Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:04 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:30 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 4:32 pm

You poked in to that other thread, askin' questions, which I answered (and I asked one of mine). You never responded, to my answers or my question. Can't see much point in answering your questions here, when you'll just abandon the conversation ss you did there.

*How awful I am. **I'm chagrined. ***You could just ask the question again, or link to the original, or just forget it. It's up to you.

*nah, you're just a salesman

**doubtful

***I did ask again; the link is embedded and accessible thru the little ↑.

Henry, I looked for your, "question." I found one here:

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

If that's the question, I've already explained why I do not answer hypotheticals. There is no context and no way for me to know enough to make in informed choice.

It is a mistake to take the most unlikely possibility as the basis for establishing a principle. Even if such an event happened, it would be exceptional. Pick something that's likely to happen, allow me to determine the context, and I will say what I think I might do if things were exactly as described.

Really, Henry, what were you trying to get at?

age,

I do NOT believe ANY thing, which INCLUDES which on you value least NOR most.

In other words: you, as I say, lack the capacity, the reason, the common sense, to even guess which of these four -- a toothpick, my coffee mug, my car, my kid, my self -- would be most important to me and which would be least.

Of the 4: my kid is, by far, the most important, while the toothpick is the least.

Knowing this, can you tell me why I value my kid above all other things (and people)?

I don't think you can. Your head is not built for it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:54 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:04 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:30 pm
*How awful I am. **I'm chagrined. ***You could just ask the question again, or link to the original, or just forget it. It's up to you.

*nah, you're just a salesman

**doubtful

***I did ask again; the link is embedded and accessible thru the little ↑.

Henry, I looked for your, "question." I found one here:

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

If that's the question, I've already explained why I do not answer hypotheticals. There is no context and no way for me to know enough to make in informed choice.

It is a mistake to take the most unlikely possibility as the basis for establishing a principle. Even if such an event happened, it would be exceptional. Pick something that's likely to happen, allow me to determine the context, and I will say what I think I might do if things were exactly as described.

*Really, Henry, what were you trying to get at?

*Never mind. I think you and age are of a kind. Like her, you're rational, literal, machine-like.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:56 pm Sculptor wrote:

“I DON’T HAVE ANY BELIEFS.’’

Good idea. You do not believe that you do not believe. That is is a good counterbalance to the fundamentalists and dogmatists.

No.
I KNOW I have no beliefs.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:49 pm True, we can't worship all that is the case.

Why would we even want to? "All that is the case" -- is that all good?

The trouble with the Christian myth is it's usually interpreted as if God is at the top of a power hierarchy.

What makes that "trouble"? It seems analytic that the Supreme Being is, by definition, "the Supreme Being," doesn't it? If he's worthy of that, what's the "trouble"?

Mankind has become more individualistic now.

So much worse for "mankind." He imagines himself as alone in the universe, unplanned, unwanted, unhelped, unloved and doomed. Why is such an imagining even a good idea?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:32 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:00 pm

I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I NEVER said you were. And, I am NOT shouting either, as I have explained MANY times previously.

I am just POINTING OUT that BOTH of you have NOT been considering that BOTH of your BELIEFS are False.

I DON'T HAVE ANY BELIEFS.

Is it possible to you that God could exist?

If no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

But if no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

Your Honest answer and clarification here will be much appreciated.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:14 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:49 pm True, we can't worship all that is the case.

Why would we even want to? "All that is the case" -- is that all good?

The trouble with the Christian myth is it's usually interpreted as if God is at the top of a power hierarchy.

What makes that "trouble"? It seems analytic that the Supreme Being is, by definition, "the Supreme Being," doesn't it? If he's worthy of that, what's the "trouble"?

Mankind has become more individualistic now.

So much worse for "mankind." He imagines himself as alone in the universe, unplanned, unwanted, unhelped, unloved and doomed. Why is such an imagining even a good idea?

The trouble with power hierarchies ruling modern social democracies is although theoretically the electorate can change them at regular intervals, the intervals are not short enough.

We do not want to worship all that is the case, as you observe.

Individualism was a response to technological advances and subsequent splintering of traditional communities and their values. It was neither good not bad, but depended on circumstances. However it seems to be here to stay so we should build on its good points.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:15 pmIndividualism was a response to technological advances and subsequent splintering of traditional communities and their values. It was neither good not bad, but depended on circumstances. However it seems to be here to stay so we should build on its good points.

