Philosophy Now Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:16 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:28 am Unlike christianity which has declared that all babies are born in original sin, and that any who die prior to baptism will burn in hell for eternity.

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:07 am That’s an excellent point, uwot, and one that I have given a lot of thought to in the past.

-1- wrote: ↑Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:16 pm I've addressed that point some time ago, and suggested immediately afterward, that human embrioes be baptized before birth and before abortion.

Many Christian theists jumped on me and said that is impossible.

Why did they say it is impossible?

I mean, what aspect of your suggestion would be impossible according to these alleged Christians?
_______

I didn’t forget about anything, Nick, for there has been no “devolution” of Man.

...and then wrongfully attributed the problem to some kind of “fall” from a more elevated status.

For the umpteenth time, Nick, there has been no “fall” of man in the way you have been suggesting.

..and not, according to you, an “animal-like” creature imbued with a precursory “seed-like” quality consisting of some kind of latent “potentiality” that through an intense and arduous personal effort on the part of “animal man” (doing God knows what), might someday “kick-in” and allow him to become an actual soul...

The Buddha said that it is more difficult for a being to obtain human birth that it would be for a turtle coming up from the depth of the ocean to put its head by chance through the opening of a wooden yoke tossed around by huge waves on the surface.

Imagine the whole cosmos of a billion universes as a vast ocean. Floating upon it is yoke, a piece of wood with a hole in it that can be fixed around the horns of draught oxen. This yoke, tossed here and there by the waves, sometime eastward, sometime westward, never stays in the same place even for an instant. Deep down in the depths of the ocean lives a blind turtle who rises up to the surface only once every hundred years. That the yoke and the turtle might meet is extremely unlikely. The yoke itself is inanimate; the turtle is not intentionally seeking it out. The turtle, being blind, has no eyes with which to spot the yoke. If the yoke were to stay in one place, there might be a chance of their meeting; but it is continually on the move. If the turtle were to spend its entire time swimming round the surface, it might, perhaps, cross paths with the yoke; but it surfaces only once every hundred years. The chances of the yoke and the turtle coming together are therefore extremely small. Nerveless, by sheer chance the turtle might still just slip its neck into the yoke. But it is even more difficult than that, the sutras say, to obtain a human existence with the eight freedom and ten advantages.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pm Uwot

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:10 pm
Secularism is not an intentional reaction though it is often intentionally defended by blind belief.

Blind belief in what?

Blind belief that the source of objective human meaning and purpose initiates in the World

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pmIf objective human meaning and purpose does not initiate from the World, it must have a universal origin.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pmWhat IYO is the source responsible for the actualization of eternal values including justice?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:17 pmIt isn’t a matter of agreeing with me but of revealing an open minded attitude. All you would have to do is agree that the secular perspective and its limitations to subjective values is insufficient to answer the ancient questions of the heart which have inspired both the search and the love of wisdom emanating from the domain of objective universal truth as opposed to arising from the World as subjective secular opinions.

Hang on a minute, agreeing that there is domain of objective universal truth, as you demand, goes way beyond revealing an open mind. Do you have any evidence that such a domain exists, or am I simply to open my mind to the sort of blind belief that you find so objectionable in secularists?

From the age of twelve I began to suspect authority and distrust teachers. I learned mostly at home, first from my uncle and then from a student who came to eat with us once a week. He would give me books on physics and astronomy.
The more I read, the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.

It is Intuition which Advances Humanity

Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.
Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts.
Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself.
Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.
I do not need any promise of eternity to be happy. My eternity is now. I have only one interest: to fulfill my purpose here where I am.
This purpose is not given me by my parents or my surroundings. It is induced by some unknown factors. These factors make me a part of eternity.”
~ Albert Einstein
Text Source: Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983). From a series of meetings William Hermanns had with Einstein in 1930, 1943, 1948, and 1954

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 amI agree with Albert Camus’ observation that the world seems absurd and we cannot find meaning in it.

Nick_A wrote:

... the more puzzled I was by the order of the universe and the disorder of the human mind, by the scientists who didn’t agree on the how, the when, or the why of creation.

This is not only wrong, but opposite. Nature is extraordinarily chaotic and humans are creators of uncanny levels of local order.

Nick_A wrote:Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following a trodden path of thought.

It's all of the above. Only the oblivious and masochistic decline to use all helpful tools at their disposal. Thus, scientists are famous for their intuitive leaps of discovery. They then rigorously check the veracity of their intuitions, and therein lies the difference between them and you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 amThis seems to be the essence of our differences. You continually refer to this concept of belief and I am referring to the mind opening to deductive reason that can reconcile absurdity.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 amWe don’t need more facts but need to acquire the ability to reconcile them from a higher conscious perspective.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:14 amFortunately there is a minority with the need to feel objective meaning and purpose rather than argue beliefs and they will keep consciousness alive in the world.

What is absurd about a reality where there is obvious evolutionary progression with extraordinary or terrifying possibilities for the future in which we can each play a small role? I see absurdity in human interactions but that's just fluff.

