Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:16 pm
ATTENTION MEN: What do think of the trout mouth? Do you find it appealing?

NO! Not even on trout.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:34 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:16 pm
ATTENTION MEN: What do think of the trout mouth? Do you find it appealing?

NO! Not even on trout.

You aren't using your otherwise exceptional imagination!

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:14 pm... rules are secondary to acceptable opinions ...

Actually, you were only banned for rudeness and refusal to cooperate with moderator requests. Your bannings had NOTHING to do with your ideologies, certainly not the OPC. The mods' initial "crime" was not approving a thread you wanted to start (after your 107 prior threads were approved). At the time we were focusing on reducing "noise" in the forum by not approving new posts made about old topics unless they offered a significant new angle. That was all. You had more threads approved than almost anyone and probably a dozen or more of them covered the material in this would-be 108th post.

Alas, like a child in a supermarket, you become aggressive when thwarted. So you accused us of corrupt moderating, allegedly discriminating against you because you are a theist. Never mind that many other theists on the forum remain untroubled by mods. I wonder why it's just you?

Also note that, you were on probation at the time due to three prior warnings for ad hominem attacks on mods and forum members who disagreed with you. Will you take responsibility for your own actions or continue to blame your troubles on others?

This blame-shifting is present in both your forum interactions and in your repetitve ramblings about the so-called "Great Beast".

Yes, we human individuals are being superseded by our institutions. Call them biblical names if you like, but they are just examples of nature in action. And yes, they can be both a boon and bane. However, if not for the human tendency to form institutions then humans today would probably be extinct (noting that we've almost been driven extinct before).

The human ability to join forces has long been our main survival asset, given that we lack claws, sharp teeth, spines, scales, venom, a thick hide, speed or strength. We have more intelligence, and that allows us to put our bodies where danger is not. A major part of that strategy is teamwork. So humans succeeded and their groups grew ever larger because people have always gravitated to where the work is.

Now institutions have grown far out of individuals' control. There is your Great Beast. There was a time when other animals were in the same situation. A million or so years ago some apes had become powerful and were taking over everything. Other species were being superseded by Homo sapiens and the emerging result of that - a more anthropocentric world - is becoming more clear. However, now it's our turn to be superseded. So it goes.

You can fight, scream and rebel - and plenty understandably will - but the writing is on the wall. In geological time scales life on Earth is on the verge of being sterilised out of existence but the heating of our ageing Sun. So humans must change, to meld with their machines, to become one with your Great Beast. Of course, when I say "we" I'm not referring to any of us - who our simply outsider individuals - but people of great power and privilege.

All of this is simply ultimately life being shaped by its ongoing struggle to survive. Shaped into what? I believe in progress so I expect that, at least in the long term, continued evolution will result in something generally more aware and sophisticated in the same way as intelligent chordates are more aware and sophisticated than the microbes from which they had evolved.

Meanwhile, your solution - basically a degree of anarchy - seems to only have one aim. To replace the secular Great Beasts with your own Theocratic Greater Beast - a mega controlling church - that controls all. You are Tony Abbott fan, yes?

Greta you lie

Actually, you were only banned for rudeness and refusal to cooperate with moderator requests. Your bannings had NOTHING to do with your ideologies, certainly not the OPC. The mods' initial "crime" was not approving a thread you wanted to start (after your 107 prior threads were approved). At the time we were focusing on reducing "noise" in the forum by not approving new posts made about old topics unless they offered a significant new angle. That was all. You had more threads approved than almost anyone and probably a dozen or more of them covered the material in this would-be 108th post.

