Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm Belinda

Then your usage of 'purpose' is about the same as Aristotle's causes. For Aristotle intention is a cause. I claim intention applies only to human beings and other animals that are capable of learning. Human intention is a lot more complex than that of a dog or a sheep.

This is a basic disagreement. Intent is explained in the Bible. It is often read read superficially but it is a deep concept. "Let there be light" is an expression of intent.

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

That is part of an ancient creation myth of which there are several.

The history of God is such that the early Jahweh God was not interested in people's intentions and demanded unthinking obedience to his word. The OT prophets introduced intentions as worthy of consideration when judgements are made

The excerpt refers to the beginning. This is before people, the earth, and the universe. The intent refers to the beginning. How does light relate to the beginning when there are no suns?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:48 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:33 pm Belinda



This is a basic disagreement. Intent is explained in the Bible. It is often read read superficially but it is a deep concept. "Let there be light" is an expression of intent.

That is part of an ancient creation myth of which there are several.

The history of God is such that the early Jahweh God was not interested in people's intentions and demanded unthinking obedience to his word. The OT prophets introduced intentions as worthy of consideration when judgements are made

The excerpt refers to the beginning. This is before people, the earth, and the universe. The intent refers to the beginning. How does light relate to the beginning when there are no suns?

Don't know what it means to you but what it means to me is that light is positive and darkness is negative, so God was making sure that there was something instead of nothing.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:35 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:53 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:48 pm

That is part of an ancient creation myth of which there are several.

The history of God is such that the early Jahweh God was not interested in people's intentions and demanded unthinking obedience to his word. The OT prophets introduced intentions as worthy of consideration when judgements are made

The excerpt refers to the beginning. This is before people, the earth, and the universe. The intent refers to the beginning. How does light relate to the beginning when there are no suns?

Don't know what it means to you but what it means to me is that light is positive and darkness is negative, so God was making sure that there was something instead of nothing.

You seem to agree with me that creation was intentional. Its purpose is to make sure that there was something instead of nothing. If creation is response to a need for something, we can see why Plato called it the GOOD. The next question is Man's role within creation.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:17 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:35 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:53 pm The excerpt refers to the beginning. This is before people, the earth, and the universe. The intent refers to the beginning. How does light relate to the beginning when there are no suns?

Don't know what it means to you but what it means to me is that light is positive and darkness is negative, so God was making sure that there was something instead of nothing.

You seem to agree with me that creation was intentional. Its purpose is to make sure that there was something instead of nothing. If creation is response to a need for something, we can see why Plato called it the GOOD. The next question is Man's role within creation.

No, I don't, actually Nick. I like the Biblical creation stories as stories in which God is personified and has intentions like a person has intentions. This does not mean I literally believe in a huge Person Who made everything.It means I can suspend my disbelief so the theme of the story gives me understanding.
' Suspension of disbelief' means

The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:56 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:17 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:35 am
Don't know what it means to you but what it means to me is that light is positive and darkness is negative, so God was making sure that there was something instead of nothing.

You seem to agree with me that creation was intentional. Its purpose is to make sure that there was something instead of nothing. If creation is response to a need for something, we can see why Plato called it the GOOD. The next question is Man's role within creation.

No, I don't, actually Nick. I like the Biblical creation stories as stories in which God is personified and has intentions like a person has intentions. This does not mean I literally believe in a huge Person Who made everything.It means I can suspend my disbelief so the theme of the story gives me understanding.
' Suspension of disbelief' means

The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas.

I've found that a lot of the ideas found in scripture are like fine art in that they have layers of meaning. Biblical creation s written of in Genesis 1 is like this. I also do not believe in the personal god but Plotinus conception of the ONE as the basis for understanding universal purpose. The idea is to open to how the ONE outside of time and space through his will establishes universal laws which govern the machine of creation. I have to try to understand the first step in creation in which the ONE produces NOUS or the initial intelligence which contemplates the ONE. As you can see it isn't a story but an idea which can be contemplated to experience noesis

The idea of the traditional Christian marriage is based on the universal law of the unification of the three forces. You mentioned two as positive and negative but there is a third force which reconciles them and makes creation possible The third force in the yin and yang of marriage is unification under higher consciousness. You can visualize it as a tringle in which The apex or God reconciles the yin and yang of the base from above. The traditional Christian marriage is an expression of the conscious connection of the three elemental forces in which the higher reconciles the lower as one.

The fact that scripture can be understood on so many different levels amazes me. I can see how much I've missed over the years. Scripture can be understood and argued superficially and also as a jaw dropping profound description of the reality of "being".

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:39 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:20 am Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

of course. its not even related to nuclear nor poligamy famialies or non families.

its about the individual.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:56 am Liberty is conformity

no, its the opposite in fact.

liberty is about being/doing whatever you want as long as you do not threaten others liberty.

that means i can fuck any animals i want, bay at the moon and cover myself with blood for all to see.

