Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 8:19 pm

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:56 pm … a narcissistic arrogance is always part of a charlatan's MO.

I could suggest — it is reasonable — that you are projecting.

Do you think it's intentional, or did he just forget to pull his zip up?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 8:19 pm I could suggest — it is reasonable — that you are projecting.

Like this response?

It is true that the contradiction that man employs requires •mind• — that is certain
— and our life, our culture, our civilization, is all a result of contradiction.

To contradict nature is a necessity.

Yes...and the degree of the contradiction exposes the degree of dissatisfaction.

Nihilism being the extreme contradiction of existence, revealing a deep anxiety concerning what is.
A defence attempting to protect the ego from its own developing awareness.

So, what does 'supernatural' say about your relationship with the natural?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 5:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 4:37 pm All that I've really said is that I've always elevated human thinking and myself to religious heights, mystified thinking and myself, even though we all know that there's absolutely no reason to.

Now you reveal, I think, what you are really on about. Any position that someone takes that does not conform to your own a priories is ridiculous and mystifying according to you. It is all self-deception according to you. There can be no other explanation.

It is a very convenient position but it is similarly reductive as many religious ideologies.

Often, and usually, the position that you seem to take has whole other sets of functions as well. Negation, ridicule, a sort of closed-mindedness, tends to lock one into a bubble or a closed-off intellectual area.

I'm somewhat familiar with psychology and science, and am sort of naturally gifted at figuring out how most people think and feel. To me, human thinking, abstract thinking, the appearance of ideas, concepts, structures, abstraction layers etc. in human thinking, are metaphysically about as mysterious as a rock. Of course ideas etc. didn't predate us and we don't "receive" them either.

This is what I think: there are adolescent minds, usually men, who when they encounter Nietzsche believe they have found their true assigned rôle as Ubermenchen. Then, they seek out those with whom they can carry on the Nietzschean performances — which, naturally, they can always win (to the degree they have mastered the rehearsals).

With that said, Herr Lorikeet, your position has been stated and really what else would you add?

Personally, I find it boring and responding to you will be a waste of my and your time. So I prefer not to.

I have yet to encounter women who have read some Nietzsche and become intellectually intoxicated. I wonder why that is?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:10 pm I have yet to encounter women who have read some Nietzsche and become intellectually intoxicated. I wonder why that is?

Just one of the great mysteries of life, I guess.

"Man contradicts Nature at every turn."
Like how?

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:40 pm

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 5:01 pm Men seek in the metaphysical an explaining for the physical.
Once, the sun was a mysterious object in the sky.
Men mystified it, converted it to a supernatural deity.....
They attempted to make sense of what was, to them, incomprehensible.

Yet when the greatest of human minds dive deeply into the physical for an explanation of why the physical is the way it is, they are, once again, confronted with the metaphysical, as is demonstrated in the following quote from one of the founding fathers of quantum physics...

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Clearly, you haven't gotten past the "first gulp."
_______

All metaphysics contradicting physis are claims attempting to make the incomprehensible comprehensible.

I suggest that metaphysics is simply an exploration into speculative realms where physics "refuses" to go, even though sometimes it should go there.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm The first "gulp, insinuates that you are an experienced drinker....

That's a very poor attempt at obfuscation, for in the context of the Heisenberg quote, the "first gulp" insinuates a novice drinker.

Do you think that Werner Heisenberg...

(the winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics")

...was a delusional charlatan for mentioning the word "God" in that quote?

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm The shallow always try to imply that their needs are founded on profound insights.

Actually, I find that the "shallow"...

(a group of humans that you seem to be a part of)

...are, in fact, victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm The mystical is always where 'your god' and 'your metaphysics' lie awaiting the next batch of needy souls to seek their comfort.

You speak as if the need for a spiritually-based mode of providing comfort or solace, say, for instance, in the case of the death of a loved one, is some antiquated human failing that has no place in modernity.

Why is that?

And what would you replace it with?

Give us an example of what you would say to comfort a grieving mother or father whose little girl just died.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm Why do you think Christianity and all three variants of Abrahamism, have lasted so long?

Because bone-headed (sleepwalking) humans have yet to awaken to a new level of spiritual understanding.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm Even the announcement of this god's death has been premature.

If you are referring to Nietzsche, then perhaps quoting a man who somehow managed to attach a guinea pig to his upper lip, isn't very wise.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm It lives on, in other forms....in secular ideologies.

Such as?

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm As long as there remain needy spirits, like yours, there will always exist the necessity for the 'god' of the Old & New Testaments, birthed in Gnosticism and Zoroastrian dualism.

Nonsense!

If you had the slightest idea of what my philosophy is about, then you would know that I have been insisting that it's time to formulate a new vision of God; one that is not only compatible with the modern discoveries in physics and cosmology, but one that actually makes sense.

