The Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 8:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:57 pm The Bible certainly praises the having of certain traits of character, as does the Gita. And a few of them overlap pretty well.

This is a Red Letter Day! I am so proud of you! You acknowledged the point I made. Woo-hoo!

Ah, so dramatic. I give you credit when you deserve credit. No problem there.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:05 pm

AJ wrote:You should already have found, and internalized, that I do not regard you as an authority in these matters.

IC wrote:I'm not concerned. Nor am I asking you that you should. We can stick to the text, and it will show us the truth, either way.

My concerns extend beyond, far beyond, a specific text from a specific tradition, expressed in a certain mood, at certain time in history.

Well, the text is the thing being believed. So regardless of you or me, the text will stay the text.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:28 pm Well, the text is the thing being believed. So regardless of you or me, the text will stay the text.

Not quite. Here, the text is being examined. And it is being examined by a diverse cohort that has on the whole passed beyond a capability of even having *faith* (as you put it, as the text puts it).

The message in the text is eyed with suspicion and also with ridicule — generally. Since most of philosophical mind have been extruded into post-Christianity, your zealous presentation of it, without being capable of offering an explanation by way of philosophical concepts, influences and convinces no one. And if your audience is Gary whatever message you are trying to communicate is not received.

This is one reason why a far more developed metaphysical philosophy, with developed and linguistically scientific terminology, may better set up the possibility of illuminating the meaning in the text. Since — this is my view — the meaning in the Bhagavad Gita chapter 16 is about what happens to a soul in this world who turns from the metaphysical dimension of ‘higher things’ (and higher pleasures) down into sheer materialism and to use a conventional word, brutality. That “demonic appetite” can be understood by way of the language of addiction. Or sexual obsession. Or all the substitutes for love.

Similarly to the NT evangelists, the Vaishnava (Krishna worshipping) evangelists attempt to persuade people to recognize that there is a higher dimension. That is precisely what the early Christians offered. An alternative. And I can tell you for absolutely certain: the ‘preaching tools’ within these schools (their rhetoric, discourse, their communicated concepts) is infinitely more sophisticated than your blunt hammers.

You influence no one!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 10:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:28 pm Well, the text is the thing being believed. So regardless of you or me, the text will stay the text.

Not quite. Here, the text is being examined.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Examine away.

Similarly to the NT evangelists, the Vaishnava (Krishna worshipping) evangelists attempt to persuade people to recognize that there is a higher dimension.

That's something so common as to be unremarkable. Most worldviews attempt to persuade people of "a higher dimension," but don't mean at all the same "higher dimension," nor anything close to the same terms of attaining contact with it.

You've said, essentially, nothing. Many religions also have books. Many religions have symbols. Many religions have followers. Many religions have ethics...all of these things are "similar," but at such a superficial level as to be utterly uninformative.

"Higher dimension."

Next you'll be telling us they're all the same, because all the participants have noses, "similarly to the NT evangelists."