Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:11 pmI can't say that I care why.

Then why comment?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 6:31 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 6:09 pm Henry, you are a lackey. If some rich guy was hiring people to beat up on union organizers, you'd be at the head of the line.

This would be the sort of irrelevant nonsense I'd love to see expunged from this forum. It has nothing to do with any issue, and is just mean-spirited and stupid.

Meh, let him be mean-spirited & stupid. It's what he's good at.

Yeah, but personally, I don't want to hear it. I'm here for philosophy, not for eye-pokes and cream-pies-in-the-face.

That's what's really wrong with this site so far...not that it ranges into wrong topics, but that too few people here know what a "topic" is. They think the point of this forum is to rattle off (what they consider) "zingers" against anybody who disagrees with them, instead of engaging content thoughtfully. The only form of censorship I favour is the eliminating of things too stupid, infantile and irrelevant to be on a philosophy site. Unfortunately, that's a fair number of the exchanges that happen here.

And my biggest complaint about it is that it's BORING. It's a colossal waste of everybody's time. I have no idea who they think they're impressing, but they seem to think somebody's really struck with what a wit they are...

Me, I know I can find that level of thought and conversation anywhere at all on the internet. We don't need to be on a dedicated philosophy site for that sort of puerile activity.

Time to weed the garden, so the flowers can bloom.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:21 pmYeah, but personally, I don't want to hear it. I'm here for philosophy, not for eye-pokes and cream-pies-in-the-face.

Well, I think, as I say, the friend/foe button oughta be right out front so, for example, you could just make Gary disappear.

Rick, though, he has other ideas, so I'm guessin' -- soon -- you'll get your wish.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:55 pm I take it you're siding with a fundamentalist Archbishop against a reformist Pope? Otherwise, who cares? Are you Catholic?

There is more to be gained in understanding what fundamentalism is and involves, and what reform and reformism actually proposes.

See Le Fevbre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

I got up to the part where he says "no scientific discovery or theological discovery can make the Catholic Religion any less the only means of salvation".

Can I stop now professor or do I need to waste more of my time listening to that garbage?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 6:31 pm
This would be the sort of irrelevant nonsense I'd love to see expunged from this forum. It has nothing to do with any issue, and is just mean-spirited and stupid.

Meh, let him be mean-spirited & stupid. It's what he's good at.

Yeah, but personally, I don't want to hear it. I'm here for philosophy, not for eye-pokes and cream-pies-in-the-face.

That's what's really wrong with this site so far...not that it ranges into wrong topics, but that too few people here know what a "topic" is. They think the point of this forum is to rattle off (what they consider) "zingers" against anybody who disagrees with them, instead of engaging content thoughtfully. The only form of censorship I favour is the eliminating of things too stupid, infantile and irrelevant to be on a philosophy site. Unfortunately, that's a fair number of the exchanges that happen here.

And my biggest complaint about it is that it's BORING. It's a colossal waste of everybody's time. I have no idea who they think they're impressing, but they seem to think somebody's really struck with what a wit they are...

Me, I know I can find that level of thought and conversation anywhere at all on the internet. We don't need to be on a dedicated philosophy site for that sort of puerile activity.

Time to weed the garden, so the flowers can bloom.

I'm sure in the end the world will be nothing but "polite" gardeners after all us "weeds" are gone.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:21 pmYeah, but personally, I don't want to hear it. I'm here for philosophy, not for eye-pokes and cream-pies-in-the-face.

Well, I think, as I say, the friend/foe button oughta be right out front so, for example, you could just make Gary disappear.

Rick, though, he has other ideas, so I'm guessin' -- soon -- you'll get your wish.

It's not my wish. My wish is that people would behave themselves, and offer whatever intelligent input on subjects they happen to have. But not everybody's up to the task, and those that come to the rink without a skates shouldn't be on the ice.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:29 pm I'm sure in the end the world will be nothing but "polite" gardeners after all us "weeds" are gone.

I don't care about "polite." I care about "intelligent," and "on topic." Getting into personal insults is a waste of everybody's time...and it's foolish.

