

How do you define social progress?

I don't. Best I can tell, social progress is just made up hooey. The emphasis is the many, usually at the expense of the few or one.

What IYO is the GOOD?

That which promotes self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is good. The Good -- the source of self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance -- is the Creator.

That which denigrates self-direction, self-responsibility, and self-reliance is evil. The Evil is the Creator's absence (not referrin', by the way, to my deistic view that He is uninvolved directly in the world)

It does not do to be oblivious of historical context..

Blake's:
"This life’s dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye."

The soul, for Blake is the inborn natural soul in which kindness dwells and whose innocent vision is brutalised or distorted by the time's dysfunctional culture of economic growth.

Nick, we are all faced with some beast or other. The thing to do is actually a practical action; you try to put a bridle on it and then maybe trade it in for a better one.

Alexis,

I may be wrong but deism is well on the road to a sort of atheism

You are. Deism is, for me, well on the road away from atheism.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 8:39 pm Alexis,

I may be wrong but deism is well on the road to a sort of atheism

You are. Deism is, for me, well on the road away from atheism.

As you know I define my purpose that of clarifying ideas in a somewhat abstract sense. So if I make a statement about how ideas appear to me, or where they apparently lead, it has nothing to do with any sort of personal issue or struggle. I always want to make this clear.

I suppose that a deist position, or way of looking at things, could move eventually toward atheistic position. But in my albeit limited historical understanding (history of ideas) deism was a necessary thinking-move for those who could no longer sustain the coherent view of a god that acted in history. My reference would be America's founders -- for example Jefferson and also Franklin -- who seemed not to be able to accept many tenets of Christianity and so chose, or concluded, a more vague deistic position. They sifted out what they could not believe and held to what they could.

The reason I say that deism is a step away from theism, and not a step toward it, is because of the influence of Eugene Rose's essay, on one hand, but also an intuitive understanding.

A shift to deism is a way to salvage, at least for a moment, or apparently, a theism that is failing.

I would not say that there are not many good reasons for one's theism to fail. But understanding why I would allow this is a bit complex. Christianity is set up through, and bolstered by, a whole range of *stories*. The stories are (now) very hard to believe with honest commitment. And yet for so long the stories were taken as actual historical incidents. If you did not believe them you were, I suppose, godless and doubting. Here is a list: Garden of Eden, Seas being parted, Manna dropping from Heaven, divine revelation generally, angelic appearances, virgin birth, dead being resurrected, the descent of an avatar of God into the Earth-realm, and of course the resurrection of Jesus, a heaven-world beyond this one, and of course a hell-realm . . .

So I see the problem of Christianity as one of confronting and deciphering the conflict between what one can believe, and what one cannot, in good faith, entertain as possible.

So, one might then be able to say :

"These stories are too outlandish for me. I want to *believe in God* but I cannot honestly believe some aspects of the stories. So, I will chose instead a manoeuvre [this is my own term for an inventive and even a sneaky way around a problem] in which I drop the personal aspect of God's intervention as an agent and as a person, and will retreat back and away to a general sense that, surely, God must somehow exist..."

If then one still manages to develop an *inner relationship* and if God does manifest (inside oneself) one will begin to have a relationship involving the experience of the saints and the mystics -- like St John of the Cross or Father John of Kronstadt. But that inner relationship does not depend, necessarily, on any particular or specific aspect of the story.

But I also must say that even in presenting this conception I reveal myself to be a man who inhabits a place or space that is outside of a faith-position. At least one of a traditional sort when one could believe purely and with no doubt. See, we are obstructed in our capability of believing.

Lol deism is even worse than theism. It's an anthropomorphic version of monism in which god doesn't give a shit about anything. He just created everything and walked away. At least with the theisms, you get a god that is allegedly benevolent... but that's just the sales pitch. Clearly he's an asshole like the deistic god. Just look around.

Alexis,

Concerning your thoughts on deism...

My impulse is to respond, but -- as I think on it -- I ain't seein' any good reason why I should.

You certainly don't need me as an excuse to write essays.

-----

pro,

He just created everything and walked away.

That's vanilla deism, yeah.

Mine ain't vanilla.

Call it whatever flavor you want. It's still ice cream.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 10, 2022 11:06 pm Lol deism is even worse than theism. It's an anthropomorphic version of monism in which god doesn't give a shit about anything. He just created everything and walked away. At least with the theisms, you get a god that is allegedly benevolent... but that's just the sales pitch. Clearly he's an asshole like the deistic god. Just look around.

If you remove all the divine assholes, what's left are only the human ones...which is kind of circular because it's the human ones who created the divine ones. This demonstrates that being an asshole is a universal feature of the human psyche; ergo, his gods have not escaped the infection. I'm just not sure if we started off that way or whether it was always inherent even before humans became sapiens as later manifested in history.

We've arrived at the point where being called an asshole is no-longer an insult and more equivalent to saying hello comrade!