Einstein and the Cosmic Man

[AMod]

Dontaskme,
Are you sure there isn't a social media site somewhere that you should be on?

Why would I think about how you would respond to someone asking you to remove someones else's thread? Am I supposed to be a bloody mind reader now?

Think about it.

If I'd known you were going to have a nervous break down over the whole damn innocent ordeal, I would certainly not have asked Harbal. I seriously don't understand what the big problem is here.

The only problem here is you banging on about what was a non-issue.

Okay I get it, I admit, I'm a bloody stupid idiot , I'm a slow stupid fool, who doesn't use the correct grammar even, okay, whatever, bash away with all that you can muster, if it makes you feel better about the whole god damn issue. I'm in the wrong, I'm the b bloody stupid fool, I should have known better shouldn't I, oh my god, what was I thinking, I should be so fucking ashamed of myself for what I've done, it's such a terrible immature irresponsible thing to have done, god forbid if I ever dare to do such a thing, and god forbid if I even dare to admit to my own stupidity by wanting the thread to go away. But the reality is that's all I ever wanted and so I thought maybe, just maybe you could help me since you are the forum Mod, but boy was I ever so so very wrong. How idiotic and paranoid and stupid it was of me to expect you to understand anything about the whole situation, god forbid if we are NOT allowed to have any feelings or say in these sometimes sensitive matters. So all I can do now is profusely apologise with every last breath I have for even attempting to contact you, and I know this must have been such a wicked thing to dare to have the audacity to ask someone else to ask you.

You are too fragile for someone who claims to think in a non-dual way.

Remember your jury? Well I am judge, jury and executioner here and a tyrant to boot. Get over it and stop bothering me.

AMod.
p.s.
Unless of course it's about others posts upon one of your threads.

[Arising_uk]

...
When I was young I intuitively knew that academia served the purpose degrading the purpose of philosophy in order to create opinions acceptable to the given academics of the time. ...

Where did you study Philosophy?

The older I get the more I have been proven right which is really why I lack respect for modern philosophy. It has lost its purpose.

Which modern philosophers are you reading?

[Nick_A]

...
When I was young I intuitively knew that academia served the purpose degrading the purpose of philosophy in order to create opinions acceptable to the given academics of the time. ...

Where did you study Philosophy?

The older I get the more I have been proven right which is really why I lack respect for modern philosophy. It has lost its purpose.

Which modern philosophers are you reading?

It isn't a matter of who I've studied but the purpose of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy for you seems to be a means for debate

[Dontaskme]

Get over it and stop bothering me.


Unless of course it's about others posts upon one of your threads.

I don't give a toss what people post on my threads, they can say what the heck they like, it's none of my business, I'm not that fragile that I would feel I have to keep running to you to have them removed.



.

[Dontaskme]

You are too fragile for someone who claims to think in a non-dual way.

And don't make assumptions about people you have never met or known in your life.

Walk a mile in their shoes before making a judgement on their character.

.

[Arising_uk]

It isn't a matter of who I've studied but the purpose of philosophy. ...

So basically, with respect to academic Philosophy, you are talking about something you know nothing about?

The purpose of philosophy for you seems to be a means for debate

The purpose of teaching modern philosophy, or at least it used to be in the Anglo-American tradition, is to provide a view of the main philosophical ideas, to teach how to critique and an understanding of Logic and its relationship to reason.

[AMod]

Dontaskme,

And don't make assumptions about people you have never met or known in your life.

There you go again. I was talking about you here and judging you on your recent responses in comparison to what you say about how things are in reality.

Walk a mile in their shoes before making a judgement on their character.

Or just take a look at what they write.

Still, I'm tired of this, so have the last word and given what you've said about your threads I hopefully won't hear from you again.

AMod.

[Nick_A]

It isn't a matter of who I've studied but the purpose of philosophy. ...

So basically, with respect to academic Philosophy, you are talking about something you know nothing about?

The purpose of philosophy for you seems to be a means for debate

The purpose of teaching modern philosophy, or at least it used to be in the Anglo-American tradition, is to provide a view of the main philosophical ideas, to teach how to critique and an understanding of Logic and its relationship to reason.

