Philosophy Now Forum

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:15 pm

Belinda wrote:You are wasting your time trying to fit your narrative to academic philosophy. In order to win the wisdom of academic philosophy need to apply yourself and do some real work.You try to justify your laziness by appealing to your personal esoteric elevation.

Good point. Of course Nicky will dismiss it by waving his hands and ranting about experts and secular intolerance, but it really comes down to whether one is willing to do the necessary hard work versus imagining one has attained a privileged perspective.

... I suspect that Nicky’s animosity toward academic philosophy has something to do with discovering at some point that one or more academic philosopher did not recognize what he thinks of as his own superior knowledge and understanding and rejected his uninformed opinions.

Bang on. However, Nick actually shows no interest in changing others' opinions. It is extremely well known that the very worst thing one can do in trying to change others' minds is to accuse, attempt to induce guilt and push people on to the back foot - which of course is what Nick does habitually.

It could be that he is just extremely stupid like some of the insane religious cultists in the US. However, it's not lack of intelligence but a lack of depth. He knows the above - but chooses not to embrace it. So this has never been about discussion or attempting to change minds, just plain old hatred and resentment hidden under the desecrated cloak of Plato.

The hatred comes from, as noted, believing that his ideas are not being recognised as the groundbreaking work of a genius rather than the the foetid, hot winds of an agitated arse.

Even his most "profound" point - that humans are becoming individually weaker while collectively stronger is much more clearly perceived and realistically articulated better by any number of other observers, not weighed down by Nick's high noise-to-signal ratio.

Nick wrote: You either agree with Plato's tripartite theory of soul or you don't.

It's not a question of belief. Plato uses this as a thought experiment. He's not inviting you to believe that what is described is a literally real situation.
In any event, there are a range of subtle interpretive differences that follow from it.
It's a metaphor.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:39 pm

Nick wrote:You either agree with Plato's tripartite theory of soul or you don't.

It's not a question of belief. Plato uses this as a thought experiment. He's not inviting you to believe that what is described is a literally real situation.
In any event, there are a range of subtle interpretive differences that follow from it.
It's a metaphor.

Yes, basically a precursor to Jung's superego, ego and id. Logic, emotion and impulse.

It reminds me of the chat about dimensions I'm having on another thread. The three spatial dimensions (plus time) are just models, not reality. Where are the one dimensional entities (aside from some forum members) and Flatlanders, or the 3D entities frozen in without time? Where is the time sans the spatial dimensions? Obviously none of those things exist by themselves discretely, just that identifying those measurable attributes has proved to be very useful.

There's a lot of mistaking models for reality going on.

It is obvious that F4 and Greta are dedicated secular intolerants. As such they must attack all those who question their imagined superiority of secularism for answering the basic essential questions of the heart. Naturally then I must be the svoloch of the Western world since like Simone Weil, I am willing to annoy the Great Beast

These two can stand on their heads and curse me out until they finally fall asleep but the question of secular intolerance on the human psyche still remains.

I am posting a link to a Jacob Needleman interview on his book “What is God.” Since he was an atheist it is instructive to learn how he outgrew his own secular intolerance. I’ll take it piece by piece so the open minded reader can experience the other side where all the animosity of secular intolerance isn’t necessary. F4 and Greta want to argue and ridicule. They are only concerned with their personalities and attacking the personalities of others. They do not appreciate that all their condemnation just prevents them from the experience of what it means to “know thyself.” In the beginning of the interview Jacob Needleman discusses what it means to know thyself in the context of the question of God. Ask yourself: is it more productive for a philosopher who feels the love of wisdom to endlessly argue and curse out others while expressing secular intolerance or to acquire the courage to know thyself so as to experience the truth of ourselves and our connection to higher consciousness.

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman

Q: What new perspective can you bring to the tired debates between atheists and believers about the existence of God? Is there another way to approach this argument?

Jacob Needleman
A: In the present debates both sides tend to treat God as a purely external entity accessible only by faith—faith defined as belief unsupported by evidence or logic. My book presents the idea of God as representing a conscious force within the human psyche which is accessible through careful inner self-examination. The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer. At the same time, this point of view redefines faith as a knowledge that is attained not only by intellectual means, but also through the rigorous development of the emotional side of the human psyche. Such emotional knowledge is unknown to the isolated intellect and has therefore been mistakenly labeled as “irrational.”

This “new” idea of God proposes that all the characteristics traditionally attributed to the purely external God are, in an important sense, attributes of this inner force of consciousness. When this inner energy of higher consciousness is experienced, it then becomes clear that such an energy permeates the entire universe. In this way, it is through self-knowledge that the existence of an external God is verified and understood..................

