Philosophy Now Forum

Yes, I see your point, you're right of course, I agree.

Typist wrote:Yes, I see your point, you're right of course, I agree.

You agree with which point? not the one about the religious experience and the stadium effect, surely?

Thundril wrote:

Typist wrote: It's always interesting to me when folks who don't believe in religion claim to know what the religious experience is.
Do you not see the irony? This is just what atheists claim theists do, come to conclusions regarding things they couldn't possibly know.

It's always interesting to me when people who should be smart enough to know better assume that a person who is atheist has always been atheist.
You have come to a conclusion regarding things you couldn't possibly know about. Do you not see the irony?

Typist has suffered from an ironectomy for sometime now. I think it was surgically removed when she first saluted the US flag.

I agree your theories could be correct.

Perhaps you might wish to agree that just as I can't know whether you are correct or not, neither can you.

Arising_uk wrote:

Typist wrote:Jiddu Krishnamurti is a primary influence on Tolle. Krishnamurti was an interesting character (he died in 1980) as he was fully fluent in both western and eastern cultures. He was a truly global citizen, before such a concept became common place.

Krishnamurti's writing is more intellectual in nature, and so would probably appeal more than either of the above writers. Like me, he's very wordy, and wrote dozens of books and gave thousands of talks all around the world for decades.

Show me your books?

My personal favourite, with regard to Krishnamurti and others, is "Stripping the Gurus:Sex, Violence, Abuse and Enlightenment," available in PDF for free.

My personal favorite is "Why Chronically Constipated Tight Assed Ideologists Desperately Attempt To Reduce All Of Reality To Their Own Personal Limitations So They'll Feel More Comfortable" by Professor I. B. Blowhard of Hot Air University. Available from Toilet Paper Press.

(PS: Please recall, I've been officially booted off the official Krishnamurti forum due to my own debunkination addiction.)

A few quick Krishnamurti quotes, lifted randomly out of different talks.

Can you look to anybody to tell you what to do? - to the priest, to the specialist, to the analyst? They have not brought about peace or happiness, joy, freedom to live. So where are you to look? If you assume the responsibility of your own authority as an individual, because you no longer have any faith in outward authority - we are using the word `authority' advisedly in a particular sense of that word - then you as an individual, will you look for your own authority inwardly?

Therefore there is no teacher or disciple, there is not the speaker to whom you listen, either agreeing or disagreeing - which would be absurd. If we are communicating, then there is no question of agreement or disagreement, because both of us are looking, both of us are examining, not from your point of view, or from the speaker's point of view.

So one must be tremendously cautious about this word. You cannot possibly experience truth. As long as there is a centre of recollection as the 'me', as the thinker, truth is not. And when another says that he has had an experience of the real, distrust him, don't accept his authority. We all want to accept somebody who promises something, because we have no light in ourselves, and nobody can give you that light, no one - no guru, no teacher, no saviour, no one. Because we have accepted so many authorities in the past, have put our faith in others, either they have exploited us or they have utterly failed. So one must distrust, deny all spiritual authority. Nobody can give us this light that never dies.

And the other thing is this acceptance of authority - the following of another who promises through a certain form, certain system, method, discipline, the eventual ultimate reality. To follow another is to imitate. Please do observe all this, listen to all this simply. Because that is what one has to do: one has to deny completely the authority of another, however pretentious, however convincing, however Asiatic he be. To follow implies not only the denying of one's own clarity, of one's own investigation, one's own integrity and honesty, but also it implies that your motive in following is the reward. And truth is not a reward. If one is to understand it, any form of reward and punishment must be totally set aside. Authority implies fear. And to discipline oneself according to that fear of not gaining what the exploiter in the name of truth or experience, and all the rest of it says, denies one's own clarity and honesty. And if you say you must meditate, you must follow a certain path, a certain system, obviously you are conditioning yourself according to that system or method. And what that method promises perhaps you will get, but it will be nothing but ashes. Again the motive there is achievement, success and at the root of it is fear, and fear is pleasure.

And having clearly understood that between yourself and myself, that there is no authority in this. The speaker has no authority whatsoever. He is not trying to convince you of anything, or asking you to follow. You know, when you follow somebody you destroy that somebody. The disciple destroys the master and the master destroys the disciple. You can see this happening historically and in daily life, when the wife or the husband dominate each other they destroy each other. In that there is no freedom, there is no beauty, there is no love.

The phrase "The speaker has no authority" is a very common theme in JK's work. He repeats it over and over again, for decades. He is referring to himself with the word "speaker".

Thundril wrote:

Typist wrote: It's always interesting to me when folks who don't believe in religion claim to know what the religious experience is.
Do you not see the irony? This is just what atheists claim theists do, come to conclusions regarding things they couldn't possibly know.

