Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:04 pmWell, we'll see if that turns out to be true. The Bible says one thing, you say another. And Harry insists that what the Bible says cannot possibly come true, because his understanding of it offends him.

One version of the truth is going to win. That's for sure.

But the more important truth is that *the Bible* says many different things, some of them wonderful and certainly beautiful, and some of them completely horrible and extremely ugly -- and here I refer to those quotations of Yahweh's words.

And I have not cited to the actions that Yahweh commanded his subjects to undertake. Some of these are simply ghastly.

Yahweh -- let me make a bold declaration -- declares himself to be the author of the Shoah. When Yahwey is displeased with his people-subjects he stimulates surrounding peoples, those he has commanded in other declarations to be neutralized, to raid, destroy, cut up, rape and enslave his own people.

There is a very very ever-so-slight need to begin to examine some of these declarations. To step back from them. And to examine the Biblical texts as creations of priest-classes who handle narrative and its manipulative potential. You do this at least when you critique Catholicism. But you do not seem to see the fuller and the larger picture.

So, right at this point we deal with problems and contradiction that must be thought about, must be resolved. And one of the ways that these things are thought about and resolved is by dealing with their moral implications. Then their immediate political and social implications. To do that one requires a philosophical attitude and method.

Who can really see our world right now?

What you want to say here needs to be isolated and accentuated. You have taken one element -- the prospect of a hell to be lived eternally in an after-world -- as being an absolute, irrefutable picture of a true outcome. You have done nothing in terms of exploring why you believe this aspect, and you do not have and did not have any intention at all of philosophically examining it because performing philosophy is not in any sense what you are doing!

So at least the philosophical pose can be dropped, no?

The reason you have the stance that you do is because you are a Christian Bible literalist. You are also a Christian Zionist, and Christian Zionism is a recent political-social creation (or interpretation for specific activism). Once one has begun to intelligently and let's say to fairly examine the over-arching edifice of Christian belief, and then of your specific derived belief (modern Christian Zionism), at that point a thoughtful person, and certainly a philosophical person, must pull back from 'forced' or 'requisite' belief. That is, blind belief.

But blind belief is what you recommend. You are a blind believer and, seemingly, you believe it morally and metaphysically necessary that those you communicate with become the sort of believer that you are.

This is why you are seen as acting out of psychologically coercive methods.

Do I expect you to get any of this? Of course not! In my view you are something (a phenomenon) that has to be seen, understood and dealt with.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:50 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:35 pm...

You are so far off the mark in analyzing me and what I say. But you will believe what you want to -- as shown by your habitual limited theories and resulting limited assessments.

Then I guess you'll have to explain yourself and set me straight. You have the floor . . .

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:50 pm You are so far off the mark in analyzing me and what I say. But you will believe what you want to -- as shown by your habitual limited theories and resulting limited assessments.

Lacewing, apropos of this apparent conflict between you and AJ, I am curious to know how you felt about being the inspiration behind Pastor Wiola (and her interactions with Bjorn aGus). Did it please you? Puzzle you? Amuse you? Offend you? Enlighten you? Or not have any particular effect upon you at all?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:26 pm "How can anyone be motivated by the objective truth of the human condition when they are asleep in Plato's Cave?"

"It is the task of the enlightened Nick_A not only to ascend to learning and to see the good but to be willing to descend again to those prisoners at PN and to share their troubles and their honors, whether they are worth having or not. And this Nick_A must do, even with the prospect of death." - Plato

Why include me in the quote? I am not worthy of it. It is an unforgiveable observation so easily results in death. It is not for polite company content with debating cave perspectives. Let sleeping dogs lie.

“It is the task of the enlightened not only to ascend to learning and to see the good but to be willing to descend again to those prisoners and to share their troubles and their honors, whether they are worth having or not. And this they must do, even with the prospect of death.”

― Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:02 pm this apparent conflict between you and AJ

I have no conflicts. I am so far above the fray and I stream along within currents of effervescent luminousness! I am the smile of Siddhartha. And the ultra-sharp blade of the assassin. I am the waterfall of death and the newly sprouted flower. I am a little puppy's whimper. I am that dried up ham & cheese sandwich found, mummified, behind your couch's cushions. I am a Holy Text. I am garbage blown in the wind. I am the planet Hercolubus careening through spacial void to bring an end to all things. I am some mere flakes of dandruff. I chirp, I whinnie, I wail.