If you are a philosopher who defines philosophy as the love of wisdom, do you consider it more beneficial to strive for direct experience or to argue what you've never experienced just to serve your own defense mechanisms?

I'm not even an atheist, as I've said dozens of times, but thickhead doesn't listen.

It's clear that the OP is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. In his hubris he failed to take seriously the very most fundamental aspect of philosophy - to question oneself. This catastrophic philosophical failure makes it impossible to sensibly engage for long. The conversations can start nicely enough but inevitably the degeneration into a fight begins ...

So the nub of the problem is not the OP's naivete, but his love of trolling, something he cannot admit, despite blaming others for him being banned form at least two other forums. Every thread in which he participates becomes a fight.

An example: On the other forum he started a thread on religious music. Given his history of insulting anyone who disagrees with him, a number of his victims mobbed him with what I thought to be unfair criticism of the topic. So I spoke up on the OP's behalf and engaged seriously on the topic. However, I struggled to keep his attention because he just wanted to fight with the others. It was just trading of barbs, with the usual accusations, and content-free. I tried to re-engage a number of times to no avail.

At that point I understood what the OP really wants - to express his hostility. The rest is just a set up.

Nick:

It is obvious that F4 and Greta are dedicated secular intolerants. As such they must attack all those who question their imagined superiority of secularism for answering the basic essential questions of the heart.

Sorry Nicky, you don’t evade the fact that you have a defectively limited and distorted view of Plato by once again resorting to the hollow theme of secular intolerance. Did you think about what I said about the problems the text presents regarding the tripartite soul? Did you look up the passage I cited and read it in context? Or did you just close your eyes and retreat into the comfortable world of self perpetuating ignorance? The issue your question asked is not essential issues of the heart. You raised a question, I answered it and you changed the subject as you always do. It shows a lack of courage and intellectual integrity. Running away and throwing rocks is simply childish and cowardly.

I am posting a link to a Jacob Needleman interview on his book “What is God.”

Could you be any more transparently evasive? What does this have to do with the question you asked about Plato on the tripartite soul?

If you are a philosopher who defines philosophy as the love of wisdom, do you consider it more beneficial to strive for direct experience or to argue what you've never experienced just to serve your own defense mechanisms?

Your either or option is simplistic and uninformed.What you call seeking direct experience is what Zen calls a barrier to direct experience. Your beliefs, opinions, conceptual constructs stand between you and direct experience. Rather than contemplating a truth you do not know, Zen attempts to quiet the mind, to rid it of the world you have built in your imagination, to listen not talk, to free yourself of your self-deception engendered by what you imagine you will discover.

Others will tell you one must surrender to God, that religion is about obedience, or that wisdom is fear of the Lord and you cannot know the truth of this until you have devoted yourself fully and wholeheartedly.

Still others that all of the above is artifact, contrivance, and contrary to the Way. But within the same tradition we find it said that a way is made by walking it. Experience is about living not filling your head with stories about God and consciousness.

Needleman is likely to be aware that mysticism has often been frowned on,marginalized, or forbidden by mainstream religion. He dances around the problem, first acknowledging the problem of self-deception and then adding the qualification “genuine”. It is a meaningless qualification because everyone who has had what they believe to be a mystical experience believes their own experience to be genuine. He then adds the qualification “authentic” to religion, leaving himself an out. If it is pointed out that not all religious group endorse mysticism he can deny that this group’s religion is authentic religion. But of course those who are on the other side will claim that what he promotes is not authentic religion. The claim that subjective experience verifies the existence of an external God is deeply problematic for various reasons.

I do not know how Needleman would respond to this. Perhaps he is a pluralist and would agree, but even on his worst day he would not start ranting about secular intolerance, spirit killing, and Great Beasts. Unlike you, he is interested in unifying people not waging holy wars against secularism,education, culture, and society.

Fooloso, you know he will just respond with "another example of secular intolerance".

FoolamI wrote

Sorry Nicky, you don’t evade the fact that you have a defectively limited and distorted view of Plato by once again resorting to the hollow theme of secular intolerance. Did you think about what I said about the problems the text presents regarding the tripartite soul?

Why is it that so many understand what is meant by the tripartite soul but you deny it? The author of this link provides charts and how the concept exists within modern psychology. Yet you fight against it like a cornered dog. Your way but not mine.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/p ... e_soul.htm

I do not know how Needleman would respond to this. Perhaps he is a pluralist and would agree, but even on his worst day he would not start ranting about secular intolerance, spirit killing, and Great Beasts. Unlike you, he is interested in unifying people not waging holy wars against secularism,education, culture, and society.