This is not only wrong, but opposite. Nature is extraordinarily chaotic and humans are creators of uncanny levels of local order.

Only the oblivious and masochistic decline to use all helpful tools at their disposal.

Personally I think where we differ is that you equate secular with close minded. As for the "concept of belief", what is this, if not a belief?

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:14 am
We don’t need more facts but need to acquire the ability to reconcile them from a higher conscious perspective.

Why do you think now is the moment we have accumulated enough facts?

And the best of luck to them. If they can demonstrate some facts to show that their efforts are beneficial, I'm sure the world will eventually be grateful.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:21 pm This is our essential disagreement. You seem to assume that Man has inner unity and is a seed which will evolve in accordance with universal evolution.

the Bible wrote: “...Ye must be born again...”

the Bible wrote: “...shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself...”

“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.” ~ Kierkegaard

Federal lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would make it a crime to injure or kill a fetus during the commission of a federal violent crime against a pregnant woman.

The bill, which sponsors are calling "Laci and Connor's law" is backed by Sharon Rocha, the mother of Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant when she was slain in California in 2002. Scott Peterson, her widower, is being charged both with Laci's slaying, and the slaying of their unborn son, Connor, because California is one of 29 states with so-called fetal homicide laws...........................

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 amWe all have beliefs. When are we willing to surrender them?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 amFor one reason or another we become disappointed in them and adopt an attitude which allows us to experience the relativity of a human perspective rather than pursuing more facts.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 amOur beliefs determine our perspective.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:56 amWhen we become disappointed and open to a greater perspective we begin to understand.

So what beliefs did you become disappointed with?
What is the relationship between understanding and knowledge?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:52 pm SoB

Don't tell me that you're actually stupid enough to see the heart as anything more than a blood pumper. Really?? And so then where does this "heart thing" actually exist that you refer to? The mind you, "would be fool," you, the mind! Yes, the intellect has a great deal to do with it. I feel sorry for all you people that don't understand your own minds, you require some serious education.

Granted modern secular education only accepts the brain as determining reactions. It prefers to remain ignorant of both the spinal column and the heart. Fortunately more seem to be becoming more aware of the role of the heart. There are more stupid ones becoming aware of reality. For example now you can curse out Dr. Mercola along with me

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/arti ... otion.aspx

Story at-a-glance
• Sayings like “I love you with all my heart,” and “my heart swelled with joy,” or the reference to someone being “broken-hearted” or “cold-hearted” —how much of this poetic language is based on something real?
• Your brain and heart work together in producing emotions. Your heart actually contains neurons, similar to those in your brain, and your heart and brain are closely connected, creating a symbiotic whole
• Your amygdala processes fear in combination with the signaling from your heart. This brain-heart connection is also at work when you experience feelings of compassion and empathy

Look, whether there are or are not neurons elsewhere in the body, makes no difference. As 'primarily' they are those things of the brain, their location would matter not, their function the same, the same as that of the brain. Actually according to a biologist I've read, the membranes of cells are similar in function to that of the brain and CNS, and together allow two way communication between the trillions of cells that comprise each of our bodies. But still the composition of the brain is the master of all bodily functions.

But I see, that you cannot see, that it's "natural" for the animal to change, to grow in understanding, to push it's mental boundaries like the universe proves, is it's nature, with every observation. It's parts constantly move, constantly change, human ageing is proof of the universes constant change. So why do people like you want to remain stagnant? To live today, yet think like a very long dead and gone philosopher. Was Plato important? SURE!!! Every part of the past human equation, correct or incorrect, is just as important to the total human equation, as that of the now, otherwise we would never advance, never evolve. It is the nature of knowledge. We must always be revisionist in nature, as we add to the long lived human legacy. Like I've said in the past, there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge. Though I will admit that at least I believe that knowledge does pass from one generation to the next, biologically. At least it surely seems to be the case, to me.

I agree. Animal Man like other animals can be conditioned to react in different ways.
It's not so much a calculated conditioning by any specific entity, as it is an environmental conditioning. But then should it really be called conditioning in that case? No! As along with environment there is the thinking of the animal as it encounters it's particular environmental inputs, as it finds it's own particular path through the environmental maze. Dependant on particular inputs, their intensity, their sequence, the presence, or not, of informing prerequisites, there are those that are relatively ignorant, oft running in fear, a more erratic course; those that are more understanding, thus commanding their fear, thus a more directed course.

It was proven with classical conditioning.
Pavlov!

