Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:But I never assumed any thing like that. Why did you assume that is what I assumed?

Because you used the term "religion" as if you expected us to thing it meant something. If you meant something by it, you must know what you meant and be able to explain it. If it meant nothing in particular, then it was a bad choice of wording. If it meant nothing at all, then why use it at all?

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that whatever is meant by "religion," ALL of them are equally "just an ideology devised through human beings." That not one of them is an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. That needs to be shown.

In the first one you describe what you, yourself, assumed I was assuming 'religion' meant, now you have no idea what I meant when I said 'religion'. You assumption in the first one is null and void by you now having no idea what I meant by 'religion'.

No, no...I was questioning your usage of the term. And I was giving you credit for knowing what you were talking about, and so assuming you were about to explain. Once you did, logically speaking, this would be your next problem.

But it now, if I grasp your response, it seems you were not going to explain. Was this because you don't have a specific idea of what you meant by "religion"? Or do you wish to clarify that now?

The truth is ALL of them, in fact, could ALL be an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand.

You still haven't said what you mean by "them." What is your view of what a "religion" is?

I am pretty sure they are ALL somehow an expression of some truth or some of the facts as they actually stand,

But we have not yet established what you mean by "they," or "religion."

BUT, they are ALL still ideas devised through human beings. Do you think/assume that anything else, besides human beings, decide what is truth or the facts as they actually stand?

Yes.

Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact. This idea, perspective, viewpoint, or any other form of seeing and understanding ALL come through or devised through thought. ALL truth or facts are devised through or in thought of through human beings and then expressed taught to human beings. ALL religions were probably once an expression of truth and/or the facts as they stand/appeared to stand, but, through misinterpretations, miscommunication, etc., that truth and fact as it stood gets lost and thus the expression also gets lost.
This isn't true. If there are "facts" that "stand" they are not caused by the "perspective" that perceives them. As Kant would put it, the world that causes our perceptions is not equivalent to, or a mere product of our perceptions. There is a real world out there; if there were not, we would have nothing to cause our perceptions of it. We would all just be hallucinating. But then we'd have to explain why we "hallucinate" the same things -- which we clearly do.

If it were otherwise, we'd have to say that I'm "hallucinating" that I'm communicating to you by email. Yet you are "hallucinating" the same thing, even though we are probably continents apart physically. How is that agreement between us possible if there is no common reality? Clearly, it's not possible. So we are sharing a reality; and while each of us has our own perspective, both are perspective on the same basic reality.

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Thirdly, that religions are transmitted by "word of mouth" primarily.

When did I ever say that? How could you even come to this assumption.

You DID say it. Look back at your message. I was quoting you directly.

Immanuel Can wrote: For the record actually shows that some are "oral" traditions, as we say, and some are "written" traditions:

Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Show me where you wrote anything about "written tradition," and I'll concede that.

Immanuel Can wrote: and words on a page do not move around the way oral expressions do, so it makes a big difference to how reliably we know what the particular tradition actually originally said.

That may be true, but it only works if and when the original text is available.

Yes. In some cases it is, and in some cases not.

...you have completely misunderstood Me.

You misspoke then. For I simply quoted the phrase you used. Maybe you meant something different from what you said, but what you said was what I quoted. Look for yourself, if you've forgotten.

The meaning of any written words can change so much and/or so frequently that we may never really know for sure its original meaning.

The word "etymology" may be interesting here.

I would agree that some nuance of difference in interpretation is always present. But "nuance" is much less than "substance."

If a person reads, "Kill the infidels," and wonders, "By sword, or are guns okay?" then that's a difference of nuance, perhaps. But if they read "Kill the infidels" and interpret it to mean "Hug the infidels," well, then that's a difference of substance. It is always unwise to imagine that nuance differences mean there is and can be no substantial content in the meaning of a phrase.

By the way ALL religions and even ALL written words actually do come from may not necessarily be 'word of "mouth"' but from "voices" within the head.

Really? "Voices within the head? Not, say, sentences said by another person, or revelation made by a Divine Being? A lot of "religious" (whatever you mean by that) people will likely disagree with you about that.

These even seemingly easy to understand voices/words or knowing/knowledge can be misinterpreted and written incorrectly or hard to explain in easily understood words in writings

.
Yes, they can be. Nobody's saying that caution and humility of interpretation are not virtues. At least, nobody in this conversation is.

But has been proven many times eyewitness accounts can be completely different from what really happened.

Yes. But they can also be reliable, as we also know. So we must be wise what we believe, and test every witness.

'Word of mouth' is an actual way most thoughts/knowledge is repeated, relayed, transmitted and transferred between human beings.

By the way I have NEVER said "word of mouth" was the only way of transmitting all "religions", but transmitting all "religions" is done only through words, through human beings, with messages orally, written, painted, etc.

Okay, this is modified from what you said earlier. You only mentioned "word of mouth," and didn't even use words like "painted" or "written" in your earlier message. Check back, if you doubt me. So you can't be mad at me for not understanding you to be saying what you, in fact, did not say. We are, after all, communicating by printed word.

Immanuel Can wrote:Fourthly, you need to show that whatever "religions" you mean, none of them are supposed to be "fixed," but all are supposed to be "ever changing," and thus to show that "ever changingness" (in whatever respect you mean that) is a quality all that can rightly be called a "religion" must have.

Easily, can you name one anything, let alone one religion, that is fixed and unchangeable?
Yes. If a "religion" (I still have not a clear idea of what you mean by that word, but okay) were truthful, then to "unfix" and "change" it might well be to depart from the truth. Only if the truth itself changes would changing the belief be warranted.

Thank you for your additional comments. I can't think of a response they require.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:But I never assumed any thing like that. Why did you assume that is what I assumed?

Because you used the term "religion" as if you expected us to thing it meant something. If you meant something by it, you must know what you meant and be able to explain it. If it meant nothing in particular, then it was a bad choice of wording. If it meant nothing at all, then why use it at all?

The reason I used the term 'religion' was because it was in response to your use of the term 'religion'. I did NOT use the term 'religion' as if I expected you nor any one else to think it meant something. That assumption is wrong. If the truth be known I used the word I guess for no other reason than in direct response to you using the term 'religion' and because this topic of this post is about a "religion", namely islam.

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that whatever is meant by "religion," ALL of them are equally "just an ideology devised through human beings." That not one of them is an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. That needs to be shown.

In the first one you describe what you, yourself, assumed I was assuming 'religion' meant, now you have no idea what I meant when I said 'religion'. You assumption in the first one is null and void by you now having no idea what I meant by 'religion'.

No, no...I was questioning your usage of the term. And I was giving you credit for knowing what you were talking about, and so assuming you were about to explain. Once you did, logically speaking, this would be your next problem.[/quote]

What would be My supposed next "problem"?

But it now, if I grasp your response, it seems you were not going to explain. Was this because you don't have a specific idea of what you meant by "religion"? Or do you wish to clarify that now?

I will clarify again, I had NO specific idea at all. I was just using in what could and may well be a generally accepted term. I guess we might have to discover what was your specific idea for using the term "religion"?

I could also reply to you the exact way that you replied to Me:
If you meant something by it, you must know what you meant and be able to explain it.
If it meant nothing in particular, then it was a bad choice of wording.
If it meant nothing at all, then why use it at all?

And, I could wait for your answers, but I will not because it could all be seen as a tactic for just being an attempt to side track away from the main issue, i.e., the way people can read into what is actually written and the way they can listen to what is actually being said can and does change what the true and right, correct message was that is be expressed.

Some people can and do just as easily see islam equate to violence and others can and do just as easily see christianity equate to violence. It all depends on how many preconceived notions one has and how strongly they are held.

When you used the term "religion" did you expect "us" to think it meant something, like you assumed that is what I was doing?

Immanuel Can wrote:

The truth is ALL of them, in fact, could ALL be an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand.

You still haven't said what you mean by "them." What is your view of what a "religion" is?

'Them' relates directly to 'religion'. I used it the same way you have.

I never really had a view of religion until you asked this question. My view now is 'religion' is an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest.

What is your view of what a "religion" is?

Immanuel Can wrote:

I am pretty sure they are ALL somehow an expression of some truth or some of the facts as they actually stand,

But we have not yet established what you mean by "they," or "religion."

We have now, and we could have earlier if you had asked earlier.

BUT, they are ALL still ideas devised through human beings. Do you think/assume that anything else, besides human beings, decide what is truth or the facts as they actually stand?


Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact. This idea, perspective, viewpoint, or any other form of seeing and understanding ALL come through or devised through thought. ALL truth or facts are devised through or in thought of through human beings and then expressed taught to human beings. ALL religions were probably once an expression of truth and/or the facts as they stand/appeared to stand, but, through misinterpretations, miscommunication, etc., that truth and fact as it stood gets lost and thus the expression also gets lost.

Immanuel Can wrote:This isn't true. If there are "facts" that "stand" they are not caused by the "perspective" that perceives them. As Kant would put it, the world that causes our perceptions is not equivalent to, or a mere product of our perceptions. There is a real world out there; if there were not, we would have nothing to cause our perceptions of it. We would all just be hallucinating. But then we'd have to explain why we "hallucinate" the same things -- which we clearly do.

If it were otherwise, we'd have to say that I'm "hallucinating" that I'm communicating to you by email. Yet you are "hallucinating" the same thing, even though we are probably continents apart physically. How is that agreement between us possible if there is no common reality? Clearly, it's not possible. So we are sharing a reality; and while each of us has our own perspective, both are perspective on the same basic reality.

What has kant got to do with this? I do not follow or use any one else to back up what I say. I have NOT said anything opposing what you, or whoever kant is that you want to follower, says here. In fact I would agree with it, which actually fits in with exactly what I am saying, if you ever wanted to clarify what it is that I am actually saying, instead of just assuming and sometimes wrongly assuming what I am saying and meaning.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Thirdly, that religions are transmitted by "word of mouth" primarily.

When did I ever say that? How could you even come to this assumption.

You DID say it. Look back at your message. I was quoting you directly.

I NEVER said that. You look back, cut and paste, then get back to Me. I NEVER implied anything 'primarily' AT ALL. That is those beliefs/assumptions again, in that head, getting in the way of you being able to see what it is that I actually write.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: For the record actually shows that some are "oral" traditions, as we say, and some are "written" traditions:

Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Show me where you wrote anything about "written tradition," and I'll concede that.

I really wish you would go back and re-read instead of making Me continually doing it.