To quote Hesse in Demian:

“I wanted only to try to live in accord with the prompting which came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?”

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:41 pm As the Good Book itself says...

I've proved to you that the "Good Book" is contradictory, and, thus, that it is unreliable, and thus, your quotes from it are irrelevant to the establishment of truth.

I've seen no "contradiction," save the fact that it "contradicts" your expectations, Harry. But the problem is not with the Good Book.

However, if you have it on hand, let's see what you think actually "contradicts." Put the two Biblical statements that you allege as "contradictions" side by side for me. And I'll see what I can do to address them.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:17 pm I have no conflicts.

But of course. Hence the qualifier "apparent".

Appearances can be deceiving.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Etc.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:17 pm I am so far above the fray and I stream along within currents of effervescent luminousness! I am the smile of Siddhartha. And the ultra-sharp blade of the assassin. I am the waterfall of death and the newly sprouted flower. I am a little puppy's whimper. I am that dried up ham & cheese sandwich found, mummified, behind your couch's cushions. I am a Holy Text. I am garbage blown in the wind. I am the planet Hercolubus careening through spacial void to bring an end to all things. I am some mere flakes of dandruff. I chirp, I whinnie, I wail.

Very good, sir. You show off your accomplished writing, and "writely" so, because it *is* very accomplished, and we should all get to enjoy and appreciate it.

If, however, I might interject a cheeky little rejoinder:

So, what you're saying is that there are is no separation between you and everything. Now, where have I heard that before?!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:24 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:41 pm As the Good Book itself says...

I've proved to you that the "Good Book" is contradictory, and, thus, that it is unreliable, and thus, your quotes from it are irrelevant to the establishment of truth.

I've seen no "contradiction," save the fact that it "contradicts" your expectations, Harry. But the problem is not with the Good Book.

However, if you have it on hand, let's see what you think actually "contradicts." Put the two Biblical statements that you allege as "contradictions" side by side for me. And I'll see what I can do to address them.

You can provide this guy with a cogent argument, and you can link to it as many times as you like, but he'll never address it. He'll just go off on his own diversionary tangents.

Click on the link, reread the argument, and address it, dude - or don't, and implicitly concede that you're incapable of doing so.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:32 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:16 pm Though, sure, it might be Mannie's very own One True Path that nails it.

It really couldn't. The truth is not contradictory.

And hopefully the truth is not that ridiculous.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:00 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:50 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:35 pm...

You are so far off the mark in analyzing me and what I say. But you will believe what you want to -- as shown by your habitual limited theories and resulting limited assessments.

Then I guess you'll have to explain yourself and set me straight. You have the floor . . .

It's simply not inspiring or entertaining for me to spend my energy with you. There is no need to show or convince you of anything. You can be as limited and off the mark as suits you, despite all that has been said. More words won't change that.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:02 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:50 pm You are so far off the mark in analyzing me and what I say. But you will believe what you want to -- as shown by your habitual limited theories and resulting limited assessments.

Lacewing, apropos of this apparent conflict between you and AJ, I am curious to know how you felt about being the inspiration behind Pastor Wiola (and her interactions with Bjorn aGus). Did it please you? Puzzle you? Amuse you? Offend you? Enlighten you? Or not have any particular effect upon you at all?

I had not seen it, so I just looked it up. It made me laugh. I wouldn't pay to go see it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:14 pm I had not seen it, so I just looked it up. It made me laugh.

Excellent. That was its main aim.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:14 pm I wouldn't pay to go see it.

Haha. I would hope not. It doesn't meet a professional standard. It was just a bit of playful fun to amuse thread participants.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:18 pm It was just a bit of playful fun to amuse thread participants.

I experience that a lot here (even when people don't intend it)... or I generate my own kind of fun to amuse myself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:55 pmIt's simply not inspiring or entertaining for me to spend my energy with you. There is no need to show or convince you of anything. You can be as limited and off the mark as suits you, despite all that has been said. More words won't change that.

You've broken my heart. There is nothing left now. Just another night to cry!

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:33 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:18 pm It was just a bit of playful fun to amuse thread participants.

I experience that a lot here (even when people don't intend it)... or I generate my own kind of fun to amuse myself.

Well, as the saying goes, if you don't laugh, you cry, so, I guess we've kinda gotta just entertain ourselves however we can. I go a little both ways: a mix of humour and censure.

Feel free to share your methods of self-amusement!