For you a rant is anything that opposes the supremacy of secularism. This tactic is something I would read in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Glorifying life in Plato’s cave as the ultimate in human consciousness simply cannot be questioned. To do so is intolerable. So as an Aries male sometimes I’m intolerable. It’s what makes me lovable. Where is Simone when I need her. Aha! Found her:

In "Sketch of Contemporary Social Life" (1934), Weil develops the theme of collectivism as the trajectory of modern culture.

“Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity, and never have men been so less capable, not only of subordinating their actions to their thoughts, but even of thinking.”

I don’t think you even knew how right you were and since you passed away its only gotten worse.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:19 am I'm not even an atheist, as I've said dozens of times, but thickhead doesn't listen.

It's clear that the OP is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. In his hubris he failed to take seriously the very most fundamental aspect of philosophy - to question oneself. This catastrophic philosophical failure makes it impossible to sensibly engage for long. The conversations can start nicely enough but inevitably the degeneration into a fight begins ...

So the nub of the problem is not the OP's naivete, but his love of trolling, something he cannot admit, despite blaming others for him being banned form at least two other forums. Every thread in which he participates becomes a fight.

An example: On the other forum he started a thread on religious music. Given his history of insulting anyone who disagrees with him, a number of his victims mobbed him with what I thought to be unfair criticism of the topic. So I spoke up on the OP's behalf and engaged seriously on the topic. However, I struggled to keep his attention because he just wanted to fight with the others. It was just trading of barbs, with the usual accusations, and content-free. I tried to re-engage a number of times to no avail.

At that point I understood what the OP really wants - to express his hostility. The rest is just a set up.

Just like your friend was banned from a religious site for their opinions. I will always end up being banned from secular philosophy sites for raising the questions intolerable for secularism. They result in expressions of secular intolerance which disturbs the peace and could corrupt the youth of Athens. To be banned under these circumstances is a sign of doing something right.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:20 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:19 am I'm not even an atheist, as I've said dozens of times, but thickhead doesn't listen.

It's clear that the OP is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. In his hubris he failed to take seriously the very most fundamental aspect of philosophy - to question oneself. This catastrophic philosophical failure makes it impossible to sensibly engage for long. The conversations can start nicely enough but inevitably the degeneration into a fight begins ...

So the nub of the problem is not the OP's naivete, but his love of trolling, something he cannot admit, despite blaming others for him being banned form at least two other forums. Every thread in which he participates becomes a fight.

An example: On the other forum he started a thread on religious music. Given his history of insulting anyone who disagrees with him, a number of his victims mobbed him with what I thought to be unfair criticism of the topic. So I spoke up on the OP's behalf and engaged seriously on the topic. However, I struggled to keep his attention because he just wanted to fight with the others. It was just trading of barbs, with the usual accusations, and content-free. I tried to re-engage a number of times to no avail.

At that point I understood what the OP really wants - to express his hostility. The rest is just a set up.

Just like your friend was banned from a religious site for their opinions. I will always end up being banned from secular philosophy sites for raising the questions intolerable for secularism. They result in expressions of secular intolerance which disturbs the peace and could corrupt the youth of Athens. To be banned under these circumstances is a sign of doing something right.

Take responsibility for your actions for once. You constantly hoist yourself on your own petard and then blame others.

You were banned after three official warnings, a number of unofficial ones, over 2,000 posts and having started over 100 threads.

My friend was banned from the religious forum in two days after half a dozen posts.

That says it all regarding relative tolerance.

I had already told you this. You just raised an issue that severely undermined your own case. Why would you do that?

Nick:

Why is it that so many understand what is meant by the tripartite soul but you deny it? The author of this link provides charts and how the concept exists within modern psychology.

The answer is obvious: they have been indoctrinated by the Great Beast and its “experts”. It is nothing but secular intolerance, the devolution of Plato to modern, secular psychology.

Yet you fight against it like a cornered dog.

Fight against it? I suggested you consider some problems that the text itself raises. Either Plato was sloppy and careless or there is more to it. If you want to understand Plato read and think about what he says.

Your way but not mine.

What do you imagine you have been doing for the last 63 pages here alone? You fancy you are playing a game of chess, but think that as long as you keep moving pieces the game is not over even though you have been checkmated over and over again.

Greta:

You were banned after three official warnings, a number of unofficial ones, over 2,000 posts and having started over 100 threads.

I think this bears repeating.

You were banned after three official warnings, a number of unofficial ones, over 2,000 posts and having started over 100 threads.

He loves to play the martyr. Like his hero Trump he has this grandiose notion of himself, doubles down when wrong, and blames everyone else for the mess he creates.