It's always interesting to me when people who should be smart enough to know better assume that a person who is atheist has always been atheist.
You have come to a conclusion regarding things you couldn't possibly know about. Do you not see the irony?

If you don't mind, Thundril and Typist, I'd like to butt in on this. I confess (and have admitted before) to not understanding what a "religious experience" is (although other experiencdes seem to me to serve as analogies, I can't really be sure). However, it is very, very true, as Thundril points out, that there have been many people with strong religious faith, who have indeed experienced (sometimes even in words that they can convey to others) their faith at a very visceral level -- and who are now atheists. Just for a couple of examples, I suggest "Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity" by John Loftus, or "Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith" by Charles Templeton, once a senior pastor with Billy Graham's organization.

I confess (and have admitted before) to not understanding what a "religious experience" is (although other experiencdes seem to me to serve as analogies, I can't really be sure).

True.

However, it is very, very true, as Thundril points out, that there have been many people with strong religious faith, who have indeed experienced (sometimes even in words that they can convey to others) their faith at a very visceral level -- and who are now atheists.

Also true.

And there are atheists who have become theists as well.

Typist wrote:My personal favorite is "Why Chronically Constipated Tight Assed Ideologists Desperately Attempt To Reduce All Of Reality To Their Own Personal Limitations So They'll Feel More Comfortable" by Professor I. B. Blowhard of Hot Air University. Available from Toilet Paper Press.

You mention “ideology” frequently, and I’ve no doubt you think I’m bogged down in one of my own. Let me, perhaps, try to explain what humanism (my “ideology”) means to me, because the one important thing about it is that it says nothing at all about what anybody else is supposed to do, only what I am supposed to do.

First, I personally reject supernaturalism. To me, everything is natural, although it is certain that there are many things that are not known to us, which does not make them supernatural.

Second, humanism means that I am able and responsible to lead an ethical life, and which can be made more fulfilling by working (as best I know how) to the greater good of humanity, whether I actually know how to accomplish that or not, but that to the extent I can figure it out, it is fulfilling.

Third, that knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. That while I may have my own “private revelation,” when those are not explicable to others through observation, experimentation and rational analysis, I have no business expecting others to accept them. Because to call what I personally think but cannot demonstrate "knowledge" is epistemologically unsound.

Fourth, that humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that that process continues – meaning we ought not to consider ourselves the ultimate creation.

Fifth, that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

Sixth, that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships, and that this is an undeniable underpinning of all human interaction.

And seventh, that because we are social and interdependent, working as I am able to benefit society can only maximize my own individual happiness. As a social animal, I will thrive better in a society that is less wanting, less disfunctional.

Now, that is unquestionably a list of ideas, but it is not -- I think -- an ideology in the sense that it requires anything at all of you or anyone else. Those ideas inform my life, my thought, my behaviour. And as a human being, while they "inform" I sometimes fail to react appropriately. We all take a wrong turn from time to time. But I don't impose my map on anybody else, so in that sense, I would not call it an "ideology."

Typist wrote:

EvangelicalHumanist wrote:However, it is very, very true, as Thundril points out, that there have been many people with strong religious faith, who have indeed experienced (sometimes even in words that they can convey to others) their faith at a very visceral level -- and who are now atheists.

Also true.

And there are atheists who have become theists as well.

Agreed, which just goes to show that we humans have a lot of imagination, and that we act on what we think and believe.

But let me point out something that I think important to this topic: while it's easy to go from theist to atheist, atheist to theist, with an occasional stop at agnosticism along the way, there's actually nothing we own that can really inform our choices.

Where we have real information, however, we are remarkably alike. How many "gravitationists" lapse into "agravitation" and walk confidently off the towering precipice? How many who believe that fire can burn change their minds and walk into the inferno in high hope of experiencing some new treat?

(Now, just so you know, one of the basic precepts of my thought is that where there is absolutely no information that can reliably attest to something, it seems reasonable to suppose that that something isn't really worth worrying about.)

...because the one important thing about it is that it says nothing at all about what anybody else is supposed to do, only what I am supposed to do.

And what your ideology has told you you're supposed to do is make a career out of telling others they aren't supposed to be religious.

And then, when confronted with this blatant contradiction, your ideology instructs you to back peddle, waffle, and so on, in an attempt to maintain the illusion of separation between you and those of the other ideology, which is involved in the same process.

What my ideology tells me is that this process is not personal, that it springs directly out of the divisive nature of thought. That's why everybody who is involved in ideology gets sucked in to this trap, including me. Observe how I am now posing my ideology as being superior to yours, just as you are posing yours as being superior to theists, who are posing their ideology as superior to yours, etc etc.