I wrote, "Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings."

Underlined and in bold in case you missed it this third time. Literally, '...in written words...'.

Also, did you notice that there was NOTHING in there at all to imply 'word of mouth' was anything "primarily", to any other thing?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: and words on a page do not move around the way oral expressions do, so it makes a big difference to how reliably we know what the particular tradition actually originally said.

That may be true, but it only works if and when the original text is available.

Yes. In some cases it is, and in some cases not.

How would any person KNOW what was in the original text if it is NOT available, in any case?

Immanuel Can wrote:

...you have completely misunderstood Me.

You misspoke then.

Okay fair enough, it is ALL MY FAULT. Now please tell me what I can do better to help you, and others, understand Me better. I seriously WILL accept and take ALL the responsibility, but if you others do not explain to them how I can be better understood by them, then I will not learn how to NOT misspoke again.

Immanuel Can wrote:For I simply quoted the phrase you used.

BUT you did NOT simple quote the phrase I wrote/used. You added the word 'primarily' onto the end of it, which took that the phrase that I actually did say and mean completely out of context, and which we have been writing plenty of other useless words now in an attempt to overcome what you say you simply quoted.

Immanuel Can wrote: Maybe you meant something different from what you said, but what you said was what I quoted. Look for yourself, if you've forgotten.

I have looked. I have copied and I have pasted it here so that ALL can see for themselves. I MEANT what I wrote and MEANT. I certainly did not mean what you changed my meaning into and also wrongly quoted.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The meaning of any written words can change so much and/or so frequently that we may never really know for sure its original meaning.

The word "etymology" may be interesting here.

I would agree that some nuance of difference in interpretation is always present. But "nuance" is much less than "substance."

If a person reads, "Kill the infidels," and wonders, "By sword, or are guns okay?" then that's a difference of nuance, perhaps. But if they read "Kill the infidels" and interpret it to mean "Hug the infidels," well, then that's a difference of substance. It is always unwise to imagine that nuance differences mean there is and can be no substantial content in the meaning of a phrase.

I HAVE previously explained that I read this a completely different way than you do. I even said I could explain to you if you want Me to. You showed NO interest at all in My view, yet you persist with this rubbish you write here. Does it or does it not say in some christian bibles "an eye for an eye"?

The chances that you and I read that the same way are about as likely as you and a islam follower read anything.

Immanuel Can wrote:

By the way ALL religions and even ALL written words actually do come from may not necessarily be 'word of "mouth"' but from "voices" within the head.

Really? "Voices within the head? Not, say, sentences said by another person, or revelation made by a Divine Being? A lot of "religious" (whatever you mean by that) people will likely disagree with you about that.

Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists?

Outside of the head?

Remember it was you who also wrote "religion" (whatever you mean by that?), which I replied to.

By the way I do not care who disagrees with Me, they just better be able to back what they say. I sure try to.

Immanuel Can wrote:

But has been proven many times eyewitness accounts can be completely different from what really happened.

Yes. But they can also be reliable, as we also know. So we must be wise what we believe, and test every witness.

Bit hard to test the ones who are not alive and able to speak for themselves.

Also, a wise person does NOT believe. A truly wise person stays open, always.

Immanuel Can wrote:

By the way I have NEVER said "word of mouth" was the only way of transmitting all "religions", but transmitting all "religions" is done only through words, through human beings, with messages orally, written, painted, etc.

Okay, this is modified from what you said earlier.

NO IT IS NOT.

You just jump to a conclusion earlier, from your assumptions.

Immanuel Can wrote:You only mentioned "word of mouth," and didn't even use words like "painted" or "written" in your earlier message.

I NEVER used "painted", in My earlier message, BUT I CERTAINLY DID USE "written".

Immanuel Can wrote:Check back, if you doubt me. So you can't be mad at me for not understanding you to be saying what you, in fact, did not say. We are, after all, communicating by printed word.

Imagine how much less writing you would have had to do if you, yourself, went back and checked in the beginning?

So, that it is clear for you, I have already done the work for you.

Immanuel Can wrote:Fourthly, you need to show that whatever "religions" you mean, none of them are supposed to be "fixed," but all are supposed to be "ever changing," and thus to show that "ever changingness" (in whatever respect you mean that) is a quality all that can rightly be called a "religion" must have.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Easily, can you name one anything, let alone one religion, that is fixed and unchangeable?

Yes. If a "religion" (I still have not a clear idea of what you mean by that word, but okay) were truthful, then to "unfix" and "change" it might well be to depart from the truth. Only if the truth itself changes would changing the belief be warranted.

You say you still have not a clear idea of what I mean by that word, yet you have forgotten the golden rule of when you are confused, ask for clarity. The most simplest of things that EVERY child does naturally is so forced out of people by a contradictory education system that by the time they have reached adulthood, they are either to scared to ask clarifying questions because they do not want to look stupid or they have just blocked the truly inquisitive open Mind completely, or they are just too forgetful to do so. They will believe/assume anything and write and write streams of words that are totally wrong or out of context or complaining that that do not know something, yet do not once ask for clarification. Do human beings really ever stop and wonder why they are so confused?

I think you might find that what I meant by "fixed" is different than what you are assuming I meant.

I think you misunderstood the question, completely, re-read it and see if you can answer it again, from the context I wrote it in.

By the way "religions" or no thing, in of itself, is truthful. As far as human beings know the only that can be truthful is people, themselves.

ken wrote: this topic of this post is about a "religion", namely islam.

Oh. This is your first move toward a definition, then. Islam is a "religion." Okay, is Buddhism? Is Taoism? Is Atheism? Is Communism? Is being a Liberal Democrat? For they are all beliefs; which ones qualify for you as "religions," and why?

Immanuel Can wrote:Secondly, that whatever is meant by "religion," ALL of them are equally "just an ideology devised through human beings." That not one of them is an expression of truth or the facts as they actually stand. That needs to be shown.

What would be My supposed next "problem"?

See item 2) in my earlier message.

But it now, if I grasp your response, it seems you were not going to explain. Was this because you don't have a specific idea of what you meant by "religion"? Or do you wish to clarify that now?

I will clarify again, I had NO specific idea at all. I was just using in what could and may well be a generally accepted term. I guess we might have to discover what was your specific idea for using the term "religion"?

Well, I would have to point out to you that though people throw the term "religion" around, not even the experts are confident they know what one is. It seems it's a kind of post-Protestant, secular-sponsored handle for "stuff we don't believe." But people who believe in what they call a "religion" don't tend to use it.

For example, if you ask an Islamist if he's "religious," he'll say "Yes." But when you ask, "What does that mean to you?" He'll say, "That I believe in the truth -- Allah, Mohammed, Shariah, the Five Pillars, and all of that." But he'll say it's because it's the "truth".

Some people can and do just as easily see islam equate to violence and others can and do just as easily see christianity equate to violence. It all depends on how many preconceived notions one has and how strongly they are held.

I notice you don't say it depends on what the religion actually says. It's as if you think all there is is "interpretation," but apparently not "interpretation" of any particular precept, statement or truth. For you don't say anything about the particular dogma that the "interpreter" is "interpreting."

I think that's a serious oversight on your part. Every "interpretation" surely has to be an "interpretation" of a particular statement. And that is why "Kill the infidels" never means "Hug the infidels," except to people who cannot "interpret" at all but make their beliefs up without reference to any idea of truth.

When you used the term "religion" did you expect "us" to think it meant something, like you assumed that is what I was doing?

No. I don't think it really means much. But you used it, so I wanted to know what you thought you meant by it. How else am I to understand?

I never really had a view of religion until you asked this question. My view now is 'religion' is an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest.

Glad to be of help. When I first started studying religions, this was a great revelation to me as well.

But now, "an interest followed with great devotion..." So Atheism is a religion? For Richard Dawkins is quite passionate about it. And Marxism...millions followed that with rabid ferocity, and still do: so it's a religion too? What about if a secularist is really "devoted" and "believes" in the value of his science: is he now religious in that devotion?

BUT, they are ALL still ideas devised through human beings.

Do you think/assume that anything else, besides human beings, decide what is truth or the facts as they actually stand?

[I think this is how the above should be divided out: in your message, the quote markers were off. Have I done it right here?]

I think human beings do it empirically. That is, like Kant said, they do it by perceiving things as phenomena. But I also agree with him that there are no phenomena without "the nouminous" as well (essentially, he means "real things, actually existing in their own right). So noumina give rise to phenomena; and noumina limit by their own nature the range of possible interpretations they can sponsor.

So "interpretation" is, at best, only part of the story; even though all perception is a form of interpretation, what we can reasonably "interpret" is restrained by the content of the real world.

Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact.

I say the opposite: any "perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact" has to come from the real world, or it can be rejected outright as delusional. It never precisely expresses the reality of the noumena, it's true: but it is a product of the human effort to see real things as they really are.

This idea, perspective, viewpoint, or any other form of seeing and understanding ALL come through or devised through thought.

Ah, but it has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation. What is that thing that comes before the thought?

What has kant got to do with this?

Everything. He was very smart on this point. He was also one of the most important philosophers that ever lived.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Which is EXACTLY what I said.

Show me where you wrote anything about "written tradition," and I'll concede that.

I really wish you would go back and re-read instead of making Me continually doing it.

I wrote, "Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings."

I stand corrected. I apologize. I misunderstood you there.

I thought you were meaning that the writing was a secondary step, the "word of mouth" being the main thing. I was incorrect, I see.

How would any person KNOW what was in the original text if it is NOT available, in any case?

Well, let me give you the Islamic version of the answer, since we're discussing them. According to their tradition, Muhammed was in a cave, and had a vision of an angel. Divinely empowered to remember perfectly and speak the Koran, he recited it to friends, though Muhammed himself remained 100% illiterate and wrote nothing. When he was dead, Muhammed's words were written down, sorted and edited by his followers. Thus began the Koran.

For comparison, we might consider the Jewish account: God called Moses up to a mountain and dictated the truth to him, carving it in stone. Or consider the Christian account: those who had been with Jesus wrote down what he said and did; they were his friends and disciples, who eyewitnesses his activities.

So you can see that the major monotheist traditions don't accept the idea that "word of mouth" was the main thing, or even in some cases a very important thing.

The chances that you and I read that the same way are about as likely as you and a islam follower read anything.

Yes, I think that's true. Assuming, that is, that the Islam follower reads stuff.

Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists?

In Reality. (capital R) I certainly don't make them up out of nothing.

