For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I salute the skillful ambiguity there, Mr PantsFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 pm Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason.
He wears the corporate hat.mickthinks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 3:08 pmI salute the skillful ambiguity there, Mr PantsFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 pm Part of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason.
From my own frame of mind, there are those who manage to convince themselves [one way or another], that it is entirely possible for mere mortals to acquire [and then to sustain] both an essential meaning of life, and an objective morality. For some, of course, it all comes back to a God, the God, my God. For others, however, [like Buddhists] it is a No God spiritual path. Then the Pantheists. Then the secularists who fall back on political ideology or biological imperatives or a deontological philosophy of life. Some will even insist that science itself can provide us with the most rational assessment of human interactions in the is/ought world.Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 7:14 amI think there are some things that don't have a specific definition. Paganism is one of these, as are questions about the meaning of life. With Paganism, all we can do is give a few general ideas, while always bearing in mind that these won't fit every branch of Paganism. And with regard to questions about the meaning of life, we usually don't even know the question.
Note to others:FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 pmPart of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason. But the rest of me is wondering if you think that pile of self-indulgent self-important nonsense demonstrates some error of my reasoning?iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 10:09 pmFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 8:06 pm It doesn't really look like much philosophy was happening in that thread tbh. It seldom does when it's just iambignose going on about Donald Rumsfeld though
Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy?
Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.
As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
...is not applicable?
What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?
As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true.
As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...
"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.
So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!
But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing.
...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".
When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.
You just exampled why you do not understand. Does a name define a person, or does an actual definition of the function of a human mind.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:09 pm
That's the part I [still] don't understand. It's a moral philosophy that can never really be effectively challenged. Why? Because it's predicated on the assumption that in order to think and to feel as any particular Pagan does regarding conflicting value judgments, you would "for all practical purposes" have to be them.
So, share with the world, your standard of measure for better and worse.Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:23 pm the best Pagans were featured in the movie Dragnet with Aykroyd and Hanks...
-Imp
So, is that your next tattoo?Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:37 pm P. people
A. against
G. goodness
A. and
N. normalcy
(it was a hilarious movie)
-Imp
Yes, I think that's right. Paganism isn't really a religion, in the usual sense. At best, it's a collection of lots of different religious and spiritual paths, along with others that have more in common with atheism. If there's any unifying feature, it's a connection with nature, but even that can manifest in all sorts of different ways. A lot of Pagans, for example, fully embrace the climate change hysteria, but I personally think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we can affect the climate in any significant way. Which doesn't mean that I'm not an environmentalist, because I very much am.iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:09 pmFrom my own frame of mind, there are those who manage to convince themselves [one way or another], that it is entirely possible for mere mortals to acquire [and then to sustain] both an essential meaning of life, and an objective morality. For some, of course, it all comes back to a God, the God, my God. For others, however, [like Buddhists] it is a No God spiritual path. Then the Pantheists. Then the secularists who fall back on political ideology or biological imperatives or a deontological philosophy of life. Some will even insist that science itself can provide us with the most rational assessment of human interactions in the is/ought world.Maia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 7:14 amI think there are some things that don't have a specific definition. Paganism is one of these, as are questions about the meaning of life. With Paganism, all we can do is give a few general ideas, while always bearing in mind that these won't fit every branch of Paganism. And with regard to questions about the meaning of life, we usually don't even know the question.
From my own [still] more or less "fractured and fragmented" perspective, however, they generally come here and express their value judgments given one or another religious dogma, or one or another secular political ideology, or one or another school of philosophy. In other words, given different ontological/teleological fonts they champion one or another "my way or the highway" moral dogma. Which may or may not be anchored in one or another historical manifestation of "or else".
Generally, the folks above take leaps of faith spiritually or, instead, offer what they construe to be secular arguments [philosophical or otherwise] able to establish that those who do accept their own set of assumptions become "one of us" [the good guys] and those who don't become "one of them" [the bad guys].
With Pagans, however, it becomes considerably more problematic. Why? Because in regard to things like abortion, nihilism, sexuality, and BBC licensing, each Pagan, in sync with his or her own visceral "I just know" "intrinsic self", might arrive at entirely conflicting conclusions.
That's the part I [still] don't understand. It's a moral philosophy that can never really be effectively challenged. Why? Because it's predicated on the assumption that in order to think and to feel as any particular Pagan does regarding conflicting value judgments, you would "for all practical purposes" have to be them.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 9:15 pmNote to others:FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 pmPart of me wants to not piss Rick off for no good reason. But the rest of me is wondering if you think that pile of self-indulgent self-important nonsense demonstrates some error of my reasoning?iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 10:09 pm
Just for the record, there are those here who insist they -- and only they -- are qualified to judge what either is or is not...serious philosophy?
Then those here who, even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", almost never bring their own assessments down out of the "philosophical clouds". And, of course, those who insist that, in or out of the clouds, and even in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", their own assumptions reflect what they insist is essentially the One True Path to the objective truth. God or no God.
As for Rumsfeld, in regard to "meaning, morality and metaphysics", please note contexts in which this...
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
...is not applicable?
What, did you think it pertained only to the war in Iraq?
As for Maia, I have had a number of exchanges with her over the years. And, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" frame of mind, her conclusions regarding "meaning, morality and metaphysics" are predicated on the assumption that she is in possession of what I and others describe as an "intrinsic self". In other words, an intuitive -- spiritual? -- self such that she "just knows" that some things are true.
As I posted on the Pagan Morality thread...
"...with Maia, the contexts we kept coming back to were abortion, nihilism and sexuality. Now, if I understood her correctly, she agreed with me that in regard to dasein -- our historical, cultural and uniquely personal experiences -- many of our value judgments pertaining to them are, indeed, rooted existentially.
So, okay, she seemed to concur with that. If her life had unfolded very, very differently, not only might she have accepted abortion as moral and sexual abstinence as irrational, she might even have become a moral nihilist herself!
But not only did that not happen, she seemed to suggest, but it could not have happened. Why? Because once the Goddess was there to guide this Intrinsic Self of hers, she could then feel comforted and consoled that at least she was doing the Right Thing.
...the most crucial factor thus being that in whatever way you choose to confront [conflicting goods] as a Pagan, you are able to intertwine and then embed your own personal agenda into this spiritual Self that enables you to at least be comforted that your efforts are in sync with something that transcends your own infinitesimally insignificant existence. You are part of an overarching natural Reality that for some puts them "at one" with the universe itself.".
When the gallant knight rides to the aid of the damsel in distress, he's not supposed to point his lance at his own face.
Enough said?