How is it that we are so intolerant and yet he was allowed to post over 2,000 times and start over 100 threads. Like his hero Trump facts don’t matter. As Donny says: sad .....

fooloso4 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:53 amHow is it that we are so intolerant and yet he was allowed to post over 2,000 times and start over 100 threads. Like his hero Trump facts don’t matter.

Welcome to the new post-modern, post-factual world. I am still astounded at the accuracy of Carl Sagan's prediction, which especially bears repeating:

Carl Sagan wrote:Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

Sagan only made one mistake. The use of the word "we". When it comes to the body of humanity, "we" does not apply but rather, "us and them". Perhaps "we" in reference to humanity has never been more ideal, an affectation or shorthand? Certainly only certain cultures and subcultures are retreating into superstition.

fooloso4 wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 02, 2017 4:53 am
How is it that we are so intolerant and yet he was allowed to post over 2,000 times and start over 100 threads. Like his hero Trump facts don’t matter.

Most of my meaningful threads took place before the crash of Philosophy Forums into a secular site and as such destroys the intent of philosophy.

F4 sends me a threatening PM about the use of my sources. They are not politically correct from a secular perspective. Can you imagine F4 trying to intimidate me from putting philosophical questions into the perspective of Plato’s cave. So I told him in the PM to take his threats and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

I am part Russian and part Armenian. I know very well the methods of secular intimidation from what my family endured during both the Russian revolution and the Armenian Genocide. Philosophy will be one of the chief reasons why humanity can awaken to the absurdity of the human condition. Do you really think that I will allow some total fool to try and intimidate me into abandoning the intent of philosophy in favor of expressions of secular egoism they call philosophy? No. they can still take their threats and shove them where the sun don’t shine

Carl Sagan wrote:Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

Truth is sought not because it is truth but because it is good.
Simone Weil (Gravity and Grace, 1942)

In their war against superstition those like Greta and F4 are intent on removing the good from the truth leaving them with facts the only value of which is the attempted justification of their already puffed up egos. They and those with this mindset want to inflict this on the young for the purpose of spirit killing through secular intolerance. A genuine callous disgrace.

The Needleman interview continues

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman

Q: You were once an atheist. Can you pinpoint a particular time or event that caused you to re-evaluate your beliefs?

A: When I started my career as a professor of philosophy I was required to teach a course in the history of Western religious thought—much against my existentialist and atheistic inclinations. In order to teach this course, I had to do a great deal of research in the writings within the Judaic and Christian traditions and I was astonished to find in those writings philosophical thought of great power and sophistication. These writings completely blew away all my opinions about what I had taken to be the irrationality or immaturity of religious ideas, opinions which were and still are fashionable in many intellectual and literary circles today.

But even so, somewhere in myself, I was still unconvinced—down deep I was still an atheist when it came to my personal, intimate feelings. It was only when I embarked on a personal work of guided self-examination that I experienced a glimpse of a reality that could be called “God.” As my personal explorations continued, I experienced this quality of inner reality more and more and could no longer doubt that the meaning of God lay in this direction. At the same time, these undeniable experiences lit up and were in turn illuminated by all the philosophical and historical knowledge I had by then amassed and I began to understand in an entirely new way the teachings of both Judaism and Christianity as well as the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. I was again astonished that nothing of this understanding seemed to be in all that I had heard about religion and God when I was growing up and when I was being educated in some of the best universities in America.

How much of atheism and its expression into secularism is really a reaction against a man made secular expression of the reality of an ineffable source? Jacob Needleman was fortunate to be put into a situation where he had to open his mind. What are the young supposed to do when the powers that be in education assure young minds remain closed through secular intolerance?

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:35 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:39 pm

Nick wrote:You either agree with Plato's tripartite theory of soul or you don't.

It's not a question of belief. Plato uses this as a thought experiment. He's not inviting you to believe that what is described is a literally real situation.
In any event, there are a range of subtle interpretive differences that follow from it.
It's a metaphor.

Yes, basically a precursor to Jung's superego, ego and id. Logic, emotion and impulse.

It reminds me of the chat about dimensions I'm having on another thread. The three spatial dimensions (plus time) are just models, not reality. Where are the one dimensional entities (aside from some forum members) and Flatlanders, or the 3D entities frozen in without time? Where is the time sans the spatial dimensions? Obviously none of those things exist by themselves discretely, just that identifying those measurable attributes has proved to be very useful.

There's a lot of mistaking models for reality going on.

I Understand that Plato borrowed the idea from Eastern Philosophy.

As neuroscience progresses, things are getting more complicated, and Freud, who knew Plato well is also looking a bit dated.
However, these things as based on basic observations of human behaviour, and based on the sort of language we use to describe it, tend to still have value. What it absolutely DOES NOT do, is provide evidence that there is some kind of "soul", as some would want us to swallow.