You as natural man prefer to remain a conditioned animal reacting in accordance with natural universal laws following the cycles of nature defining this as progress.
Incorrect! At least I as a natural human look at the truth of the universe, the truth of the animal man, thus steeped in realism, I create idealism, informed by the truths of the universe I see a more productive way for all life to know equality, equilibrium. I see the spheres of influence as they should balance, I see the spheresofbalance, devoid of selfishness, devoid of me, me, me only ever us, us, us; we, we, we. I see the truth of the symbiotic biosphere, the spheres that balance the micro and the macro, both molecular and cosmological, with the hemispheres smack dab in between. I'm conditioned by the universe, by no mere mortal! Have I used the teachings of mere mortals, sure, their discoveries, their observations, of course all tested by my observations, so as to understand which are simply human fancies, and which are in fact the absolute truth of the universe, as that's all that matters, "the absolute truth of things." The largest puzzle of them all, the complete picture, which can only be seen with the inclusion of all human academic studies, against the backdrop of what it is to actually be a human of this universe. As the human fears lay bare for me to see. Without psychology there is no philosophy! And without 'all' philosophies children, there is no correct philosophy!

Some are drawn to spiritual man capable of consciousness and not be just restricted to mechanical reaction but become capable of conscious action.
In this statement, "you're out of your fucking tree!" You're saying that because you can imagine it, it's necessarily true. Enter the topic of this thread. You're merely an archaic monkey, that attempts to sell this threads topic as something real and meaningful, instead of the warpedness that it so obviously is, as with it, you cannot necessarily speak, ever. Which might have been a good thing. What do the rest of you onlookers think? Thumbs up or thumbs down for Nicks Infanticide. Let's enter our time machine and give him what he craves, ending the misguided, would be, wolf's misery, at his insistence. Your insistence along these lines shows you for the inane creature that you so obviously are. The pure fantasy of a sick mind. Fearful, wanting something more than he can rightfully have, a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, that actually defeat his very existence, though he's too stupid to see, or should I give you the benefit of doubt and use the word "ignorant" instead? Either way, it's just as idiotic!

What is 'normal,' (natural), is constantly evolving. Check out your history, generally speaking, it's obvious! One shouldn't fear new territory. Our nature is to grow and understand ever more. With any luck we'll outlive our current destructive nature to one day understand the entire universe complete, such that we might even be capable of creating one. Wouln't that be an argument for a relative god, that we might currently be subject to? Only time shall answer the biggest of questions. Sure it's unfortunate that you and I probably won't be around to see such things, but then in truth we can never really know for certain what the future holds, can we?

Again, Normal for natural man is constantly adapting rather than evolving.
Nope both apply!

Our emotional lives keep turning in circles.
Speak for yourself, as you're certainly spinning in circles.

Nothing will change for Man until his collective being EVOLVES, rather than reacts.
To believe they're mutually exclusive, speaks volumes of your intellect. No dichotomy present!

I don’t see it happening.
You should have stopped with, "I don’t see..."

Conscious evolution will only take place for individuals drawn to the potential.
OK...

It will be rejected by conditioned animal man attached to the shadows on the wall.
I believe you're forgetting that it's no longer shadows on the wall, instead, seemingly shadows on stars, light-years away. There's a very big difference, my boy!

But still the composition of the brain is the master of all bodily functions.

I agree. Animal Man like other animals can be conditioned to react in different ways.

It's not so much a calculated conditioning by any specific entity, as it is an environmental conditioning. But then should it really be called conditioning in that case? No! As along with environment there is the thinking of the animal as it encounters it's particular environmental inputs, as it finds it's own particular path through the environmental maze. Dependant on particular inputs, their intensity, their sequence, the presence, or not, of informing prerequisites, there are those that are relatively ignorant, oft running in fear, a more erratic course; those that are more understanding, thus commanding their fear, thus a more directed course.

You as natural man prefer to remain a conditioned animal reacting in accordance with natural universal laws following the cycles of nature defining this as progress.

Incorrect! At least I as a natural human look at the truth of the universe, the truth of the animal man, thus steeped in realism, I create idealism, informed by the truths of the universe I see a more productive way for all life to know equality, equilibrium. I see the spheres of influence as they should balance, I see the spheresofbalance, devoid of selfishness, devoid of me, me, me only ever us, us, us; we, we, we. I see the truth of the symbiotic biosphere, the spheres that balance the micro and the macro, both molecular and cosmological, with the hemispheres smack dab in between. I'm conditioned by the universe, by no mere mortal! Have I used the teachings of mere mortals, sure, their discoveries, their observations, of course all tested by my observations, so as to understand which are simply human fancies, and which are in fact the absolute truth of the universe, as that's all that matters, "the absolute truth of things." The largest puzzle of them all, the complete picture, which can only be seen with the inclusion of all human academic studies, against the backdrop of what it is to actually be a human of this universe. As the human fears lay bare for me to see. Without psychology there is no philosophy! And without 'all' philosophies children, there is no correct philosophy!

Some are drawn to spiritual man capable of consciousness and not be just restricted to mechanical reaction but become capable of conscious action.

In this statement, "you're out of your fucking tree!" You're saying that because you can imagine it, it's necessarily true. Enter the topic of this thread. You're merely an archaic monkey, that attempts to sell this threads topic as something real and meaningful, instead of the warpedness that it so obviously is, as with it, you cannot necessarily speak, ever. Which might have been a good thing.