It is all ideology. I openly challenge you to produce any posts of mine that are rude. I was the one who initiated the one on one threads so people could participate in deeper discussion. Fooloso4 tried to intimidate me in a PM about quoting my sources. Ideas and their sources are essential not just to me but they are essential to philososphy. They are just not secular. The day comes when I have to submit to intimidation by an utter fool is the day I pack it in so I told him in a PM and will now do publically that he can shove his threats of intimidation where the sun don’t shine. My family survived with losses both the Russian revolution and the Armenian genocide and their open intimidation. I don’t cringe for secular bigots whatever they call themselves/

Greta, you openly lie. The only rudeness comes from you and your highly charged emotional rejection of the sacred. The most idiotic thing Scott Hughes ever did was to allow you both to be moderators. That killed a once promising site. Secular bigots moderating a philosophy forum. How convenient. I was thinking of confronting Scott on his Facebook page. I would ask him how his pictures reflect caring for the young but then supports spirit killing of the young through moderated support of secular intolerance leading to metaphysical repression of the young? Does he really feel good about blatant hypocrisy? The value of philosophy for the human psych deserves better than secular bigotry furthered through intimidation.

Others wouldn’t understand so it would not be the right thing to do. Rest Assured Scott will be confronted privately.

The day comes when we allow secular intolerance to rule the day through intimidation both in institutions and on web sites is the day America as intended is no more. Without real philosophy freedom is no longer possible. The Great Beast and its statist slavery will be allowed to dominate and pretend to remedy the damage it caused.

Complain all you want but Simone Weil is one of the most extraordinary women of the 20th century. She outgrew Marxism and offered the alternative which would enable atoms of the Great Beast to become human individuals. Suffer!

Greta

You can fight, scream and rebel - and plenty understandably will - but the writing is on the wall. In geological time scales life on Earth is on the verge of being sterilised out of existence but the heating of our ageing Sun. So humans must change, to meld with their machines, to become one with your Great Beast. Of course, when I say "we" I'm not referring to any of us - who our simply outsider individuals - but people of great power and privilege.

All of this is simply ultimately life being shaped by its ongoing struggle to survive. Shaped into what? I believe in progress so I expect that, at least in the long term, continued evolution will result in something generally more aware and sophisticated in the same way as intelligent chordates are more aware and sophisticated than the microbes from which they had evolved.

What a horrible thought. The ultimate destiny of Man in the mind of the secularist is the rejection of the universality of the sacred and being absorbed by the mechanics of the Great Beast deeper into Plato’s cave. No human consciousness, No objective conscience, no soul, nothing human, just spiritually blind reacting atoms of the Great Beast cut off from the source of their existence. A fate worse than death.

Meanwhile, your solution - basically a degree of anarchy - seems to only have one aim. To replace the secular Great Beasts with your own Theocratic Greater Beast - a mega controlling church - that controls all. You are Tony Abbott fan, yes?

Greta you are clueless. I don’t care for Tony Abbott but I do like Abbott and Costello if that helps

Greta wrote:You can fight, scream and rebel - and plenty understandably will - but the writing is on the wall. In geological time scales life on Earth is on the verge of being sterilised out of existence but the heating of our ageing Sun. So humans must change, to meld with their machines, to become one with your Great Beast. Of course, when I say "we" I'm not referring to any of us - who our simply outsider individuals - but people of great power and privilege.

All of this is simply ultimately life being shaped by its ongoing struggle to survive. Shaped into what? I believe in progress so I expect that, at least in the long term, continued evolution will result in something generally more aware and sophisticated in the same way as intelligent chordates are more aware and sophisticated than the microbes from which they had evolved.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:35 amWhat a horrible thought.

That's not a thought, it's an observation. To clarify:

Observation (noun)
1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.

You may notice that nowhere in that definition is anything to do with what one wants or what one prefers. This is what science does:

Science (noun)
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Again, no reference to what one prefers. It's simply checking out what's going on and comparing notes with others.

Will Nick ever muster the humility to simply observe reality without judging from his "lofty" moral standpoint?

So, Nick, what of your precious theism in a million years when the oceans start boiling off as the Sun heats? If we retreat from progress back into religious infantilism then intelligent life on Earth will soon be completely extinguished. Now THAT is a horrible thought. It is only with progress and technology that anything beyond genes can be salvaged of life's progress from the current planetary imbalances.

