Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pm
There are and have been a minority who for one reason or another came to realize they reside in Plato's Cave governed by imagination. If they have the need and courage they seek to understand why it is so and find the way out. The majority defend cave life because it provides purpose and meaning. That is why on philosophy sites The Cave allegory is never explored and those willing to do so without interpreting it into oblivion, are banished. To do so threatens ones reason to exist so is intolerable for secular sites.

I don't agree, Nick. It is only when you come out from the cave that you see religion for the sham it is. It is the religious who cannot tolerate leaving the cave.

Age

There are several reasons that oppose your approach. The first is that you don't appreciate the difference between knowledge and understanding and why you oppose understanding assuming you have it. The second is confusion over "I Am." God said that I am that I am Eventually the goal of human evolution begins with the transition of the plurality of human being into unity; "I AM" at a lower level. Some start believing they are God which is demonic.

That is why we cannot communicate.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:43 am Given that it isn't present in the complementary argument that I presented: yes, it was superfluous to my original point. Still, you haven't explicitly presented an alternative conception. We're all still waiting...

You'll wait until Hell freezes over of course . . .

The reason is simple: the notion of eternal Hell is foundational to Christianity and more so to the Evangelical Protestantism with which IC is associated. The idea of an eternal Hell, then, is a 'pillar' that cannot be removed. The reason is obvious: if that pillar is removed the entire metaphysics could collapse.

So though you have done a thorough and a commendable job in presenting a very tight case, IC could not ever accept the logic of your premises, and indeed would have to argue irrationally and illogically (as he is now doing) in order to hold up a pillar which cannot be allowed to weaken.

Again, no matter how we look at this issue, we are dealing with an 'imagined circumstance' of a soul after death of the body. But this points to one of the foundational elements in the Christian system: the painting of a specific picture that is said to be endorsed by god. If you deny or modify the picture, you enter a treacherous theological territory. And to change the way that Hell is envisioned, certainly for believing Christians, would have many levels of consequence.

The meaning of all this? That we hold certain pictures in our minds and that the pictures serve functions. Are these pictures *true* pictures? There is no way to answer that question if one is inside of a belief-system that requires such an element in the painted picture.

So when Harbal notes that religious belief is comparable to life in Plato's Cave and can be condemned as contaminated seeing he is not far off the mark. The 'picture' though is not the reality. But we have no way (that I am aware) to be certain about life-after-death that is not imagined and thus not such a 'picture'.

It could be seen as wise, nonetheless, to hold to a vision of a future world, a future life, that will be a consequence and if you will a punishment, or a reward, for the life lived here, now. But that would involve seeing in allusive terms. That is, seeing the Picture as a general allusion but not necessarily as reality.

So clearly a religious picture could be an oppression from which one would need to liberate oneself so to be able to see more clearly!

And so too the allusion in a given Picture could have just the same sort of liberating effect and result in being able to turn around and to see through the projected shadows.

But ultimately the question still remains: What is true seeing? and who sees truly? No matter what the importance of seeing clearly still remains.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:34 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pm
There are and have been a minority who for one reason or another came to realize they reside in Plato's Cave governed by imagination. If they have the need and courage they seek to understand why it is so and find the way out. The majority defend cave life because it provides purpose and meaning. That is why on philosophy sites The Cave allegory is never explored and those willing to do so without interpreting it into oblivion, are banished. To do so threatens ones reason to exist so is intolerable for secular sites.

I don't agree, Nick. It is only when you come out from the cave that you see religion for the sham it is. It is the religious who cannot tolerate leaving the cave.

There is secularized religion and what is argued over in Plato's Cave. Yet there is the essence of religion; its meaning and purpose, which a person so inclined tries to feel. The essence of religion is its transcendent source that originates from beyond earthly and its sensory limitations. A person tries to free themselves from acquired interpretations and habits in order to experience what the depth of their being is drawn to but their personality prevents.

