Re: Christianity
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:01 pm
The fact that she sings better than you doesn't contradict anything I've said. She would still sing better than you if she were working in a supermarket and only sang on pub karaoke night.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
The fact that she sings better than you doesn't contradict anything I've said. She would still sing better than you if she were working in a supermarket and only sang on pub karaoke night.
The term, "Conditional truth" already tells you what it is as clearly as clear can be.Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:57 pmI'm not sure there is such a thing as absolute truth, and if there is I'm not sure we are able to know or understand it. It seems to me that the best we can strive for is our own conditional truth. And if you were to ask me what I mean by that, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to tell you. I hope you find yours, Nick, I honestly do.
That's true. But "better" means "higher in the hierarchy of that particular value." That's why she gets millions, and I get asked to tone it down. She's a music queen, and I'm a croaker.Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:01 pmThe fact that she sings better than you doesn't contradict anything I've said. She would still sing better than you if she were working in a supermarket and only sang on pub karaoke night.
I don't resent her either. For one thing; she has never tried to tell me what to do, and for another; I haven't contributed to her wealth.
Of course. But hierarchically, in regard to singing talent, I suppose she's well above us both. And in my case, there would be a whole bunch of people between where I deserve to be placed, and where she is.
I didn't say all human beings were equal in ability, and I don't think I resent natural hierarchy, where someone has a capability that I don't have. It is the artificial hierarchy in our society that I don't like. Maybe it is necessary, but I still don't like it, and I avoid cooperating with it if I can get away with it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:43 pm
Of course. But hierarchically, in regard to singing talent, I suppose she's well above us both. And in my case, there would be a whole bunch of people between where I deserve to be placed, and where she is.
Hierarchy is about quality. She's got the quality. I have much less. It's all good, man.
Hey, we agree on that entirely.Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:52 pmI didn't say all human beings were equal in ability, and I don't think I resent natural hierarchy, where someone has a capability that I don't have. It is the artificial hierarchy in our society that I don't like. Maybe it is necessary, but I still don't like it, and I avoid cooperating with it if I can get away with it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:43 pm
Of course. But hierarchically, in regard to singing talent, I suppose she's well above us both. And in my case, there would be a whole bunch of people between where I deserve to be placed, and where she is.
Hierarchy is about quality. She's got the quality. I have much less. It's all good, man.
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. I readily accept that people have talents far greater than my own, and have quite often been very glad of it. Social superiority and all that goes with it is what I was talking about.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:01 pm
Hey, we agree on that entirely.
It's the people who claim to hate ALL hierarchies that are nuts. Because then, they don't value quality in anything.
It's not my prerogative to explain to Nick what you meant by it. The only one who can do that is you. If you think about it, I'm certain you'll arrive at the same conclusion.
I beg to differ. Conditions in Russia made certain excesses likely. But there are defects right at the very core of Marx’s theory. Wherever they are applied similar outcomes result.
In one sense you are right. That is why it is important to examine Neo-Marxism. ‘They’ switched tactics. (Read Gramsci to better understand).Actually, I find it incredible that we are still talking about Marxism today. We live in a very different world to the one that Marx was reacting to. I think it is the hard right who are keeping the term alive.
I don't actually know what Marx said. If he specified the brutality with which Lenin and his thugs executed their plans, then I am mistaken. If the conditions that ordinary citizens found themselves living under when Stalin got hold of the reins was what Marx had in mind, then I am also wrong about that.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:46 pmI beg to differ. Conditions in Russia made certain excesses likely. But there are defects right at the very core of Marx’s theory. Wherever they are applied similar outcomes result.
Not for me it isn't; I don't believe a word of it.The ‘hard right’ — a structured conservative and even militant right — is the only faction that is intellectually equipped to mount a defense and an offense. Liberalism cannot do it on its own.
It is a conundrum.
I don't care if it's the right lying about the left, or the left lying about the right, I'm sick of people using forums as a soap box. It's just a pesonal thing, it's boring, and it's annoying.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:35 pm
When you say you don’t believe a word of the hard right, who are you thinking of? And what don’t you believe?
Some strive to experience their conditioned truths:Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:57 pmI'm not sure there is such a thing as absolute truth, and if there is I'm not sure we are able to know or understand it. It seems to me that the best we can strive for is our own conditional truth. And if you were to ask me what I mean by that, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to tell you. I hope you find yours, Nick, I honestly do.
Can there be a more honest sincere goal supporting conditioned truths? To the victor belongs the spoils.“Conan, what is good in life?” Conan: “To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.” —Conan, from the movie “Conan the Barbarian”