Immanuel Can wrote:

But has been proven many times eyewitness accounts can be completely different from what really happened.

Yes. But they can also be reliable, as we also know. So we must be wise what we believe, and test every witness.

Bit hard to test the ones who are not alive and able to speak for themselves.

Not really. If they wrote down what they thought, we can test it against other elements of reality, such as independent accounts, historical and archaeological data, and so on. If the facts don't bear it out, we can reject it.

Also, a wise person does NOT believe. A truly wise person stays open, always.

Do you believe that?

You see, if you don't, you wouldn't be saying it; but if you do, then you're not practicing what you say -- you're believing.

I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything. Nobody's "open always": or if they are, they have nothing to say, because they have to remain "open" to being wrong about anything they would otherwise claim.

In fact, human beings are inherently believing creatures. We could not get out of bed in the morning without first "believing" that the floor would be beneath our feet when we put them down. If you are writing to me, you must believe I am reading it.

By the way, that "belief" is quite rational.

Immanuel Can wrote:I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything.

For anyone who isn't already familiar with Descartes, the whole purpose of his project was to discover something that we could not doubt is true. In his Discourse on Method (available free here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm ) he describes the process of doubting everything. He reasoned that because his senses could deceive him, mirages and hallucinations for example, it was not beyond doubt that everything he saw and heard was untrue. What he could not doubt though, is that, whatever the source of the things he saw and heard, he had the sensation or thought of seeing and hearing them, hence 'I think, therefore I am'. Philosophers being a picky bunch have pointed out that the fact that there are thoughts doesn't imply the existence of a thinker with the logical necessity Descartes was hoping for; you can, if you must, doubt that there is a 'you' thinking, but what cannot be doubted is that there are thoughts. In that very strict definition of knowledge as something that is true about the world with absolute logical necessity, all we know is that there are phenomena, although to appease any passing pedants, it must be conceded that all anyone ever knows is that the phenomenon immediately before their consciousness at any given moment is the only thing they can be sure of.

Immanuel Can wrote:Nobody's "open always": or if they are, they have nothing to say, because they have to remain "open" to being wrong about anything they would otherwise claim.

Being "open" to being wrong, I would suggest, is a good thing; the alternative is dogmatism. Defining 'knowledge' has been a preoccupation of philosophy since Socrates, but few people take knowledge to mean logically irrefutable, in the above Cartesian sense, so we actually 'know' a great deal more than that there are phenomena, but it is all theory laden; we don't know that any explanation for a phenomenon is true or real with the same certainty that we know the phenomenon is true and real. Being "open always" to that has not in any detrimental way restricted my having something to say.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote: this topic of this post is about a "religion", namely islam.

Oh. This is your first move toward a definition, then. Islam is a "religion." Okay, is Buddhism? Is Taoism? Is Atheism? Is Communism? Is being a Liberal Democrat? For they are all beliefs; which ones qualify for you as "religions," and why?

You appear to be very hung up with this word "religion". I used that word in direct response to your use of that word. Do you want me to carry on now like you have been about not explaining nor defining why you used the term "religion"? You have yet to make a first move towards giving your explanation on the term "religion". Seriously what is the issue with you and the term religion?

Immanuel Can wrote:

What would be My supposed next "problem"?

See item 2) in my earlier message.

When you assume something I can not know what that assumption is so I need to clarify with you. If you do not want to share that assumption, then we can not progress.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I would have to point out to you that though people throw the term "religion" around, not even the experts are confident they know what one is. It seems it's a kind of post-Protestant, secular-sponsored handle for "stuff we don't believe." But people who believe in what they call a "religion" don't tend to use it.

I would also like to point out, for any and every one, that just about any term that is seemingly "thrown" around when actually stopped and thought about the actual definition/meaning of, contrary to popular belief, is usually not confidently known. For example terms like "america", "afghani", "italian", "jew", "christian", "muslim", etc., etc., etc., These types of terms get used a lot, without ever fully realizing nor understanding what it is that it is to be one of them. Try finding agreement on just one of those, let alone all the thousands upon thousands of terms that people "throw" around.

Immanuel Can wrote:For example, if you ask an Islamist if he's "religious," he'll say "Yes." But when you ask, "What does that mean to you?" He'll say, "That I believe in the truth -- Allah, Mohammed, Shariah, the Five Pillars, and all of that." But he'll say it's because it's the "truth".

And, if you ask a lot of people the same type of questioning, with slightly different terminology, then you will usually get the exact same sort of responses. Or, are you trying to suggest that people who follow christianity, or jewish or buddhist or hindu beliefs are somehow different?

You really have a distrust and hateful attitude of, what you call, islamists, hey?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Some people can and do just as easily see islam equate to violence and others can and do just as easily see christianity equate to violence. It all depends on how many preconceived notions one has and how strongly they are held.

I notice you don't say it depends on what the religion actually says.

OF COURSE I WOULD NOT SAY THAT. The whole point I am making is in what I actually did say AND have said, which has NOTHING to do with what you are saying.

I say, depending on a human beings past experiences, then this will influence how they look at and see things, this those experiences will influence how absolutely anything is interpreted. Whereas, you believe you, yourself, are able to interpret things correctly because you have know the facts.

This is obviously clear in your writings, especially in the above where you are implying that you are able to KNOW what is MEANT in religion texts. Saying things like, "what the religion actually says", means that you are able to know what the religion actually says. Somehow you know how to do this, maybe you might like to enlighten us how you can know and do this?

Immanuel Can wrote: It's as if you think all there is is "interpretation," but apparently not "interpretation" of any particular precept, statement or truth.

The contradiction here is funny. Interpretation, itself, is what decides truth to the interpreter/observer. Has this not become obviously clear to you yet. imman's interpretation of "Kill the infidels" is not the same for others, and until you can talk to mohammed first hand, then you will never know what was meant by that term and in what exact context it was said. I have an interpretation of that term, which is different than yours, so how do you propose we could KNOW the particular precept, statement or truth without our own interpretations? Or, is it just the case that you know the facts? And, thus every other different and/or opposing view/interpretation is just plainly wrong? End of story?

Immanuel Can wrote: For you don't say anything about the particular dogma that the "interpreter" is "interpreting."

Of course I am not saying that. I do NOT say that because absolutely EVERY thing is already obviously relative to the observer/interpreter.

How can you honestly talk for another "interpreter"?

Why are you so hell-bent on getting others to read into something, mainly the koran, what you read into it?

Could you even at the slightest chance even imagine that JUST MAYBE how you read the koran is NOT the same as every other person does? Just imagine if the over 1 billion follows of islam read into the koran like you did and actually followed what you are so insistingly saying the koran "actually" does say? If what you believe in that the koran says "kill the infidels" actually MEANS exactly that, then you would have been killed ages ago. If the about 1.5 billion or so followers of islam "interpreted" those words the exact same way that you do, then could you imagine how the world would be now? Probably not, because you would be dead already.

Immanuel Can wrote:I think that's a serious oversight on your part.

Fair enough. You can see and believe anything you like. But JUST MAYBE a serious or even slight oversight may be being seen by some one else.

Immanuel Can wrote: Every "interpretation" surely has to be an "interpretation" of a particular statement.

Obviously. But what perspective is the interpreter coming from? In other words where is the observer looking from?

Let Me put it this way, would you, could you, ever become a follower of islam?

Immanuel Can wrote:And that is why "Kill the infidels" never means "Hug the infidels," except to people who cannot "interpret" at all but make their beliefs up without reference to any idea of truth.

I really enjoy you writing how you are the ONE who CAN interpret but others can NOT.

Maybe immanuel can or maybe immanuel kant. But WHO, exactly, would ever really KNOW?

Ok so because I do NOT interpret the exact same way that you do, then i must be one of those people who can not. Although My interpretation is slightly different because I did NOT read into "Kill the infidels" as "Hug the infidels". But then again maybe "Kill the infidels" could actually have once originally MEANT "Hug the infidels" to death. We will NEVER know because we do not the original writer with us to ask for clarification, do we?

Also, the way I read "Kill the infidels" in the context and in relation to the whole book called the koran is so far from anything you could even imagine now, let alone being anywhere close to what you believe it means.

Immanuel Can wrote:

When you used the term "religion" did you expect "us" to think it meant something, like you assumed that is what I was doing?

No. I don't think it really means much. But you used it, so I wanted to know what you thought you meant by it. How else am I to understand?

You use a lot of words and if I wanted to know what you thought you meant by any of them, then I would just simply, ask you.

Asking for clarification from the one who did the actual thinking/writing is the best, easiest, simplest and quickest way to gain an understanding of what another actually meant. And, truthfully by the way that way is the only real way to discover and understand the truth from and within another. If they want to be honest back is another matter, which by the way reminds me what is meant when you, yourself, use the term "religion"?

Immanuel Can wrote:

I never really had a view of religion until you asked this question. My view now is 'religion' is an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest.

Glad to be of help. When I first started studying religions, this was a great revelation to me as well.

Did you ever occur to you to put that revelation to good use with ALL the multitude of other words that you use also? For example what is your view on the terms "islam", "violence", "right", and even "think". I would be interested to hear your views. Hey why not add your view now of "religion" here also

But now, "an interest followed with great devotion..." So Atheism is a religion? For Richard Dawkins is quite passionate about it. And Marxism...millions followed that with rabid ferocity, and still do: so it's a religion too? What about if a secularist is really "devoted" and "believes" in the value of his science: is he now religious in that devotion?

Yes, from My perspective now, if a person has an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest, then that is a religion.

Would it really surprise you if it was discovered that every human being had some kind of religion?

Immanuel Can wrote:

BUT, they are ALL still ideas devised through human beings.

Do you think/assume that anything else, besides human beings, decide what is truth or the facts as they actually stand?

[I think this is how the above should be divided out: in your message, the quote markers were off. Have I done it right here?]

I think human beings do it empirically. That is, like Kant said, they do it by perceiving things as phenomena. But I also agree with him that there are no phenomena without "the nouminous" as well (essentially, he means "real things, actually existing in their own right). So noumina give rise to phenomena; and noumina limit by their own nature the range of possible interpretations they can sponsor.

So "interpretation" is, at best, only part of the story; even though all perception is a form of interpretation, what we can reasonably "interpret" is restrained by the content of the real world.

So, if 'all perception is a form of interpretation', as you are suggesting here, then how is that any different from what I have been saying? Unless of course your interpretations and assumptions where the actual things that were not letting you actually see what I have actually been writing, which by the way has already been proven here to be the case.