Liberty isn't about the individual.

so you are a Communist, ok thanks for the clarification of your view.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:29 pm liberty is about being/doing whatever you want as long as you do not threaten others liberty.

no, it's not

you're describin' license, not liberty

bein' free is about self-direction & self-responsibility; it ain't about whimsy and actin' like a doofus

You are wrong sir - you need to instrospect your views of Liberty - to me it seem you are placing others actions as no worthy of thier liberty - because you have your panties in a bunch - and if their acts do not impact others, is of no interest to you - you only interest is your panties are bunched.


you need to re-asses your views of Liberty, Sir.

my prior statements are apt, as long as your actions do not threaten the liberty of others, you can and should do whatever the fuck you wish to do.

------------maybe i am more of a Libertarian then you, though you are rightwing and me almost Socialist.

food for thought.

thanks for reply, and i welcome it, and no problem with agreeing to disagree - but to be honest here, i think you are all wet here, and you need to think it through per "liberty"

as i said many time, as soon as your acts threaten the liberty of other humans, its game over and you have no liberty, but not before.

so i can be at full liberty to bey at to moon, drink blood, worship Hiter as my Christ/etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,until my actions threaten other's liberty.

you dissagree, so that make me more Libertarian then you - so if so, lets talk about how i am more Liberarian then you.

i welcome discussion.

and of course thanks for reply Henry, you have a mind and use it, as i hope i use mine.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:29 pm liberty is about being/doing whatever you want as long as you do not threaten others liberty.

no, it's not

you're describin' license, not liberty

that is exactly what i am talking about - thanks for having a mind and understanding.

In the abstract there is only one conditions to Liberty- to do no, nor present a harm to others vie your free acts.

that is the sole Responsibility.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:29 pm bein' free is about self-direction & self-responsibility; it ain't about whimsy and actin' like a doofus

per your reference - Franklin i think - i agree Freedom requires responsibility.

I see what you are saying, and i have had 9 beers, ya Liberty should require a responisiblity (but in the abstract, there is no responsibility WRT to liberty outside of not threating others - and as a responsible person a agree with you an Ben (Ben is my fav found father BTW) - but not in the abstract, if a "just state" where "Liberty" ruled were to persecute some guy that worhshiped snakes and fucked goats on every second sunday, and otherwise as a "Good guy with a steady job"..............???

me fine with him fucking his goats.

as long as all harm is self harm, the freak should be allowed his liberty and self harm.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:29 pm liberty is about being/doing whatever you want as long as you do not threaten others liberty.

no, it's not

you're describin' license, not liberty

bein' free is about self-direction & self-responsibility; it ain't about whimsy and actin' like a doofus

Right.

no not right. Liberty is "do whatever your life as long as to do no harm to others"

Liberty does not require Responsibility, but the second your Liberal actions have impact upon others, then your actions are taken into accout per Responibility,


Liberty and Responsiblity are not the same thing.

in the ideal world we hope will conform to a one - and for most of us is does - and so we have a decent society that values both precepts.

but the two are NOT related.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:31 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:39 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:20 am Is Liberty possible without the Ideal of the Nuclear Family?

of course. its not even related to nuclear nor poligamy famialies or non families.

its about the individual.



no, its the opposite in fact.

liberty is about being/doing whatever you want as long as you do not threaten others liberty.

that means i can fuck any animals i want, bay at the moon and cover myself with blood for all to see.

Liberty isn't about the individual.

so you are a Communist, ok thanks for the clarification of your view.

I see you are a supporter of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. Do you disagree with Crowley?

Three statements in particular distill the practice and ethics of Thelema: (1) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (This means that adherents of Thelema should seek out and follow their true path, i.e. find or determine their True Will.) (2) "Love is the law, love under will."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:07 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 9:31 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:39 pm

Liberty isn't about the individual.

so you are a Communist, ok thanks for the clarification of your view.

I see you are a supporter of Aleister Crowley and Thelema. Do you disagree with Crowley?

Three statements in particular distill the practice and ethics of Thelema: (1) "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (This means that adherents of Thelema should seek out and follow their true path, i.e. find or determine their True Will.) (2) "Love is the law, love under will."

Crowley? the Satan Bible guy? i don't anything about him,didn't (he dead? or alive?) know his character, so do not have a judgement about him.

Thelema? do not know him/her.

I suspect you have a point to present, i welcome your presentment of it so you and i can talk.

Hello, G.

You're back again...must be the weekend. Nice to see you again.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:02 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 5:29 pm bein' free is about self-direction & self-responsibility; it ain't about whimsy and actin' like a doofus

Right.

no not right.

Yeah, it is. What you're talking about, G. is "license." License is freedom to act however you want, whether moral or not.