Lorikeet wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 7:49 pm When the delusional cannot justify their claims they resort to the same accusations, alluding to their own profound understandings.

Who are the real delusional ones?

Is it the ones who believe that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance?

...Or...

Is it the ones who believe that the order is founded upon intelligence?
_______

Atla wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:39 pm "Man contradicts Nature at every turn."
Like how?

Thanks for asking. I think that what humanness does, what man does, is to contradict Nature’s determined patterns. The world is an unutterably cruel physical and biological entity (machine if you wish). Man rebels against its horrors and cruelties and dreams of another Reality. Whole other sets of possibilities that, in truth, contradict the world-machine.

In this sense the Christian revelation is a complete imposition of another order of idea-possibilities onto the world and also onto himself.

The act of contradiction:

[Latin contrādīcere, contrādict-, to speak against : contrā-, contra- + dīcere, to speak; see deik- in Indo-European roots.]

Is where many levels of metaphysical insertions take shape in our world. To be kind when to be cruel is more reasonable. To sacrifice a gain for some gain on an entirely different level. Those are •idealisms• and they are infused with metaphysical principles.

Civilization is, seen in a certain way, a mass-contradiction to what Nature would have demanded. I think we can see those contradictions everywhere.

Our ethics and our morality are ‘contradictory’ and — think about it — no one really wants to become that cold, remorseless, amoral Nietzschean eagle.

At least as far as I am aware every time such a thing is enacted (by sociopathic men) misery and horror — setbacks — occur that take years and decades to heal, if ever they are healed.

Well since people (or rather those 2-3 out of 10 people who do go against nature, which is too little on the long run) are also part of nature, and these "metaphysical insertions" are simply how these people think, it may be the case that this is still all part of, metaphorically speaking, "nature's plan". Well, it depends on what we mean by nature.

Nature has the plan that you and everyone observes. We call that •nature• and •the natural world•. Man’s impositions — those of Christianity more specifically — are anti-natural. They contradict natural predicates.

Where does that will come from?

It does not seem that Nature has a plan. That is what the science men say.

But man’s will, especially when infused with metaphysical principles, does.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:49 pm Yet when the greatest of human minds dive deeply into the physical for an explanation of why the physical is the way it is, they are, once again, confronted with the metaphysical, as is demonstrated in the following quote from one of the founding fathers of quantum physics...

Yes....
The structure is a triad is Physis, at the beginning, metaphysis, as subterranean foundation, and ideal as an extension upwards towards the heavens.
All three must be in alignment, otherwise the structure cannot weather the world's storms.
Physis, nature, is the center - connecting metaphysis and ideals.

Do you think that Werner Heisenberg...

(the winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics")

...was a delusional charlatan for mentioning the word "God" in that quote?

Without knowing how he defined the term, I must assume he used the current Abrahamic definition..... so yes.
Genius is not immune to anxiety.

If he defined 'god' as an ideal man must strive towards then he was stating the obvious.
Ideals, like all vlaue-judgements are founded on a triangulation with the ideal being the objective man used to orient his actions.
The objective is what defines him.
Ideals can be realistic or they can be unrealistic.
They can even be nihilistic.
Usually, culture determines what ideals men strive towards, or what they consider an ideal man.

The current Abrahamic definition of 'god' is, nihilistic, unrealistic and founded on a tradition that remains anti-nature.

Actually, I find that the "shallow"...

(a group of humans that you seem to be a part of)

...are, in fact, victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Abraham's god is such an effect.

Those that claim humility are the most arrogant of them all.
They believe they deserve immortality and the care of an omnipotent being.
Their arrogance is redirected through their god to preserve their sense of "innocence".
All their failings are compensated through this ideal - power through association.

You speak as if the need for a spiritually-based mode of providing comfort or solace, say, for instance, in the case of the death of a loved one, is some antiquated human failing that has no place in modernity.

Why is that?

You can speculate all you want.

Rejecting a comforting absurdity cannot be rectified by seeking a flaw in the rejection... but in the one pretending to know something he does not, nor can ever know.

Existential anxiety is the root of modern religious belief.
Like I said.... when man came across what he found incomprehensible, like the forces of nature, or death, or planetary bodies, he dealt with the anxiety his ignorance caused, by naming and converting them into something seemingly comprehensible, he then justified it using mysticism and later he used metaphysics.

One can justify anything using this method, provided it is self-coinsistent, plausible - due to the absence of omniscience - and comforting.
Ignorance becomes a justification for occult gnosis.....a method of manipulating and controlling the masses.

Since men need complete total knowledge and understanding they need some kind of metaphysics to keep them disciplined and calm.

And what would you replace it with?