Even actual real words printed in front of human being's own eyes can be interpreted so wrongly. This all happens in the so called real world. Just look at the interpretation of "real" and "world". How are those two words viewed by you? What does a "real world" actually mean. I can just about bet anything, that My interpretation of "real world" and/or of "reality" IS completely different than yours. And, also include in that bet that My interpretation fits in with the "big picture" without any confusion whatsoever. But then again that would have to depend on your interpretation of "big picture" compared to My interpretation of "big picture". In fact this "trying" to understand each other could go on forever and forever, which to Me is exactly how it feels like right NOW.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact.

I say the opposite: any "perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact" has to come from the real world, or it can be rejected outright as delusional. an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest.

'Who' decides on 'real world' and what is 'not real world', and, on 'delusional' and 'who is delusional' or not? So many variables here, how are "we" ever going to sort all of this out?

It never precisely expresses the reality of the noumena, it's true: but it is a product of the human effort to see real things as they really are.

'Who' says adult humans beings are, at the moment, even capable to see, so called, "real things" as they "really" are?

I know the answer, do you?

Immanuel Can wrote:

This idea, perspective, viewpoint, or any other form of seeing and understanding ALL come through or devised through thought.

Ah, but it has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation. What is that thing that comes before the thought?

Do you know? You are the one who said that thought has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation, so then I guess it is up to you to explain what that thing is.

I have an idea what you are thinking about but I do not like to assume anything so I wait your response and to find out what the point is that you are actually trying to get to here.

What has kant got to do with this?

Everything. He was very smart on this point. He was also one of the most important philosophers that ever lived.[/quote]

That is great to know that is what you think. What view do you have on "philosophers" by the way? What is a "philosopher" to you?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Show me where you wrote anything about "written tradition," and I'll concede that.

I really wish you would go back and re-read instead of making Me continually doing it.

I wrote, "Every religion is just an ideology devised/inspired, through human beings, and then taught through word of mouth of, or in written words from and to, human beings."

I stand corrected. I apologize. I misunderstood you there.

The reason you misunderstood Me was because.....?

More evidence has just been provided to prove how much and how often assumptions and assuming can so easily blind people from and to the Truth. About three times you have wanted me to go back and "check" on what I wrote, which you were disputing, when all along you never went back and checked yourself. You just continued assuming what you thought you had read was right.

I find people misunderstand Me so often is, besides the fact that I am just now learning how to communicate with people better, is also that people READ INTO, what I actually do write, WITH WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO BELIEVE I WRITE. And, then when they assume they are right they will not even check to find the Truth. As I have been saying beliefs and assumptions are the things that actually stop people from finding and seeing the Truth of things.

Immanuel Can wrote:I thought you were meaning that the writing was a secondary step, the "word of mouth" being the main thing. I was incorrect, I see.

Why would you think that? And, then continue to keep telling me to go back and check? I explained what was the case before but you continued to say that it was Me who is wrong. Is it a case of just wanting to keep fighting, till the "death", to prove that you are wrong or is it just the case that those assumptions and beliefs stop you from seeing and even looking for the truth, or is it a case of both of these?

I am very interested to know your truly open and honest answer here. This is the "battle" I have in trying to be heard an understood. In order to express better I need to learn WHY human beings do not (want to) listen to Me. I can not be better understood if I can not get past this barrier. All responses to the questions here would be of great help to Me and much appreciated.

Immanuel Can wrote:

How would any person KNOW what was in the original text if it is NOT available, in any case?

Well, let me give you the Islamic version of the answer, since we're discussing them.

There is no such thing as an "islamic" version of the answer to A question that I ask. There is however your answer. Your completely open and honest answer is what I was seeking and still would like. There is no possible to way to ask islam what its answer is. I only want your answer, thus the reason I asked the question to you.

Immanuel Can wrote: According to their tradition, Muhammed was in a cave, and had a vision of an angel. Divinely empowered to remember perfectly and speak the Koran, he recited it to friends, though Muhammed himself remained 100% illiterate and wrote nothing. When he was dead, Muhammed's words were written down, sorted and edited by his followers. Thus began the Koran.

So what?

You have just provided MORE evidence that the original thought could have been so easily misinterpreted. Again, just look at how wrongly you misinterpreted what I said, and what I said what already down in words for all to see. So if you can get it so wrong from written words, then how much more easily could mohammed's spoken words been misinterpreted. Let alone how much mohammed had already misinterpreted, through his own perceptions and interpretations, from the original message that he was receiving.

Immanuel Can wrote:For comparison, we might consider the Jewish account: God called Moses up to a mountain and dictated the truth to him, carving it in stone. Or consider the Christian account: those who had been with Jesus wrote down what he said and did; they were his friends and disciples, who eyewitnesses his activities.

So you can see that the major monotheist traditions don't accept the idea that "word of mouth" was the main thing, or even in some cases a very important thing.

What are you going on about here?

What has "main" thing and "very important" thing got to do with any thing here?

Or, are you still going back into your previous assumptions and AGAIN are assuming that I somehow said 'word of mouth' was the main thing or a very important thing?

Even if I did say, suggest, or even implied that, which I did NOT, everything you have just said here even leads to the conclusion that ALL these religions were originally passed on through word of mouth thus, it could be argued, was the main way all these religions were gained.

But again what is the actual point you are trying to get across here?

Immanuel Can wrote:

The chances that you and I read that the same way are about as likely as you and a islam follower read anything.

Yes, I think that's true. Assuming, that is, that the Islam follower reads stuff.

Why would any open-Minded person assume that?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists?

In Reality. (capital R) I certainly don't make them up out of nothing.

Where is "your" Reality?

The question I asked is Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists? I am sure you could, if you wanted to, pin down where exactly 'it' is they both exist.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Yes. But they can also be reliable, as we also know. So we must be wise what we believe, and test every witness.

Bit hard to test the ones who are not alive and able to speak for themselves.

Not really. If they wrote down what they thought, we can test it against other elements of reality, such as independent accounts, historical and archaeological data, and so on. If the facts don't bear it out, we can reject it.

You can NOT even be an accurate witness, for Me. You can NOT ever get the actual words that I have plainly written down correctly. Let alone that you misinterpreted most, if not all, of what is plainly and simply written down in very easy to read language. Your own beliefs and assumptions have completely confused and/or taken out of context what I have actually said in written words, and this is while we are in a discussion. So, what you have written here is not a at all accurate. If I write down thoughts and you have so very obviously got them so wrong whilst in a discussion with Me, then imagine what happens after a writer is unable to clear up the confusion that people reading those thoughts are making?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Also, a wise person does NOT believe. A truly wise person stays open, always.

Do you believe that?

No. You may not have read what I have written before, and you are not expected to have BUT every thing i write is just thought to be correct or what I see as being correct but this is ALL open to change. There is nothing I believe nor disbelieve AND I do not like to assume anything at all whatsoever.

Immanuel Can wrote:You see, if you don't, you wouldn't be saying it; but if you do, then you're not practicing what you say -- you're believing.

Wrong assumption, again.

There are plenty of things that I can write down, which I do not believe. In fact every thing I write I do NOT believe.

Immanuel Can wrote:I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything.

I CAN and DO still know things AND ALSO be completely and fully open at the same time. Obviously what was shown to 'you' was and is incorrect.

By the way do you really think/believe that a wise person does HAVE TO believe and maintain beliefs, and/or, that a truly wise person would not stay open, always?

Immanuel Can wrote: Nobody's "open always": or if they are, they have nothing to say, because they have to remain "open" to being wrong about anything they would otherwise claim.

AND what is wrong with being open to being wrong about anything?

Whereabouts and in what Universe is there some "rule" that says a person has nothing to say if they remain open to being wrong about anything they would otherwise claim. 'WHO' says people can not have a discussion without claiming something? Talk about an ego trying to show itself over Truth.

I have learned I LEARN FAR MORE from being open to being completely wrong then I ever did when I believed (in) whatever I was saying. Try it sometimes and you will understand.

Or, is there some reason you can not or will not do that?

Immanuel Can wrote:In fact, human beings are inherently believing creatures.

There may actually be more truth in that then I had thought about before. And, more the reason for human beings to actually stop believing all together, actually comes to light with that insight.

By the way have you got any evidence or proof for that claim?

Immanuel Can wrote: We could not get out of bed in the morning without first "believing" that the floor would be beneath our feet when we put them down.

Please speak for yourself only here in this forum. You can not truly speak for any other person and you certainly do NOT speak for Me.

I certainly do NOT neither have to believe nor disbelieve anything to get out of the bed, at any time of the day for that matter.

If you are writing to me, you must believe I am reading it.

Immanuel Can wrote:By the way, that "belief" is quite rational.

Why would I believe that? If there is no reply, then it is of no concern to Me, especially from now on. What you have already written down was and is more than enough proof that I was seeking from you here.

By the way, i think there is only ONE belief that is and that could be rational. The belief you are talking about is certainly NOT that ONE.

Also, I bold the word 'think' just so you do not again assume that what I wrote here was a belief. And, from what I have written and explained again please NEVER again assume that anything I write is a belief and it is not something that is not completely open to being wrong. If you or anyone else sees anything wrong in my writings, then please just point out the part that is wrong and then explain WHY it is wrong. I always look forward to being shown this.

Can I also ask a clarifying question, Why do some of you human beings continually persist with the belief that human beings must believe, otherwise they could not keep existing? Is it taught to you in schools or is it something learned in philosophy "education" or is just passed on information from family or friends? Where does that totally wrong knowledge actually come from and how does it get passed on from one human being to another?

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything.

For anyone who isn't already familiar with Descartes, the whole purpose of his project was to discover something that we could not doubt is true. In his Discourse on Method (available free here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm ) he describes the process of doubting everything. He reasoned that because his senses could deceive him, mirages and hallucinations for example, it was not beyond doubt that everything he saw and heard was untrue. What he could not doubt though, is that, whatever the source of the things he saw and heard, he had the sensation or thought of seeing and hearing them, hence 'I think, therefore I am'. Philosophers being a picky bunch have pointed out that the fact that there are thoughts doesn't imply the existence of a thinker with the logical necessity Descartes was hoping for; you can, if you must, doubt that there is a 'you' thinking, but what cannot be doubted is that there are thoughts. In that very strict definition of knowledge as something that is true about the world with absolute logical necessity, all we know is that there are phenomena, although to appease any passing pedants, it must be conceded that all anyone ever knows is that the phenomenon immediately before their consciousness at any given moment is the only thing they can be sure of.