One thing I've learned over the years is how Man has been made oblivious of both scale and relativity. In short we have no measure of objective quality so remain as we are fighting over opinions created by imagination in Plato's Cave. Yet some begin to smell the coffee and strive to acquire what is necessary to awaken.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:52 pm The essence of religion is its transcendent source that originates from beyond earthly and its sensory limitations.

Anyone who experiences that has only talked themself into a different state of mind. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but it's all in the mind.

Yet some begin to smell the coffee and strive to acquire what is necessary to awaken.

I can't resist the smell of coffee, Nick.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:43 am you failed to respond.

I'm going to make two messages here, Harry: this one, to deal exclusively with procedure, and the second, after you decide, about the content. I'm not forgoing the content discussion; I'm just aware that procedure, at present, isn't salutary.

So let's decide this much, if we can. How do we want to talk to each other?

So far, we're in a kind of adversarial mode. I don't think that's profitable for us, especially in any discussion that aspires to take issues seriously and develop understandings carefully.

You said you didn't like any "Socratic" mode, or any "conversational" one. However, if we can't ask each other questions, and if we don't listen to each other and exchange ideas conversationally, I don't see how we're likely to go anywhere.

So I'm offering you whatever you would like: continue in the present mode, adversarial as it is, or opt for a more calm, unimpassioned, measured and conversational kind of exchange.

My personal preference is for the latter. I don't think anybody finds the former useful, or even particularly pleasant. But once the adversarial mode starts, egos tend to get involved (not accusing, just saying it generally happens to people this way) and it becomes an issue of "wins" and "losses" rather than meaningful mutual progress. The barbs fly, the wording gets touchy, personalities get involved, and the ad hominem accusations fly. But the two interlocutors have essentially given up listening to one another, so no progress is likely to happen...or even to be possible...after that.

Still, that mode of interaction is hard to give up, once one has started to adopt that tone and strategy, because it feels like a capitulation to somebody one has been practicing speaking abruptly to. It's difficult to de-escalate a habitual tone of conflict. But it can be done, if the two interlocutors are on the same page about that.

That's what I want to try to do here. So I want to offer you that option. How do you want to proceed?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:09 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:52 pm The essence of religion is its transcendent source that originates from beyond earthly and its sensory limitations.

Anyone who experiences that has only talked themself into a different state of mind. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but it's all in the mind.

Yet some begin to smell the coffee and strive to acquire what is necessary to awaken.

I can't resist the smell of coffee, Nick.

Nothing like good coffee.

People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello

Is the objective awareness of the calling from the depth of our being determined by the mind or by the heart? This question could generate so much negativity that I would be kicked out for questioning the superiority of the mind as it pertains to AJs question "how to see."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pm There are and have been a minority who for one reason or another came to realize they reside in Plato's Cave governed by imagination. If they have the need and courage they seek to understand why it is so and find the way out.

I think we can see the power and intoxication of imagination in all areas of human existence, including in Christianity and other religious beliefs, as well. Do you agree?

Do you feel that you can somehow discern those who are in such a cave?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pmThat is why on philosophy sites The Cave allegory is never explored and those willing to do so without interpreting it into oblivion, are banished.

Well, #1, that's not why anyone is banished; and #2, the idea can only be explored honestly if it's not presented from the projection of someone else's 'cave'.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pmTo do so threatens ones reason to exist so is intolerable for secular sites.

Challenges to Christianity are typically not tolerated by Christians for the reason you attribute to secularism. Their belief system gives them a reason to exist, so they are resistent or unable to question it without bias. Does it really matter whether or not one believes in a god, in regard to whether or not one is functioning in a 'cave' (as you say)?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:42 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:09 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:52 pm The essence of religion is its transcendent source that originates from beyond earthly and its sensory limitations.

Anyone who experiences that has only talked themself into a different state of mind. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but it's all in the mind.

Yet some begin to smell the coffee and strive to acquire what is necessary to awaken.

I can't resist the smell of coffee, Nick.

Nothing like good coffee.

People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello

Is the objective awareness of the calling from the depth of our being determined by the mind or by the heart? This question could generate so much negativity that I would be kicked out for questioning the superiority of the mind as it pertains to AJs question "how to see."