It's like everything else in life, you need to find the proper balance between individualism and community. Too much power invested in community and you have tyranny...too much in individualism and you have fragmentation.

In Western society, we now have both. Too much government and corporate control...too many individuals refusing to take personal responsibility. Worst of both worlds.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:46 pm owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:56 pm
Sculptor wrote:

“I DON’T HAVE ANY BELIEFS.’’

Good idea. You do not believe that you do not believe. That is is a good counterbalance to the fundamentalists and dogmatists.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Dontaskme wrote:


There is no ''BELIEVER'' ..you dumb crazy idiot.

owl of Minerva response:

Really? How interesting. Who would have thought that there are more knowers than believers. A novel idea for sure.

There is no knower.

Knowing is a verb.

Reality does not noun

There is no I

There is no Mind

Dontaskme wrote:

“There is no knower.

Knowing is a verb.

Reality does not noun

There is no I

There is no Mind.”

……………….

The postman rang but he did not KNOW the postman rang, because he was ABSENTMINDED, as he was immersed in a philosophical conundrum, so the postman rang again.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:51 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:58 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:32 pm

I NEVER said you were. And, I am NOT shouting either, as I have explained MANY times previously.

I am just POINTING OUT that BOTH of you have NOT been considering that BOTH of your BELIEFS are False.

I DON'T HAVE ANY BELIEFS.

Is it possible to you that God could exist?

If no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

But if no, then what does the word 'God' mean or refer to, to you?

Your Honest answer and clarification here will be much appreciated.

God is equivalent to Gandalf except Gandalf's character is far more consistent, since it is authored by one being.
Gandalf is literally and figuratively more authentic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:26 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 5:54 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:04 pm

*nah, you're just a salesman

**doubtful

***I did ask again; the link is embedded and accessible thru the little ↑.

Henry, I looked for your, "question." I found one here:

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

If that's the question, I've already explained why I do not answer hypotheticals. There is no context and no way for me to know enough to make in informed choice.

It is a mistake to take the most unlikely possibility as the basis for establishing a principle. Even if such an event happened, it would be exceptional. Pick something that's likely to happen, allow me to determine the context, and I will say what I think I might do if things were exactly as described.

*Really, Henry, what were you trying to get at?

*Never mind. I think you and age are of a kind. Like her, you're rational, literal, machine-like.

Why can no one on this forum address ideas without dragging in personalities. That's certainly, "irrational," --and puerile.

I suppose that is inevitable for one who prefers the irrational, fictional, and arbitrary.

But, at least you've answered my question of how you arrived at your idea that there is a God. Thank you!

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:12 pm Dontaskme wrote:

“There is no knower.

Knowing is a verb.

Reality does not noun

There is no I

There is no Mind.”

……………….

The postman rang but he did not KNOW the postman rang, because he was ABSENTMINDED, as he was immersed in a philosophical conundrum, so the postman rang again.

No

Only appearances of the knower are known…not the knower. The knower is only assumed to exist because knowledge exists, but there’s only the experience of knowledge …not the knower. The knower is never the experience. Reality cannot know it knows no more than a brain can know it’s braining.



If the knower was an experience then you’d know you were being born at your birth, and you would know you have died at your death.


Reality is an illusion…it’s a verb

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:15 pm The trouble with power hierarchies ruling modern social democracies is although theoretically the electorate can change them at regular intervals, the intervals are not short enough.

I think that analysis is wrong. I think Jordan Peterson's is right, instead.

Today, at least in the West, social hierarchy is not an expression of power, but of competence. The competent rise to the top, regardless of their "race" or "gender" or even their moral proclivities.

Now, political hierarchy, that's more an expression of power...and propaganda. But hierarchies within society, say, business, trade, medicine or education, are driven by competence not by power. The smart and able, not the merely powerful, tend to rise to the top.

Individualism was a response to technological advances and subsequent splintering of traditional communities and their values. It was neither good not bad, but depended on circumstances. However it seems to be here to stay so we should build on its good points.

Individualism (which, as you note, has good and bad aspects) is also a luxury.

It's an expression of the fact that so many social and personal problems have been solved, and we all have so much financial well-being and so many options that we can afford to be individualistic, and don't have to huddle in desperate tribes in order to survive at all...which is what has happened in most of human history, and certainly was the case prior to the Industrial Revolution.

puerile

Mebbe so.

Better than bein' a deceitful old salesman who feigns curiosity while really, and only, lookin' for a platform to hawk his essays.