Thanks for writing this. I also came to realize that the only thing that I can know of, for sure, are the thoughts that are inside "this" head. All a 'person' is is those thoughts (and emotions). Whereas if and as long as I can stay "outside" of those thoughts (and emotions) and just recognize and notice those thoughts, then I can be the, what I call, true Observer. The One who is able to look and see, i.e., understand, without ever having to believe, judge, and/or assume anything at all.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Nobody's "open always": or if they are, they have nothing to say, because they have to remain "open" to being wrong about anything they would otherwise claim.

Being "open" to being wrong, I would suggest, is a good thing; the alternative is dogmatism. Defining 'knowledge' has been a preoccupation of philosophy since Socrates, but few people take knowledge to mean logically irrefutable, in the above Cartesian sense, so we actually 'know' a great deal more than that there are phenomena, but it is all theory laden; we don't know that any explanation for a phenomenon is true or real with the same certainty that we know the phenomenon is true and real. Being "open always" to that has not in any detrimental way restricted my having something to say.

Whether to be believing and closed-Minded or not to be believing and be open-Minded always speaks for its own self, i would have thought. This surely does not need further explaining. The belief that people need to believe, otherwise they could not exist, should be enough evidence, in of itself, how stupid believing can actually make a person. 'Stupid', just meaning unintelligent. 'Intelligent', just meaning having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any thing and every thing. 'The ability' just comes from being open and remaining open.

ken wrote:Seriously what is the issue with you and the term religion?

It's both vapid and partisan. I think it's a useless word, a distortion of facts, unless we nuance it carefully in order to make proper use of it. That's all.


See, I said this here:

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I would have to point out to you that though people throw the term "religion" around, not even the experts are confident they know what one is. It seems it's a kind of post-Protestant, secular-sponsored handle for "stuff we don't believe." But people who believe in what they call a "religion" don't tend to use it.

Try finding agreement on just one of those, let alone all the thousands upon thousands of terms that people "throw" around.

That's maybe the best we can do in ordinary speech. But philosophy is not ordinary speech. It's a deliberate carefulness about ideas; and as every philosopher knows, precise definitions prevent misunderstanding and lead to better conclusions.

That's not even a controversial statement in the field, you'll find.

Or, are you trying to suggest that people who follow christianity, or jewish or buddhist or hindu beliefs are somehow different?

Absolutely right.

You really have a distrust and hateful attitude of, what you call, islamists, hey?

No. I have no hatred for them at all. That's what allows me to see them without the Western-liberal "rose-coloured glasses." I've read the Koran and I've studied their beliefs. But more than that, I've also lived in countries where their affinity for sharia was allowed a public face. This most Westerners have not done: and so they can continue to imagine that Islam will not come calling for them.

Any distrust of Islam is, I assure you, quite warranted. Anyone who studies either the history or doctrine of Islam knows this. And if you look at the Islamic states in the world, you'll know the truth of it. Name ONE -- just ONE -- that has been better off for being Islamic...

Immanuel Can wrote:

Some people can and do just as easily see islam equate to violence and others can and do just as easily see christianity equate to violence. It all depends on how many preconceived notions one has and how strongly they are held.

I notice you don't say it depends on what the religion actually says.

Whereas, you believe you, yourself, are able to interpret things correctly because you have know the facts.

So does every educated person, every expert and every scientist. I feel myself to be in good company, if what you say is true.

This is obviously clear in your writings, especially in the above where you are implying that you are able to KNOW what is MEANT in religion texts. Saying things like, "what the religion actually says", means that you are able to know what the religion actually says. Somehow you know how to do this, maybe you might like to enlighten us how you can know and do this?

I can read English. That's all it ever takes. Read carefully, thoughtfully, and read things into their proper context, and you could do the same.

Immanuel Can wrote: It's as if you think all there is is "interpretation," but apparently not "interpretation" of any particular precept, statement or truth.

The contradiction here is funny. Interpretation, itself, is what decides truth to the interpreter/observer.

Not so. Every "interpretation" can only be an "interpretation OF" something. And you use the word "truth": but if "interpretation" is the whole story, then there is no such thing as truth. All there is is perspectives, then, none of which is more truthful than any other.

I have an interpretation of that term, which is different than yours, so how do you propose we could KNOW the particular precept, statement or truth without our own interpretations? Or, is it just the case that you know the facts? And, thus every other different and/or opposing view/interpretation is just plainly wrong? End of story?

I think it's quite clear. We have recently witnessed a host of radical Islamists charging into theatres, workplaces and schools shouting "Allah is great" and killing people indiscriminately. We have their confession videos, in which they swear fidelity to ISIl. At first, we tried to convince ourselves these were just nutty individuals going off in all directions. But as the cases mounted up, and as more multi-person coordinated plans (like 9-11) came to light, we saw that this was not the production of a lunatic minority, but a major movement of terrorism in the world, one that caught up not only lunatics but also a whole bunch of intelligent, deliberate, passionate people and groups.

Islam is very dangerous. No sensible person can doubt it anymore. There's no paranoia in saying so, no "Islamophobia." But there is extreme foolishness in the Western liberal determination not to accept that what they're seeing is true. For my part, I just hope it doesn't get them all killed. As a Christian, I'm not so worried about me.

How can you honestly talk for another "interpreter"?

You're doing it right now. You're telling me my belief that truth is not just "interpretation" is wrong. And I have no objection to you doing so. I just happen to think that your view isn't right. And that's fair.

Why are you so hell-bent on getting others to read into something, mainly the koran, what you read into it?

I'm not. That's why I tell them, "Read the Koran." You'll see.

Immanuel Can wrote: Every "interpretation" surely has to be an "interpretation" of a particular statement.

Obviously. But what perspective is the interpreter coming from? In other words where is the observer looking from?

I'm not saying interpretation doesn't influence anything. I'm saying it's not determinative of truth. I'm saying that every "interpretation" is only as good as it turns out to correspond to the facts, data and truth it "interprets."

Let Me put it this way, would you, could you, ever become a follower of islam?

Not rationally, no. I know too much about it to believe it.

I really enjoy you writing how you are the ONE who CAN interpret but others can NOT.

What makes you think they cannot? I never said such a thing. I think everybody CAN interpret; but interpretation must be based on something that is being interpreted. And that thing is the truth that must be honoured by anyone's interpretation -- mine, yours and everyone else's equally.

Also, the way I read "Kill the infidels" in the context and in relation to the whole book called the koran is so far from anything you could even imagine now, let alone being anywhere close to what you believe it means.

Okay. Give me your interpretation of "kill the infidels."

You use a lot of words and if I wanted to know what you thought you meant by any of them, then I would just simply, ask you.

I did that. For about five exchanges now, I've been asking you what you mean by "religion." I'm waiting for your precise definition.

Immanuel Can wrote:So Atheism is a religion? For Richard Dawkins is quite passionate about it. And Marxism...millions followed that with rabid ferocity, and still do: so it's a religion too? What about if a secularist is really "devoted" and "believes" in the value of his science: is he now religious in that devotion?

Yes, from My perspective now, if a person has an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest, then that is a religion.

Would it really surprise you if it was discovered that every human being had some kind of religion?

No, no...I actually agree with you -- I think -- thought I don't yet have a firm definition of "religion" from you. I would agree with you if what you are saying is that Atheism, secularism, and even science require a kind of faith.

So, if 'all perception is a form of interpretation', as you are suggesting here, then how is that any different from what I have been saying?

I'm saying that the noumena are actually there. There IS a reality to which our "interpretations" refer. So far, you're apparently saying "interpretation" is all there is. But that can't be true, because as I pointed out above, "interpretation" is always "interpretation of" something. That "of" means that something has to already exist that is being interpreted, and that an interpretation can be flawed if it fails to correspond sufficiently to the reality to which it refers.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact.

I say the opposite: any "perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact" has to come from the real world, or it can be rejected outright as delusional. an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest.

'Who' decides on 'real world' and what is 'not real world', and, on 'delusional' and 'who is delusional' or not? So many variables here, how are "we" ever going to sort all of this out?

It's not a "who" at all. It's a method...scientific method, hermeneutic method, logical method...these are things equally open to everyone, so there's no arrogance in saying that using them is better than just making stuff up by way of ungrounded "interpretations".

Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, but it has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation. What is that thing that comes before the thought?

Do you know? You are the one who said that thought has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation, so then I guess it is up to you to explain what that thing is.

I did. It's reality. And in the case of the Koran, it's the reality of what the text itself says.

I am very interested to know your truly open and honest answer here. This is the "battle" I have in trying to be heard an understood. In order to express better I need to learn WHY human beings do not (want to) listen to Me. I can not be better understood if I can not get past this barrier. All responses to the questions here would be of great help to Me and much appreciated.

Well, we must not assume that people owe us to understand us. They only owe us that if we use words precisely and make arguments logically, and if they wish to behave as rational persons themselves. But if we are stuttering our our views, or have no specifics in mind when we make statements, or use definitions of terms not everybody accepts, we can expect not to be understood.

That's why philosophers work very hard to be precise. It's the only way mutual understanding will be possible.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The chances that you and I read that the same way are about as likely as you and a islam follower read anything.

Yes, I think that's true. Assuming, that is, that the Islam follower reads stuff.

Why would any open-Minded person assume that?

Because to assume otherwise is unkind. Until we find out otherwise, it is only charitable to assume an Islamic person is speaking from knowledge, not from ignorance. But you can assume otherwise, if you wish, of course.

Where is "your" Reality?

I'm typing in it right now.

The question I asked is Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists? I am sure you could, if you wanted to, pin down where exactly 'it' is they both exist.

In reality. I answered that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Also, a wise person does NOT believe. A truly wise person stays open, always.

Do you believe that?

No.

Oh? You don't believe it? Then why did you say it?

Immanuel Can wrote:I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything.

I CAN and DO still know things AND ALSO be completely and fully open at the same time. Obviously what was shown to 'you' was and is incorrect.

I think not. I just think that maybe you are completely unaware of how beholden to reality you are yourself. If you were actually as "open" as you say, that is "always open" you would know nothing at all.

I didn't say so: Descartes proved it's so.

By the way do you really think/believe that a wise person does HAVE TO believe and maintain beliefs, and/or, that a truly wise person would not stay open, always?