Whatever, as I said earlier, I expect future humanity/cyborgs to be more aware and sophisticated in toto than humanity today, although it appears that with specialisation there may be some retrograde "drone classes" (as appear to be forming at the moment).

If you want to complain about something important, how about the fossil fuel companies and their advocates who are still pushing for more carbon release in face of the evidence. Why? Because they want to get as much as possible from their infrastructure before it's superseded. If you want to make for a better world, why not push for more sustainable energy, more women's rights and education in developing countries, more smart technology (eg. easy water purifiers) to help people in developing countries?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:23 pm All this righteous indignation against a person pointing out the psychologically damaging results of secular intolerance. Behold secular genius. Spreading its egoistic self centered philosophy is even more important than protecting the young. Students should be herded and indoctrinated as soon as possible into the idolatry of the Great Beast. Anyone still respecting the young as healthy kernels of life with the potential to become themselves must be condemned out of existence. They are what they should be; atoms of the great beast waiting to be absorbed into the grand collective. Resistance is futile. The projections of Nick_A and that forever damned Simone Weil will be cursed out of existence to the degree that dogs will bark at their graves. The educated have spoken and the Beast applauds

That sounds pretty good, actually.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:42 am So, Nick, what of your precious theism in a million years when the oceans start boiling off as the Sun heats? If we retreat from progress back into religious infantilism then intelligent life on Earth will soon be completely extinguished. Now THAT is a horrible thought.

It's billions of years, not millions, before the sun starts boiling off the oceans.

It's about a hundred years before climate change wreaks unimaginable havoc on the biosphere, including the possibility of human extinction.

Why the extinction of intelligent life, or even all life, is a "horrible" thought is opaque to me. I tend to agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if the earth had remained as lifeless as the moon.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:00 am All of this is simply ultimately life being shaped by its ongoing struggle to survive. Shaped into what? I believe in progress so I expect that, at least in the long term, continued evolution will result in something generally more aware and sophisticated in the same way as intelligent chordates are more aware and sophisticated than the microbes from which they had evolved

Nothing in evolutionary theory entails this. Quite the opposite.

There is no progress in evolution.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:42 am So, Nick, what of your precious theism in a million years when the oceans start boiling off as the Sun heats? If we retreat from progress back into religious infantilism then intelligent life on Earth will soon be completely extinguished. Now THAT is a horrible thought.

It's billions of years, not millions, before the sun starts boiling off the oceans.

It's about a hundred years before climate change wreaks unimaginable havoc on the biosphere, including the possibility of human extinction.

Why the extinction of intelligent life, or even all life, is a "horrible" thought is opaque to me. I tend to agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if the earth had remained as lifeless as the moon.

Fair criticism. Only a runaway greenhouse effect would result in an boiling of the oceans at that time, so that was an assumption of mine that that will probably happen (unless humanity, or whatever humanity becomes, does some things very differently).

As you'd have guessed, I'm not an antinatalist. The issue of pain only appeared with brains and nervous systems. Until then, biology was either healthy or unhealthy, and seemingly with only reflex responses to help it survive. Then biology found that it could thrive better if it actually had some idea of what was going on outside of its body - thus brains, suffering and, consequently, the adoption of antinatalism.

I'm optimistic about the far future, even if it appears that hard times are just ahead. I like to think that eventually post-humans can transcend suffering. What about a nice synthetic pain-free body, a downloadable (and thus, safe) mind, and a life focused on a pleasing virtual world without damaging nature? Maybe not everyone's idea of utopia, but probably better than history's list of unsustainable messes.

While nothing is guaranteed, there appears to be a growing bifurcation of humanity - the haves and have nots, the technologically enabled and "natural humans". Further, the admission price to be a "have" is ever higher and it appears that the increasing use of intelligent machines in the workplace is throwing the middle class under the bus along with the previously-displaced working class.