Then there is Rev Denis Fahey’s The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society.

It is interesting to note that Candace Owens, a big-time influencer, has become interested in and involved with traditional Catholic thought of this sort. It has an edge that is indeed fundamentalist. And it is attractive to people not only merely disillusioned with the topsy-turvy confusions of modernism (in its chaotic aspects), but to those who seek to reground themselves in traditionalist metaphysics.

The entire concept revolves around and hinges on an understanding of a mystical body (a supernatural reality) with which one has been invited to join and participate in.

To the degree that the understanding of the realness of this supernatural reality is pushed out of a man’s understanding, to that degree he shears away from the supernatural source.

“Organized naturalism” is the movement in the world toward what takes shape as absolute tyranny — of the sort presaged by the CCP. If one disregards that as a veritable danger, one is a fool.

Therefore, the struggle can be said to be between organized supernaturalism and organized naturalism. The former is steeped in metaphysical idealism and (technically) directed by it; the latter reduces itself to a Machiavellian realism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:29 pm I'm sure in the end the world will be nothing but "polite" gardeners after all us "weeds" are gone.

I don't care about "polite." I care about "intelligent," and "on topic." Getting into personal insults is a waste of everybody's time...and it's foolish.

I used no profanity. I merely pointed out what seems obvious to me.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:26 pm I got up to the part where he says "no scientific discovery or theological discovery can make the Catholic Religion any less the only means of salvation".

Can I stop now professor or do I need to waste more of my time listening to that garbage?

I’ve said it many times: if you want to understand the conflicts in our present, you have to examine the discourse of the other side — the side you (one) cannot bear to hear.

What is interesting to me about you, Gary, is that everything is measured against your own established position, which is often highly sentimental.

no scientific discovery or theological discovery can make the Catholic Religion any less the only means of salvation

In order to make sense of that radical statement you’d (we’d, one would) need to understand the metaphysical grounding in it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:29 pm I'm sure in the end the world will be nothing but "polite" gardeners after all us "weeds" are gone.

I don't care about "polite." I care about "intelligent," and "on topic." Getting into personal insults is a waste of everybody's time...and it's foolish.

I used no profanity. I merely pointed out what seems obvious to me.

It wasn't remotely relevant to anything. It was a waste of everybody's time. That's what I object to.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:41 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:26 pm I got up to the part where he says "no scientific discovery or theological discovery can make the Catholic Religion any less the only means of salvation".

Can I stop now professor or do I need to waste more of my time listening to that garbage?

I’ve said it many times: if you want to understand the conflicts in our present, you have to examine the discourse of the other side — the side you (one) cannot bear to hear.

What is interesting to me about you, Gary, is that everything is measured against your own established position, which is often highly sentimental.

no scientific discovery or theological discovery can make the Catholic Religion any less the only means of salvation

In order to make sense of that radical statement you’d (we’d, one would) need to understand the metaphysical grounding in it.

How much garbage do I need to sift through in order to "understand" you? Can't you at least join the 20th century and be done with it? We'll work on the 21st next week.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:32 pm
I don't care about "polite." I care about "intelligent," and "on topic." Getting into personal insults is a waste of everybody's time...and it's foolish.

I used no profanity. I merely pointed out what seems obvious to me.

It wasn't remotely relevant to anything. It was a waste of everybody's time. That's what I object to.

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:33 pm

I used no profanity. I merely pointed out what seems obvious to me.

It wasn't remotely relevant to anything. It was a waste of everybody's time. That's what I object to.

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:55 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:43 pm
It wasn't remotely relevant to anything. It was a waste of everybody's time. That's what I object to.

You waste everyone's time with your nonsense about atheists can't be moral. Do I get to throw any nonsense in or do you have special privy to posting nonsense.

That's nothing I ever said, so you'll have to own that one yourself.

Meanwhile, stop insulting people, and say something relevant and to-the-point, or go find some other site on which to play with cream pies.

What "cream pies" are you referring to? My posts have been spot on and you know it, or you wouldn't be so concerned.