Open-mindedness that is temporary and tolerant is commendable; but permanent open-mindedness, the kind that cannot close on any fact is actually empty-headedness, and not a virtue at all. The point in being "open" at all is to be "open" to the truth. But if the truth is never knowable, then openness is worthless. It arrives at no knowledge.

AND what is wrong with being open to being wrong about anything?

Nothing at all -- provided one is also open to finding out that he/she is actually right about something, and arriving at a conclusion of some kind.

Immanuel Can wrote:In fact, human beings are inherently believing creatures.

There may actually be more truth in that then I had thought about before. And, more the reason for human beings to actually stop believing all together, actually comes to light with that insight.

By the way have you got any evidence or proof for that claim?

Yes, I think so. But what good would it do you if you decide you want to remain permanently "open minded"? Then, no matter what proof or evidence I ever offered, you'd never be convinced. So I think you have to decide if you believe you want to be "open" or find out the truth. One cannot have both.

Immanuel Can wrote: We could not get out of bed in the morning without first "believing" that the floor would be beneath our feet when we put them down.

Please speak for yourself only here in this forum. You can not truly speak for any other person and you certainly do NOT speak for Me.

So you did not believe the floor would be beneath your feet, but you got out of bed? How foolish. You could have fallen into a pit.

On reflection, ken, I think this is the difficulty we're having, and the one we're going to have until we resolve it.

You believe (so near as I can tell) that truth and reality are merely matters of personal interpretation. Why you believe this, I cannot say: but it seems to me that's what you're claiming, no?

In contrast, I believe that while "interpreting" is something we humans always have to do, it's not a wide-open field. What we "interpret" is something from reality, something that would exist regardless of our "interpretation," and a thing to which our "interpretation" can be more or less adequate.

The problem I see is that if I've got your view right, there's no way to settle anything, and no possibility of rational debate. For if everything is just "interpretation" and no "interpretation" can be challenged with regard to its reference to an independent reality, then there is absolutely no prospect of us learning anything or becoming wiser about things. In short, there's no possibility of us doing philosophy at all.

So if I've got your view correct there, I think we can go no further. I can't think of a way of arguing that does not require evidence, logic and reference to an objective reality. Absent those things, talk is just noise. We don't have an episteme or method for resolving our different views.

So maybe we're stuck, no?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Seriously what is the issue with you and the term religion?

It's both vapid and partisan.

So why did you use the word "religion".

I think it's a useless word, a distortion of facts, unless we nuance it carefully in order to make proper use of it. That's all.

Well what do you want? Do you want to nuance it carefully, or, do you want to not use the word?

If you do not use that "useless" word, then I will not reply to you with that word also, ok? And, if I do you can just remind Me that I said I would not use that word.

Immanuel Can wrote:See, I said this here:

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, I would have to point out to you that though people throw the term "religion" around, not even the experts are confident they know what one is. It seems it's a kind of post-Protestant, secular-sponsored handle for "stuff we don't believe." But people who believe in what they call a "religion" don't tend to use it.

This, to Me, does NOT actually say anything meaningful at all. I already discussed how when asked all people can not actually define nor know the meaning to very many, words. Actually you proved this by your refusal to provide any definitions/meanings in relation to the many words that I asked you to define.

You asked me to define "religion" so that is what I did. If you do not want to or you do not want Me to use the word "religion", then just say so. Easy right?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Try finding agreement on just one of those, let alone all the thousands upon thousands of terms that people "throw" around.

That's maybe the best we can do in ordinary speech. But philosophy is not ordinary speech. It's a deliberate carefulness about ideas; and as every philosopher knows, precise definitions prevent misunderstanding and lead to better conclusions.

So, why do you, yourself, not work towards precise definitions?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Or, are you trying to suggest that people who follow christianity, or jewish or buddhist or hindu beliefs are somehow different?

Absolutely right.

Can you expand on your answer?

How EXACTLY are they different?

Immanuel Can wrote:

You really have a distrust and hateful attitude of, what you call, islamists, hey?

No. I have no hatred for them at all. That's what allows me to see them without the Western-liberal "rose-coloured glasses." I've read the Koran and I've studied their beliefs.

You speak as though "they" are some how different than "you". Can you and will you explain EXACTLY how "they" are different than you?

Immanuel Can wrote: But more than that, I've also lived in countries where their affinity for sharia was allowed a public face.

Which countries have you lived in where "their" affinity for sharia was allowed a public face?

Immanuel Can wrote:This most Westerners have not done: and so they can continue to imagine that Islam will not come calling for them.

Islam has been around for a while now. How much longer do, so called, "westerners" have to wait to be called?

Immanuel Can wrote:Any distrust of Islam is, I assure you, quite warranted.

I am sure it is, from YOUR perspective.

Immanuel Can wrote:Anyone who studies either the history or doctrine of Islam knows this.

Are you sure you have thought this through fully and carefully?

Are you trying to tell Me here that EVERY person who has studied either the history or doctrine of islam knows that any distrust of any follower of islam is quite warranted?

Immanuel Can wrote:And if you look at the Islamic states in the world, you'll know the truth of it.

I assure you I do NOT know the truth of what you are referring to here. Can you enlighten Me?

Immanuel Can wrote: Name ONE -- just ONE -- that has been better off for being Islamic...

I can NOT name ONE 'government' state nor, dare I say it, 'religious' state that is better off for being 'that' state. If anything all states that human beings keep creating hitherto are worse off states.

There obviously, hitherto, is NO 'anything' state that is better off for being that 'thing' state. There is ONLY ONE state that is MUCH BETTER, but that has yet to come to fruition.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Whereas, you believe you, yourself, are able to interpret things correctly because you have know the facts.

So does every educated person, every expert and every scientist. I feel myself to be in good company, if what you say is true.

It is a pity that all these types of peoples can end up being completely wrong or partly wrong, therefore their education or their expertness or their scientific abilities is NOT that "good" after all. Just maybe if these people did NOT think themselves as "better", then they may have learned more thus "better" in the beginning.

By the way what is it exactly that makes you feel to be in such an ill-informed, preconceived idea of "good" company?

Why do you feel you are in "good" company?

This is obviously clear in your writings, especially in the above where you are implying that you are able to KNOW what is MEANT in religion texts. Saying things like, "what the religion actually says", means that you are able to know what the religion actually says. Somehow you know how to do this, maybe you might like to enlighten us how you can know and do this?

I can read English. That's all it ever takes. Read carefully, thoughtfully, and read things into their proper context, and you could do the same.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: It's as if you think all there is is "interpretation," but apparently not "interpretation" of any particular precept, statement or truth.

The contradiction here is funny. Interpretation, itself, is what decides truth to the interpreter/observer.

Not so. Every "interpretation" can only be an "interpretation OF" something.

If absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer/interpreter, then what is the "some thing"?

How could 'what' the something really is actually be known, for sure? Ah that is right, YOU KNOW, for sure, am I right?

Immanuel Can wrote:And you use the word "truth": but if "interpretation" is the whole story, then there is no such thing as truth.

Completely wrong. If every person is agreeing on 'what is', then that is not just truth but IS thee Truth, BUT, what has to be remembered here is to always remain OPEN.

Obviously, and has been proven to be the case, even if every person is agreeing on something, then that "interpretation OF" something can still be SO WRONG. This then brings us back to what is the "something"? And, How could 'what' the something really is actually be known, for sure? Ah that is right, YOU KNOW, for sure, am I right?

Immanuel Can wrote: All there is is perspectives, then, none of which is more truthful than any other.

Completely wrong, again. There is a way ONE perspective that not just shows truthfulness put also proves its truthfulness.

You will have to be careful of your assumptions, they can lead you up the wrong path and thus to wrongful conclusions.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I have an interpretation of that term, which is different than yours, so how do you propose we could KNOW the particular precept, statement or truth without our own interpretations? Or, is it just the case that you know the facts? And, thus every other different and/or opposing view/interpretation is just plainly wrong? End of story?

I think it's quite clear. We have recently witnessed a host of radical Islamists charging into theatres, workplaces and schools shouting "Allah is great" and killing people indiscriminately. We have their confession videos, in which they swear fidelity to ISIl. At first, we tried to convince ourselves these were just nutty individuals going off in all directions. But as the cases mounted up, and as more multi-person coordinated plans (like 9-11) came to light, we saw that this was not the production of a lunatic minority, but a major movement of terrorism in the world, one that caught up not only lunatics but also a whole bunch of intelligent, deliberate, passionate people and groups.

I think you have either completely overlooked My questioning, probably based on your beliefs, or you are just purposely trying to side step the questions, because of what the truthful answers would bring to light, or maybe for some other reason, else, but either way you did NOT answer any of the four questions here. But this is nothing really unusual from you. You have NOT answered the majority of the questions that I have asked you. People who look back at this will wonder WHY you have and continue to avoid most of my questions, but the reason why you do this is becoming more and more obvious to them now. The more questions you do NOT answer, the more evidence you are providing.

Immanuel Can wrote:Islam is very dangerous. No sensible person can doubt it anymore. There's no paranoia in saying so, no "Islamophobia." But there is extreme foolishness in the Western liberal determination not to accept that what they're seeing is true. For my part, I just hope it doesn't get them all killed. As a Christian, I'm not so worried about me.

I was going to ask how exactly is islam so apparently, to you, very dangerous, but first I will ask What is islam EXACTLY, to you?

Your absolute sureness of yourself, in your first sentence, proves how closed-Minded you are.
Your judgments of others, in your second sentence, shows how strong your beliefs are.
Your racism towards others, in your third sentence, is evidence of how unenlightened your views are.
Your superiority over others, in your fourth sentence, actually proves how blind a person can be while assuming.
Your delusion of what could happen, in your fifth sentence, is actually very amusing.
Your self identifying, in your sixth sentence, actually makes Me question:
Why are you "not so worried about" yourself? And,
What is a "christian", exactly?

Are you able to answer those two questions? Will you answer those two questions?

Immanuel Can wrote:

How can you honestly talk for another "interpreter"?

You're doing it right now. You're telling me my belief that truth is not just "interpretation" is wrong. And I have no objection to you doing so. I just happen to think that your view isn't right. And that's fair.

Saying another person is right or wrong has NOTHING at all to do with My question. My question was in regards to you speaking on or for the behalf of another person. Can you see the difference?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Why are you so hell-bent on getting others to read into something, mainly the koran, what you read into it?

I'm not. That's why I tell them, "Read the Koran." You'll see.