Philosophy is about the truth.
Most men don't want the truth - they can't handle it, as the man said....
Most men need lies.
This is why philosophy is not for everyone.
It isn't a social self-help manual where we pretend and lie to make friends.

Give us an example of what you would say to comfort a grieving mother or father whose little girl just died.

I would not say a thing, or tell them to endure as we all must endure tragedies.....or I would lie.
But this isn't a get-togehter.
Philosophy isn't about comforting each other with lies and pretences.

Because bone-headed (sleepwalking) humans have yet to awaken to a new level of spiritual understanding.

Ha!
And that would have been claimed by any charlatan proposing an absurdity he cannot prove nor justify.

Ignorance is always where they project their claims.
Shaming the other when he resists their seductive calls.
Like those selling modern crap as profound art to simpletons.

Ignorance is not gnosis.
You cannot claim something is true because men will one day discover it to be so.
Truth is founded on the observable, and it expands.
Men of integrity base their beliefs on the observable.

The shaming method of declaring an absurdity to be comprehensible to only a few gifted or those with high IQs, or those with pure spirits, or whatever, is effective among the masses.
Not with me.

If you are referring to Nietzsche, then perhaps quoting a man who somehow managed to attach a guinea pig to his upper lip, isn't very wise.

Wow.....resetiment....
Well, given your positions, your stiff upper lip is quivering.

Such as?

Marxism, Postmodernism...
Secular forms of Abrahamic superstitions.
Going back to Gnosticism.

The idea of a soul, for example, is at the root of the current madness concerning sex/gender dysphoria.
The idea that claims to be born in the "wrong body" is based on Abrahamism = an immortal soul trapped in a mortal body; a divine spark trapped in kellipots, awaiting to be liberated so that they can return to the divine.

Nonsense!

If you had the slightest idea of what my philosophy is about, then you would know that I have been insisting that it's time to formulate a new vision of God; one that is not only compatible with the modern discoveries in physics and cosmology, but one that actually makes sense.

I deal with what you post, not what you've posted.

God(s), as it was once defined, referred to nature's forces.
I am not interested in Christianity 3.0.
Herd morality is herd morality, no matter how many times you change the names.

Who are the real delusional ones?

Have these methods worked for you in the past?
Very feminine....passive aggressive.
I know I am but so are you.... schoolyard taunts.

Is it the ones who believe that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of the blind and mindless processes of chance?

Chaos & Order.
Chance is a term used to refer to what remains unpredictable.

...Or...

Is it the ones who believe that the order is founded upon intelligence?

Intelligence and consciousness, is a manifestation of ordering.
But chaos is the challenge they struggle to overcome.
Ordering....not order.
Process. Dynamic and interactive.
Becoming, not Being.

All is Energy.
Εν-Εργεια...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 11:03 pm Nature has the plan that you and everyone observes. We call that •nature• and •the natural world•. Man’s impositions — those of Christianity more specifically — are anti-natural. They contradict natural predicates.

Where does that will come from?

It does not seem that Nature has a plan. That is what the science men say.

But man’s will, especially when infused with metaphysical principles, does.

God created nature.

If man's "impositions" are anti-natural, then they are against God's creation and God's intent.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2024 11:44 am God created nature.
If man's "impositions" are anti-natural, then they are against God's creation and God's intent.

Yes, the story goes that •God created Nature• and a terrifying, cruel, brutal and deadly system. Were a man to do what any of nature’s creatures do, he’d be imprisoned for life.

Do you see the point? If God created this, then God is really a sort of demon, not the •all loving God•.

Christianity, at its very essence, is anti-nature in the sense I am pointing out (with inexplicable difficulty getting through).

Christianity (and other religious philosophies) says •Don’t do it Nature’s way. Don’t imitate Nature. Act differently.•

The Nietzschean philosophy — an extremely powerful Ubermenchian sage has just appeared among us (Lorikeet: philosophy’s uber-parakeet) — is, essentially, the recognition that how Life really is, is not the way Christian morality says it is or should be. It is, let’s say, realistic, modern, and in tune with biological and scientific outlooks.

It is therefore anti-Christian.

You tell me what •God’s intent• is if the natural world is that intention for man.

The Christian proposition is of a radical opposition; a direct contradiction. It says essentially that there is a way out of the terrible problem of life’s impossible conflicts.

Take that as you will. But this is the basis of opposition to the entire Christian metaphysical way.

Lorikeet (one among many) is explaining this in detail. His Teaching is that of the wisdom of the Enlightened Ubermench.

The Eagle does not scream, he clearly enunciates ….

Ha! Ha! — the clapping of philosophical thunder …

For those who contributed to my bike fund — thanks! This AM I just topped US$13,000.00!

I am moved right down to my soul.