"The heart" says Nick, intending that his reader will presume emotion is mystic truth.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:07 pm The idea of an eternal Hell, then, is a 'pillar' that cannot be removed. The reason is obvious: if that pillar is removed the entire metaphysics could collapse.

That's no more or less true of the Doctrine of Hell than of any other doctrine, AJ. It's a whole package. It's not as if Christians can simply dispense with the Resurrection, or the miracles, or the Doctrine of Salvation, either. They're all part of a totality, of a worldview: one either believes God, or one doesn't.

But I'm not worried about my "metaphysics collapsing." I think that's actually a pretty funny phrase.

Hold on to your knickers, and we'll see where Harry wants to go, first.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:55 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pm There are and have been a minority who for one reason or another came to realize they reside in Plato's Cave governed by imagination. If they have the need and courage they seek to understand why it is so and find the way out.

I think we can see the power and intoxication of imagination in all areas of human existence, including in Christianity and other religious beliefs, as well. Do you agree?

Do you feel that you can somehow discern those who are in such a cave?

No. I can only verify that I am in the cave and verify the reason for its hold on me

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pmThat is why on philosophy sites The Cave allegory is never explored and those willing to do so without interpreting it into oblivion, are banished.

Well, #1, that's not why anyone is banished; and #2, the idea can only be explored honestly if it's not presented from the projection of someone else's 'cave'.

But it is impossible to do until a person experiences and admits they are in the cave. That is square one and essential to acquire understanding. People are banished because secular opinions are dominant. That is why Jesus said the world must hate him and knew he had to be killed.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:27 pmTo do so threatens ones reason to exist so is intolerable for secular sites.

Challenges to Christianity are typically not tolerated by Christians for the reason you attribute to secularism. Their belief system gives them a reason to exist, so they are resistent or unable to question it without bias. Does it really matter whether or not one believes in a god, in regard to whether or not one is functioning in a 'cave' (as you say)?

Again, as I've explained the majority have lost their sense of scale and relativity necessary to experience objective quality. People argue over belief systems without the experience of objective quality or the relation of phenomenon to its source. Why argue Christianity without distinguishing, even theoretically, its secular or transcendent origin?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 6:02 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:42 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:09 pm
Anyone who experiences that has only talked themself into a different state of mind. I'm not saying there is no value in that, but it's all in the mind.


I can't resist the smell of coffee, Nick.

Nothing like good coffee.

People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello

Is the objective awareness of the calling from the depth of our being determined by the mind or by the heart? This question could generate so much negativity that I would be kicked out for questioning the superiority of the mind as it pertains to AJs question "how to see."

"The heart" says Nick, intending that his reader will presume emotion is mystic truth.

No. The heart is the source of all our negative emotions arising from habit our species has learned in life. They arise from below or the same level Dualism arises from. However Man has the capacity to receive emotional quality descending from above in the form of grace. This is a higher quality of emotion. Some can experience higher emotions but many deny themselves the experience. In short, many prefer the struggle between the negative emotions of cave life to be called "right" and only a relative few can transcend the power of negative emotions through the higher power of grace to "see" what controls them.

Here's a cockeye'd question for the Hell can't be forever crowd.

If nuthin' you can do, no matter how evil, warrants eternal punishment, then how can anything you do, no matter how good, warrant eternal reward?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:26 am Here's a cockeye'd question for the Hell can't be forever crowd.

If nuthin' you can do, no matter how evil, warrants eternal punishment, then how can anything you do, no matter how good, warrant eternal reward?

It won't and can't in either case. There reigns only the supreme neutrality of oblivion. Whether you were St. Francis or Hitler makes no difference. We all get buried in the same cosmic landfill. Saint or sinner makes no difference to nature which has no reference to any moral judgements or belief systems. When you're dead, you're no better than anything else that died...which doesn't bother me in the least.

There reigns only the supreme neutrality of oblivion.

This might be the only thing we agree on, Dub.

I'd like Valhalla, myself: drinkin' & wenchin', but I thinkin' oblivion is what it is for all of us.
which means: get your licks in today!