The "haves" appear to be relatively safe and protected while the "have nots" are, as always, much more vulnerable. Many experts suspect that human numbers will be decimated, but that some civilisations around the world will most likely persist, although more isolated for a while. Interesting times ahead.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:20 am

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:00 am All of this is simply ultimately life being shaped by its ongoing struggle to survive. Shaped into what? I believe in progress so I expect that, at least in the long term, continued evolution will result in something generally more aware and sophisticated in the same way as intelligent chordates are more aware and sophisticated than the microbes from which they had evolved

Nothing in evolutionary theory entails this. Quite the opposite.

There is no progress in evolution.

Gould was wrong when he declared evolution to be a "bush, not a tree".

Where is the evidence that evolution does not progress? A few cases where animals lose evolved features as they adapt to a new environment? That "evidence" pales compared to the emergence of multicellularity, chordates and space-faring humanity. Then again, Gould was not to know what humanity would become at the time of writing.

This is of more recent vintage regarding trees vs bushes on the evolutionary level.

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-tree-life-bush.html

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:10 am
Why the extinction of intelligent life, or even all life, is a "horrible" thought is opaque to me. I tend to agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if the earth had remained as lifeless as the moon.

The intelligent life on this planet may yet prove Schopenhauer right ironically through prolonged stupidity that seemed incapable of compromising with nature. Is it really so hard for humans to figure out who's guaranteed to be the loser in this conflict and what's actually in charge? Rhetorical question only though less so than the final one that asks, "how could we have fucked up so badly??", before the lights go out.

Nick, you should read the life of Florence Nightingale who revolutionised one notably spirit-killing Beast; the British Army in the nineteenth century.
She did so by working from within the institution and not letting go until the the soldiers received fair treatment. Florence Nightingale did not simply pontifcate but did the hard work. You seem to me to believe that you can sort out the ills of godlessness from above, by mystical advancement, or by preaching about what some great philosopher said. You cannot sort out any ills without understanding the institution that you are dealing with.

Secularism is not an institution. You might begin your life's work, if you have the energy, by understanding multinational corporations, also known as Great Beasts, which destroy individuals in the name of profit. You should come down from the clouds.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:09 am Nick, you should read the life of Florence Nightingale who revolutionised one notably spirit-killing Beast; the British Army in the nineteenth century.
She did so by working from within the institution and not letting go until the the soldiers received fair treatment. Florence Nightingale did not simply pontifcate but did the hard work. You seem to me to believe that you can sort out the ills of godlessness from above, by mystical advancement, or by preaching about what some great philosopher said. You cannot sort out any ills without understanding the institution that you are dealing with.

Secularism is not an institution. You might begin your life's work, if you have the energy, by understanding multinational corporations, also known as Great Beasts, which destroy individuals in the name of profit. You should come down from the clouds.

Of course secularism isn’t an institution, it is a mindset. It is a belief that the process of existence takes place on one level of reality. The institutions you refer to all consider themselves and considered by others to be expressions of one level of reality. Universalism knows that the secular mindset is oblivious of levels of reality so cannot understand that these institutions reflect the relationship between the secular level and the levels both directly above and below the secular. That is why a universalist is more concerned with what we ARE then what we DO. Real beneficial change is a change of what we ARE while secularism is only concerned with telling people what to DO. What is your reaction when people tell you what to DO? Why do you think it would be different with others..

Marx said that religion was the opium of the masses. Simone Weil countered with the claim that revolution is the opium of the masses. She was right. The collective attempt to change results by revolution is futile. Since we ARE as we ARE, everything IS as it IS so everything repeats and change is limited to temporary changes in form.

If you want to understand multinational corporations, know thyself. They have the same failings. Secularism is too egoistic to be open to the reality of the fallen human condition and how to change what we are to become human once again. It is closed to the reality that it is a MIDDLE determined by its relationship between the qualities of being both ABOVE and BELOW. Secular intolerance will do its best to maintain this ignorance.