But liberty means you have to take responsibility for yourself. And sustaining liberty as a condition for ourselves and others requires that we all use our liberty in responsible ways. If we don't then we lose it, because it take place only within a social context. It takes others to allow us to enjoy liberty, because the struggle of a lone person against the universe is not liberating at all...it quickly decays into bondage to terror and necessity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm Hello, G.

You're back again...must be the weekend. Nice to see you again.

and you Sir, I was replying to you last week on some post when one of my 5 or so friends showed up unanoused to closed my pc in mid stream.

it was my best friend - drunk and his GF. it breaks my heart to see him in his self destruction, but i only have one option, to still be his BF until he dies from drink.

Drink is not a "disease", its an escape from a more core personal demon - and it might be partially for me, though being pretty self aware think my drinking is 3/4 per effect - makes my happy and love everyone one - I love you Eman! - than per my demons, but i do have some demons. - hence my self diagnosis of 3/4 vs 1/4.

my former pentocostal - now since 20 yrs ago "jewish bubbist" has more personal demons than me, and when he is drunk - and its all the time now, is a dick, and not good company. sadly.

anyway i am rambaling. sorry.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:02 pm
Right.

no not right.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm Yeah, it is. What you're talking about, G. is "license." License is freedom to act however you want, whether moral or not.

License = Liberty! as long as you do not act in a way that threatens others liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!

morality is a non sequitor!

might as well talk about the morality of Blue on a clear day!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm But liberty means you have to take responsibility for yourself.

No!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty is self contained via my definition, so one is at liberty to not take responsibility for yourself or others, as long as your actons to not harm others.

so liberty affirms self death - the freedom to kill yourself, i affirm as a right, not a fan of, living in a singualarity of a BH 20 yrs ago, and had i had a gun at the time...............well, lets just say i affirm my Constitution's 2nd but not a fan of guns personally, and know myself well enough to never buy one for myself.

I affirm "Death with dignaty" - as a concept verse live living in pain.........etc,,,,,,,, quality of life is what matters and i leave the determanation of that to the one in question.

Liberty has only one condition - and its not "taking responsibility for yourself" - its not acting in a way that denies that same liberty per others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm And sustaining liberty as a condition for ourselves and others requires that we all use our liberty in responsible ways.

NO NO NO NON NO NONO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I affirm both Responsibility and Liberty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but they are NOT THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm If we don't then we lose it, because it take place only within a social context.

I agree, as soon as i stop killing goats for blood and instead start killing kids (the none-goat kid - but the human kind) - then my actions forfit my liberty to drink blood.

so "Liberty" - as i said before is bounded by only harm of others, outside if that all depravity is legit and should be affirm via liberty.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm It takes others to allow us to enjoy liberty, because the struggle of a lone person against the universe is not liberating at all...it quickly decays into bondage to terror and necessity.

don't follow, outside of no man should be an island.

welcome your clarifation on the matter.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm Hello, G.

You're back again...must be the weekend. Nice to see you again.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:02 pm
Right.

no not right.

Yeah, it is. What you're talking about, G. is "license." License is freedom to act however you want, whether moral or not.

But liberty means you have to take responsibility for yourself. And sustaining liberty as a condition for ourselves and others requires that we all use our liberty in responsible ways. If we don't then we lose it, because it take place only within a social context. It takes others to allow us to enjoy liberty, because the struggle of a lone person against the universe is not liberating at all...it quickly decays into bondage to terror and necessity.

-----

see, by way of gaffo, how utterly screwed the pooch is?

I'm free, so I can do whatever I want and to hell with the consequences is the whimsy of the child...it ain't freedom...it's madness

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:08 am

see, by way of gaffo, how utterly screwed the pooch is?

I'm free, so I can do whatever I want and to hell with the consequences is the whimsy of the child...it ain't freedom...it's madness

and i thought you are a Libertarian, i guess i was wrong, i amend my view of you as a Liberatarian.


you clearly are not.


I'm free, so I can do whatever I want and to hell with the consequences i affirm this - as long as it does not impede others Liberty.

you clearly do not affirm the above, whether it impedes the liberty of others or not.

and so you are NOT a Libertarian Sir.

though you may be a Conservative.

.........

funny a Communist (me) Libarartian schooling an self proclaimed "libertarian" who is not , though conservative.

oh well carry on.............

thanks for the lowercase though, i do value it.


-------------

BTW no Libertarian worth his salt is an athoritarian, so no Trumper is a Libertarian. All Trumpers are Authoritarians, which are the opposite of Libertarians, who do not worship power - esp gov power and so do not worship Dear Leader and only affirm governments that represent the governed via consent of the governed.


so it is now clear to me you are an Authoritarian Trumper - the opposite of all Libertarians.

give my regards to King George iii.