As I said,you don't know the purpose of philosophy. You are only interested in academic philosophy.

[Nick_A]

Arisning defends academic philosophy and its advocates participating on this thread prove how useless it is. The women prefer to attzck me and DaM has a fight with a mod. This is academic philosophy. The whole question of Einstein’s distinction between the cave man and the cosmic man has been forgotten and replaced by expressions of academic philosophy. Consider the following link. It is unimportant to secularism but important to what is being forgotten in philosophy. Just read this section:

http://www.williamhermanns.com/Cosmicman.html

The development from a religion of fear to a moral religion is a great step in peoples lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based purely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on guard. the truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.

Common to all types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he want to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

-- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion, NY Times, November 9, 1930. <-- Click for complete essay.

Organizations like the American Weil Society are really the only places where such ideas can be discussed in a respectful manner. The theme of the 2018 colloquy is : “Simone Weil: Beyond Ideology?” Of course it fits in with the Cosmic Man. At least in a colloquy such ideas can be discussed without the shallow pettiness associated with the need for secular intolerance in whatever form to dominate and crush the cosmic religious feeling and replace it with secular or fundamentalist fantasy.

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

As I said,you don't know the purpose of philosophy. You are only interested in academic philosophy.

But professional philosophers do think about the uses of philosophy. As a matter of fact employers are interested in prospective employees who have learned the skills of the philosopher. Academic philosophy is good grounding for law, and politics.

If you have not studied the academic discipline called 'philosophy' , and nevertheless call yourself a philosopher you are either a genius or a charlatan.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

As I said,you don't know the purpose of philosophy. You are only interested in academic philosophy.

But professional philosophers do think about the uses of philosophy. As a matter of fact employers are interested in prospective employees who have learned the skills of the philosopher. Academic philosophy is good grounding for law, and politics.

If you have not studied the academic discipline called 'philosophy' , and nevertheless call yourself a philosopher you are either a genius or a charlatan.

Why speak of professional philosophers when you don't know the purpose of philosophy?

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

As I said,you don't know the purpose of philosophy. You are only interested in academic philosophy.

But professional philosophers do think about the uses of philosophy. As a matter of fact employers are interested in prospective employees who have learned the skills of the philosopher. Academic philosophy is good grounding for law, and politics.

If you have not studied the academic discipline called 'philosophy' , and nevertheless call yourself a philosopher you are either a genius or a charlatan.

Why speak of professional philosophers when you don't know the purpose of philosophy?

Because professionals who have done a lot of hard work are better than lay people at their specialism. Would you employ a professional philosopher to milk your cow, or would you rather employ a professional dairyman?

[Harbal]

Would you employ a professional philosopher to milk your cow, or would you rather employ a professional dairyman?

He probably wouldn't mind who milked the cow as long as they weren't lactose intolerant.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:



But professional philosophers do think about the uses of philosophy. As a matter of fact employers are interested in prospective employees who have learned the skills of the philosopher. Academic philosophy is good grounding for law, and politics.

If you have not studied the academic discipline called 'philosophy' , and nevertheless call yourself a philosopher you are either a genius or a charlatan.

Why speak of professional philosophers when you don't know the purpose of philosophy?

Because professionals who have done a lot of hard work are better than lay people at their specialism. Would you employ a professional philosopher to milk your cow, or would you rather employ a professional dairyman?

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ~ Einstein

Einstein describes you and many advocates of academic philosophy perfectly. The gift gets in the way of secular indoctrination so there is nothing left to do but honor the rational mind. The servant becomes supreme.


From Jacob Needleman’s book: “The heart of Philosophy.”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Prof. Needleman describes the purpose of philosophy as helping Man remember: opening the intuitive mind Einstein refers to.. The academic philosophy you support has the purpose of helping Man to forget. As we can see, it is doing a good job by justifying the idolatry of the rational mind and its obsession with fragmentation.

[Harbal]

Prof. Needleman describes the purpose of philosophy as helping Man remember: opening the intuitive mind Einstein refers to.....

What about Simone Weil and Plato? Couldn't you have fitted them in somewhere as well?