Have you NOT BEEN LISTENING to Me?

I READ/INTERPRET the koran, and probably just about everything else in "this world", differently than you. So HOW do you propose "Read the koran" WILL get others to read into it what you, yourself, read into it. There are over 1.5 BILLION people who DO NOT read the koran the same way as you do. So, what is it EXACTLY that you want ALL people to see?

And, have you ever even considered that the belief you have, i.e., "As a christian", JUST MAY BE affecting HOW you read the koran and WHAT you actually read into it?

Has that every crossed into any thought before, or now?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Every "interpretation" surely has to be an "interpretation" of a particular statement.

Obviously. But what perspective is the interpreter coming from? In other words where is the observer looking from?

I'm not saying interpretation doesn't influence anything. I'm saying it's not determinative of truth. I'm saying that every "interpretation" is only as good as it turns out to correspond to the facts, data and truth it "interprets."

OKAY, you keep re-repeating this belief of yours. So, HOW do you propose the ACTUAL facts, data and truth is KNOWN? I have asked you this a few times already. When will you actually answer the question, instead of just re-repeating what you BELIEVE is right?

For example, Is the earth flat or not? How long has it been that way? If you lived 5,000 years ago, what would have corresponded to the "facts", "data" and "truth" back then?

The more you say here the less truth is what you are saying is becoming more apparent to others now.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Let Me put it this way, would you, could you, ever become a follower of islam?

Not rationally, no. I know too much about it to believe it.

What does "Not rationally, no" actually mean?

And, you know to much to believe WHAT, exactly?

What is there to believe?

Immanuel Can wrote:

I really enjoy you writing how you are the ONE who CAN interpret but others can NOT.

What makes you think they cannot? I never said such a thing. I think everybody CAN interpret; but interpretation must be based on something that is being interpreted. And that thing is the truth that must be honoured by anyone's interpretation -- mine, yours and everyone else's equally.

LOL, I am enjoying this more and more now. haa haa

Let Me see if I have this right with you. If every person CAN interpret, the truth of that thing, the exact same as you do, then, and only then, they CAN interpret correctly, is that right?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Also, the way I read "Kill the infidels" in the context and in relation to the whole book called the koran is so far from anything you could even imagine now, let alone being anywhere close to what you believe it means.

Okay. Give me your interpretation of "kill the infidels."

Finally, after many back and forth replies with MANY attempts to get you to open up enough to at least just be the tiny bit inquisitive, and inquisitive of another's viewpoint, instead of always just wanting others to agree with your interpretation of the truth of things.

My interpretation is AFTER we come to an agreement of what an 'infidel' is, and then after that we then come to an agreement of what that 'thing' actually IS, then, and only then, WILL I tell you how "killing an infidel" can actually create a MUCH BETTER all round human being, which WILL still be living and also in helping others also to create a MUCH BETTER world for ALL others.

But I think you are a long, long way from this yet. But hopefully you will prove Me wrong here.

Immanuel Can wrote:So Atheism is a religion? For Richard Dawkins is quite passionate about it. And Marxism...millions followed that with rabid ferocity, and still do: so it's a religion too? What about if a secularist is really "devoted" and "believes" in the value of his science: is he now religious in that devotion?

Yes, from My perspective now, if a person has an interest followed with great devotion, and usually marked by a belief in that interest, then that is a religion.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Would it really surprise you if it was discovered that every human being had some kind of religion?

No, no...I actually agree with you -- I think -- thought I don't yet have a firm definition of "religion" from you. I would agree with you if what you are saying is that Atheism, secularism, and even science require a kind of faith.

Well that is what I am saying.

Immanuel Can wrote:

So, if 'all perception is a form of interpretation', as you are suggesting here, then how is that any different from what I have been saying?

I'm saying that the noumena are actually there. There IS a reality to which our "interpretations" refer.

Of course there is "something" "there". How else could an interpretation take place?

So far, you're apparently saying "interpretation" is all there is.[/quote]

NO, I am NOT saying that.

Immanuel Can wrote: But that can't be true, because as I pointed out above, "interpretation" is always "interpretation of" something.

You have proved here once again, with evidence again, that interpretations, based on assumptions, CAN be so completely and utterly wrong. I call this behavior APE, for two reasons:
1. This is a kind of behavior, which is APE like, in that it was how human beings behaved, which at the present stage human beings evolution in those years of when this is written, which was BEFORE they evolved into the next stage of NOW, being truly and fully intelligent beings. (But that is NOT to say human beings were apes ever beforehand.)
2. Assumptions, based on, Previous Experiences, will never lead a person to the Truth.

That "of" means that something has to already exist that is being interpreted, and that an interpretation can be flawed if it fails to correspond sufficiently to the reality to which it refers.[/quote]

LOL again. How do you propose "we" can KNOW if an interpretation corresponds, sufficiently, but better still completely, to the "reality" to which it refers? In other words, WHO KNOWS?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Any concept of truth or the facts as they stand has to come from some sort of perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact.

I say the opposite: any "perspective, viewpoint or idea of truth or fact" has to come from the real world, or it can be rejected outright as delusional.

Again, WHAT makes up the "real world", and, WHO knows the "real world"?

By the way, I have all these answers already. I am just wondering what answers you would and could give?

Immanuel Can wrote:

'Who' decides on 'real world' and what is 'not real world', and, on 'delusional' and 'who is delusional' or not? So many variables here, how are "we" ever going to sort all of this out?

It's not a "who" at all. It's a method...scientific method, hermeneutic method, logical method...these are things equally open to everyone, so there's no arrogance in saying that using them is better than just making stuff up by way of ungrounded "interpretations".

And, WHO's method do we use? WHO decides which is the best method?

YOU, yourself, with your responses have already proven the flaws in what you are suggesting here. By saying "read the koran" then you will see the facts, (as I see and know them already) is evidence that following "a method" does NOT work. To some, islam is 'a method' and one with about 1.5 Billion followers. Do you propose we follow that one? If not, then which method do you propose we follower?

There is a MUCH simpler, easier, quicker and far MORE accurate WAY. But as I said previously from your (lack of) responses I think you are a long way from learning that way, yet.

Immanuel Can wrote:Ah, but it has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation. What is that thing that comes before the thought?

Do you know? You are the one who said that thought has to be prompted by something that exists prior to any interpretation, so then I guess it is up to you to explain what that thing is.

I did. It's reality. And in the case of the Koran, it's the reality of what the text itself says.[/quote]

Okay, now what EXACTLY is reality?

And, AGAIN, who's interpretation of that, so called, reality IS true, right, and correct? And even after you answer those questions, if you ever do, who is to say what the text that is, now, in the koran is even close to the original text, which we both agree was actually originally passed on through spoken words.

You, yourself, have already proven, with evidence, how much My written words can and actually have been mistaken, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and thus also miscommunicated back through and by your written words. This has happened just in one or two or three discussions. So, imagine how much more this miscommunication could have and actually would have been misappropriated through 'word of mouth' throughout many upon many thousands of years and interpretations, even to the extent of changing the actual language, which has led to present-day texts. What is written down now, and the context it is in, could be so unbelievably different, to some people, from what the actual original text was.

We could go on and on forever. You saying it is NOT based on interpretation but it IS based on "reality", (whatever you think/believe "reality" is, that reminds Me, What does reality actually mean to you?), and then Me just asking you to explain what "reality" means AND then who's definition/interpretation of "reality" IS actually right, and then you NOT answering again but just saying again, "It's reality. And in the case of the Koran, it's the reality of what the text itself says." We could do this forever and ever, but I hope you will just answer My questions. I answer all of yours, and if I do not it is a complete oversight, which I apologize for, but I really wish you would at least answer just a few of My questions.

Like I said I know the answers. I KNOW WHAT will actually work, but I am waiting for you to answer My questions first before I decide.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I am very interested to know your truly open and honest answer here. This is the "battle" I have in trying to be heard an understood. In order to express better I need to learn WHY human beings do not (want to) listen to Me. I can not be better understood if I can not get past this barrier. All responses to the questions here would be of great help to Me and much appreciated.

Well, we must not assume that people owe us to understand us. They only owe us that if we use words precisely and make arguments logically, and if they wish to behave as rational persons themselves. But if we are stuttering our our views, or have no specifics in mind when we make statements, or use definitions of terms not everybody accepts, we can expect not to be understood.

I certainly do not expect not to be understood.

I expect I WILL learn a way to better express My Self. As such I expect I WILL be fully understood and thus recognized and accepted for who 'I' really am.

By the way I agree that it is better to NOT assume anything at all, but WHY do you say "we must not assume that people owe us to understand us"? Even when some one uses words "precisely" (just this needs to be looked into at far depth because "precisely" implies that every person KNOWS the meaning/definition of every word in every context that it is being used, which I think you will find could be actually near impossible) but anyway even when some one uses words precisely, which by the way could be done, and that one makes sound, valid arguments logically, which means those arguments are an unambiguous fact that could not be disputed, and that person was and is behaving extremely rational, I think you will find is there are some people, unlike yourself, who will still not (want to) understand another person. Some people just really need far more help, support and guidance than others do.

By the way do you know of any definitions or terms that, what you call, everybody accepts? If you do, please share them here.

Immanuel Can wrote:That's why philosophers work very hard to be precise. It's the only way mutual understanding will be possible.

I think I asked you this before, but I may be mistaken, What is a philosopher to you? How do you define philosopher?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Yes, I think that's true. Assuming, that is, that the Islam follower reads stuff.

Why would any open-Minded person assume that?

Because to assume otherwise is unkind. Until we find out otherwise, it is only charitable to assume an Islamic person is speaking from knowledge, not from ignorance. But you can assume otherwise, if you wish, of course.

You assumed again. Which again WAS wrong.

I did not mean to assume one way or another, nor that to assume one way is better than the other way.

I was mostly meaning why would any open-Minded person assume 'that', anything. I was referring to and pointing out that you are not being open-Minded at all for two reasons:
1. assuming, just because, a person follows islam that they might not read "stuff".
2. you are just plainly and simply assuming.
But now that you have cleared up what you actually did mean, which according to your belief that a person should interpret what is "reality" that is written in text, means that it is 100% My fault for not reading your text 100% correctly from what you originally meant. I am sorry I did not fully see and understand the facts as they appeared. But anyway now based on this knowledge there is a third reason for not being an open-Minded person:
3. it is "charitable" to assume that a person of islamic faith is speaking not from ignorance but from knowledge instead.