My ideology suggests we step back from the details of this or that ideology, and examine the more fundamental drivers of the entire ideology process. Which is my ideology is the best one, and superior to all others!

First, I personally reject supernaturalism. To me, everything is natural,

If a God exists, it would be part of nature. Imho, the key word in your sentence above is "reject" not supernaturalism. You're real in to the reject experience.

Second, humanism means that I am able and responsible to lead an ethical life, and which can be made more fulfilling by working (as best I know how) to the greater good of humanity, whether I actually know how to accomplish that or not, but that to the extent I can figure it out, it is fulfilling.

Got it, agree.

Third, that knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

And, using rational analysis, we can reason that reason itself is a relatively new invention, and that we are almost certain to learn new methods of discovery in coming years that are currently beyond our imagination. In other words, reason is just a tool, not a religion.

That while I may have my own “private revelation,” when those are not explicable to others through observation, experimentation and rational analysis, I have no business expecting others to accept them.

Which doesn't stop you from relentlessly expecting us to accept your theory that Gods don't exist, despite any evidence that you, or any us, are in a position to know such things.

Fourth, that humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change, and that that process continues – meaning we ought not to consider ourselves the ultimate creation.

There is no evidence that anybody really knows whether it is guided or not.

I like the idea that we are not the ultimate creation, but so far the evidence says we are. Like you, I expect new evidence to over turn this eventually.

Fifth, that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

I can vote for this.

Sixth, that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships, and that this is an undeniable underpinning of all human interaction.

Ok.

And seventh, that because we are social and interdependent, working as I am able to benefit society can only maximize my own individual happiness. As a social animal, I will thrive better in a society that is less wanting, less disfunctional.

Sounds good. Which brings us to the question of where all the dysfunction that surrounds us comes from.

Now, that is unquestionably a list of ideas, but it is not -- I think -- an ideology in the sense that it requires anything at all of you or anyone else.

So um, why is your screen name "evangelicalhumanist" and why are you continually evangelizing???? I don't object to this, I'm only asking, why are your sales efforts so different than that of any other ideology?

evangelicalhumanist wrote:(Now, just so you know, one of the basic precepts of my thought is that where there is absolutely no information that can reliably attest to something, it seems reasonable to suppose that that something isn't really worth worrying about.)

So why are you always worrying about whether gods exist or not etc?

Here's why I said that. It's not a personal rebuke, and apologize if it sounds or feels like that.

The premise underlying all my comments is that any ideology can be ripped to shreds if the ripper is clever and articulate enough. This applies to my own ideology as well, which is riddled with self-contradiction.

My premise is that to the degree our personal identity is constructed from any of these ideologies, we are likely headed towards pain and confusion. This is especially true if we share our ideology publicly, as it's only a matter of time until somebody who plays the debate game better than we do comes along. Again, this is as true for me as it is for you or anybody else.

Why can any ideology be ripped to shreds in the right hands? That's a question we might focus on.

Here's my theory.

Reality is whole. Thought is fragmentary, a division machine.

Thus, nothing expressed in thought will ever really be true, as the medium itself creates an illusion of division, where none actually exists.

As example, the words "theism" and "atheism" create the illusion of a hard line separation between two fundamentally different ideologies. But the reality is, they are fundamentally one. Both ideologies are people who like to parade around claiming to know things they couldn't possibly know.

On the surface, different. Just underneath the surface, the same, unified, one.

My premise (not mine actually) is that once we see the distortion that thought introduces in to our view of reality, we will begin looking for "the truth" by other means.

i was wondering about your responsibility if you keep insisting people to just try aphilosophy, do you?
what if, someone says: just try aliving! you dont know what is it really to be dead if you dont try it and just kill yourself.
what do you think about that?
and what else there are that we havent done yet? murder? torturing? child abuse? rape? bank robbery?..i bet theres people who have done those things and love to do more. but still i am hesitating to follow them or you, why oh why!?

Mark Question wrote:i was wondering about your responsibility if you keep insisting people to just try aphilosophy, do you?
what if, someone says: just try aliving! you dont know what is it really to be dead if you dont try it and just kill yourself.
what do you think about that?
and what else there are that we havent done yet? murder? torturing? child abuse? rape? bank robbery?..i bet theres people who have done those things and love to do more. but still i am hesitating to follow them or you, why oh why!?

.

There is nothing to 'try'. Any quality with an 'a-' prefix, means that it is what ever philosophy is not; contentless. Many on this site have been trying to tell Typist that for over a year with atheism, but she won't believe us.
As philosophy does not believe in anything, there is not even a thing not to believe in aphilosophy.