The absolute ignorance that you are coming from is truly amazing, in of itself. Do you think that truly amazing "charitably" view you have for people of islam is because of your amazing ability to know facts and truth, which others do not know, or is it because of being a "christian". Christians are "well-known" for being far more charitable people than others, right?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Where is "your" Reality?

I'm typing in it right now.

Well, that put a much more and better "light" on "it" now, NOT.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The question I asked is Where do you think another person and a Divine Being exists? I am sure you could, if you wanted to, pin down where exactly 'it' is they both exist.

In reality. I answered that.

Thank you for answering. Your ability to clear things up is truly amazing. You have left Me wondering more than I even did before. But maybe that is just Me. Maybe others can see much more now from your incredible ability to explain yourself better. Or, just maybe you are trying to prove your point that, "... if we are stuttering our our views, or have no specifics in mind when we make statements, or use definitions of terms not everybody accepts, we can expect not to be understood."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Do you believe that?

No.

Oh? You don't believe it? Then why did you say it?

Did I or did I not answer that previously?

Since you did not leave in the quote this is in relation to, I am NOT going back this time to see if I have already answered it or not. Therefore, I am NOT properly able to answer the question this time (again?) because there is nothing it is in reference to.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:I agree we ought to be skeptical at first. But Rene Descartes showed us that to take that to the point of being "open always" is the same as being totally unable to know anything.

I CAN and DO still know things AND ALSO be completely and fully open at the same time. Obviously what was shown to 'you' was and is incorrect.

I think not. I just think that maybe you are completely unaware of how beholden to reality you are yourself. If you were actually as "open" as you say, that is "always open" you would know nothing at all.

I didn't say so: Descartes proved it's so.

But I just proved that "proof" wrong.

You just believe (in) something that was written down. Where is the actual "prove" and how was it actually allegedly "proved"? The trouble with some people is they will just believe some things, for not good reason at all. For example some people believe in every word, which is written in the bible, because they were told that it was said/written by God.

Are you suggesting here that descartes WAS, IS and WILL BE always right?

Immanuel Can wrote:

By the way do you really think/believe that a wise person does HAVE TO believe and maintain beliefs, and/or, that a truly wise person would not stay open, always?

Open-mindedness that is temporary and tolerant is commendable; but permanent open-mindedness, the kind that cannot close on any fact is actually empty-headedness, and not a virtue at all. The point in being "open" at all is to be "open" to the truth. But if the truth is never knowable, then openness is worthless. It arrives at no knowledge.

But not just truth, but Truth, Itself, can be so simply, easily, and quickly found AND known.

You just need to learn how to be able to do this, which by the way is also very easy to do, with know-how, and thus when you learn HOW.

Immanuel Can wrote:

AND what is wrong with being open to being wrong about anything?

Nothing at all -- provided one is also open to finding out that he/she is actually right about something, and arriving at a conclusion of some kind.

I have MANY a time found out I was right, but I still NEVER believe (in) it.

By the way there was many more times i found out i was wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:In fact, human beings are inherently believing creatures.

There may actually be more truth in that then I had thought about before. And, more the reason for human beings to actually stop believing all together, actually comes to light with that insight.

By the way have you got any evidence or proof for that claim?

Yes, I think so. But what good would it do you if you decide you want to remain permanently "open minded"? Then, no matter what proof or evidence I ever offered, you'd never be convinced. So I think you have to decide if you believe you want to be "open" or find out the truth. One cannot have both.

That is one of the funniest attempts to side step answering a question I have seen for a while. Stop assuming and believing that I can not be open and still find and see truth. The Truth i I can see and find not just truth but also Thee Truth far better. Truth is always seen and known instantly when completely and always open, therefore there is no need to be convinced of anything. The Truth is One actually HAS both openness and Truth at the exact same time.

I would still like to see any evidence or proof of what you claim is factual, i.e., "human beings are inherently believing creatures. I might be able to use that evidence and/or proof in My writings.

But your continual refusal to answer My questions proves how much assumption and beliefs actually distorts the actual truth, and also stops and prevents a person from seeing the actual truth.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: We could not get out of bed in the morning without first "believing" that the floor would be beneath our feet when we put them down.

Please speak for yourself only here in this forum. You can not truly speak for any other person and you certainly do NOT speak for Me.

So you did not believe the floor would be beneath your feet, but you got out of bed? How foolish. You could have fallen into a pit.

Yes that is right. I did NOT believe that because I do NOT believe anything so "that" would be included in the anything. WHY do you think/believe I would (want to) believe (in) anything?

Oh by the way I have to point out that there is one thing that I actually do believe in, but I just do not write it each and every time.

Unless somehow my bed was moved next to a pit while I was asleep, and, after I woke up I forgot to or did not (want to) open my eyelids so that I could or could not see a floor next to the bed why do you believe I would believe one way or the other?

You do know I can see, or have a view of, a floor and/or just think that there is a floor there, and still move about in "reality". In fact I like to test every thing for its truth. And, I actually do this and WILL continue doing this BEFORE I would ever even start to believe (in) some thing, besides the One and only thing I actually do believe in.

I'm going to repeat my earlier post, because I ho neatly don't think we can go forward unless we settle it, ken.

On reflection, ken, I think this is the difficulty we're having, and the one we're going to have until we resolve it.

You believe (so near as I can tell) that truth and reality are merely matters of personal interpretation. Why you believe this, I cannot say: but it seems to me that's what you're claiming, no?

In contrast, I believe that while "interpreting" is something we humans always have to do, it's not a wide-open field. What we "interpret" is something from reality, something that would exist regardless of our "interpretation," and a thing to which our "interpretation" can be more or less adequate.

The problem I see is that if I've got your view right, there's no way to settle anything, and no possibility of rational debate. For if everything is just "interpretation" and no "interpretation" can be challenged with regard to its reference to an independent reality, then there is absolutely no prospect of us learning anything or becoming wiser about things. In short, there's no possibility of us doing philosophy at all.

So if I've got your view correct there, I think we can go no further. I can't think of a way of arguing that does not require evidence, logic and reference to an objective reality. Absent those things, talk is just noise. We don't have an episteme or method for resolving our different views.

So maybe we're stuck, no?

.






....................................................










.......................................................









......................................................










...........................................................








.

Wow.

Kudos on that last of the three, Bill. I think it's dead on.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm going to repeat my earlier post, because I ho neatly don't think we can go forward unless we settle it, ken.

Immanuel Can wrote:On reflection, ken, I think this is the difficulty we're having, and the one we're going to have until we resolve it.

You believe (so near as I can tell) that truth and reality are merely matters of personal interpretation. Why you believe this, I cannot say: but it seems to me that's what you're claiming, no?

Firstly, I do NOT believe anything. Please tell Me you can understand and accept this? Until that is accepted you can not progress.

Secondly, If truth and reality are NOT matters of personal interpretation, (your use of the word merely will NOT work on Me), then what can you say truth and reality can be accurately based upon?

If, and when, you look deep enough I am sure you could find that every thing is based upon the observer/interpreter. Do you think/believe this could be a possibility? If not, then you can not progress.

Of course AND obviously there is a truth and a reality, but what are truth and reality based upon, and/or in relation to? If you want Me to accept your belief, then you need to answer this question. I have asked you for clarity about this before, but your refusal to provide that answer/clarity proves to Me you will not do it. Therefore, what you say is inaccurate.

Immanuel Can wrote:In contrast, I believe that while "interpreting" is something we humans always have to do, it's not a wide-open field.

What is supposedly a 'wide-open field'? What does that actually mean?

Immanuel Can wrote:What we "interpret" is something from reality, something that would exist regardless of our "interpretation," and a thing to which our "interpretation" can be more or less adequate.

What do you mean by 'reality'?

Immanuel Can wrote:The problem I see is that if I've got your view right,

You have not got My view right because you do NOT FULLY understand My view YET.

You have got My view generally right but you are NOT looking from My perspective in order to see what I actually mean.

Immanuel Can wrote: there's no way to settle anything, and no possibility of rational debate.

Settling things and "rational" debate can be actually as opposing as can be.

What is your definition and what do you actually mean by 'settling' and 'settling anything' and 'rational' and 'debate' and 'rational debate'?

Immanuel Can wrote:For if everything is just "interpretation" and no "interpretation" can be challenged with regard to its reference to an independent reality, then there is absolutely no prospect of us learning anything or becoming wiser about things.

All completely wrong from My perspective.

Every thing is just following on from each other wrongly because of your first APE.

Immanuel Can wrote: In short, there's no possibility of us doing philosophy at all.

What does 'philosophy' mean to you?

Wrong again because of again your APE.

Immanuel Can wrote:So if I've got your view correct there,

Again no you have NOT got My view correct.

Immanuel Can wrote:I think we can go no further.

That is completely up to you and your decisions. I have and can again very easily go as far as revealing ALL of Life's so called "mysteries".

Immanuel Can wrote: I can't think of a way of arguing that does not require evidence, logic and reference to an objective reality.

I CAN and actually KNOW HOW to find and see objective reality for what it really is.

Or, we can do it your way, name one thing that is an objective reality?

When you give that, then we can move forward.

Immanuel Can wrote: Absent those things, talk is just noise. We don't have an episteme or method for resolving our different views.

Yes we do. You just do NOT know that yet.

My view does NOT disagree with your real innermost view. When you can get past your beliefs and assumptions down to the inner most truthfulness you can see that there are actually no different views. You just do not know this yet.

Immanuel Can wrote:So maybe we're stuck, no?

Not at all. You may be stuck but I certainly am NOT.

I have asked you quite a number of questions, if you look back you will see how many, if and when you begin to start looking at them and answering them openly and truthfully, then things can become much clearer for you. Otherwise the other way for you to become wiser is to ask clarifying questions of Me. Either way you could begin to see and understand more. The rest is up to you. Either explain how we can once and for all define what is really real and what is truthfully truth, and if it all makes sense to Me, then I can and will accept that. Until then you will have to continuing accepting and agreeing with what I say. What I say, i think, stands as absolute Truth because it has yet been refuted by any person.

Immanuel Can wrote:Wow.

Kudos on that last of the three, Bill. I think it's dead on.

What EXACTLY do you read into in the last of the three pics?

What is the message you see/receive?

Immanuel Can wrote:Wow.

Kudos on that last of the three, Bill. I think it's dead on.

Yes the picture captioned "west" exactly demonstrates you.