Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:12 am What happens to blasphemers, even if you reject their blasphemy?

What are you proposing? Who is "blaspheming"?

It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

Well fuck me. Are you one of those really really deep walkers...the zombie that just keeps posting?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

Yeah like something you have made-up out of thin empty air, therefore totally meaningless and non-existent except as a belief no one ever believed.

The one who questions doesn't exist, if it does then where is it, what does it look like?

A tree can never tell itself it's a tree, or question it's reality.


You have no idea Walker, you just blindly go along believing things that are not there in reality. And then you expect others to believe you, and piss and moan complaining to everyone, oh why oh why don't you believe me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:42 amAs for children indoctrinated (or, more generally, people in a community, indoctrinated, over the long haul): even children are free wills (though inexperienced, ignorant). The trope of brainwashed from birth really holds no water.

It seems to me that here you have conceded the point I wished to make: you have recognized indoctrination (in children) and people in a community.

Ideologies can tyrannize. Ideologies are mechanisms of control within the realm of mind and thought.

How one goes about confronting them corresponds to asserting and gaining physical freedom from imposed restraints.

Immanuel Can writes: "No, you cannot be "restrained," "controlled" or "tyrannized" by an idea. You can always accept it or reject it. Just how weak does a person have to be, before hearing a point of view throws him into fainting spells, or puts the poor little lad in mental "prison"?

There is a book title The Ideology of Tyranny: Bataille, Foucault, and the Postmodern Corruption of Political Dissent which discusses ideological tyranny:

The Ideology of Tyranny traces the contemporary jargon of political correctness and the so-called 'politics of diversity' so prevalent in the academic and administrative discourse of the United States to the fantastic sociology of an obscure French pornographer, Georges Bataille (1897-1962). The celebration of violence sung in his works, re-elaborated in abstract form by the late followers of Bataille, has led to the creation of a peculiar talk emphasizing difference, antagonism, intellectual despair, and a profound political conservatism. As the so-called Left has lately come to adopt this troubling gospel of divisiveness, the consequence for a wholesome culture of dissent in our society have been a disastrous paralysis of its critical and moral faculties in the face of a new dawn of never-ending wars.

James Lindsay's work -- Immanuel for example has expressed admiration for his work -- examines, analyses and exposes *ideological constructs* that act tyrannically and which capture people into (what he [Lindsay] describes as) ideological systems of mental control. How does one break out of them? By application of 'freeing' modes of thought; by the introduction of contrary or opposing modes of thought. But getting free, according to those who have been constrained ('tyrannized') is often arduous and demanding. So, it stands to reason that an ideological control can function tyrannically.

Immanuel Can writes: No, you cannot be "restrained," "controlled" or "tyrannized" by an idea. You can always accept it or reject it. Just how weak does a person have to be, before hearing a point of view throws him into fainting spells, or puts the poor little lad in mental "prison"?

Well one could turn to the present state of the universities in the US for example and examine how groups of ideas, having become popular and having been accepted without critical analysis, lead to what is described by conservatism as well as more traditional liberalism as 'indoctrination centers'.

My point in regard to you and the system of thought that you front here is that it is far far too rigid and it is a system which operates through an extreme form of emotional and *existential* terrorism. You declare that if one does not submit oneself to the god-image and god-concept as you define it, that you will suffer eternal torment in a hell-realm.

I cannot think of a more tyrannizing idea. According to you you cannot 'accept' or 'reject' it (and I call you a supreme hypocrite to even make that assertion) since this is an absolute declaration on your part. If someone is not strong enough to confront your assertion, and I suppose that there are many who are weak, the idea functions tyrannically.

It is pretty plain to see. Does not require a great deal more proof.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:09 pm James Lindsay's work -- Immanuel for example has expressed admiration for his work -- examines, analyses and exposes *ideological constructs* that act tyrannically and which capture people into (what he [Lindsay] describes as) ideological systems of mental control. How does one break out of them? By application of 'freeing' modes of thought; by the introduction of contrary or opposing modes of thought. But getting free, according to those who have been constrained ('tyrannized') is often arduous and demanding. So, it stands to reason that an ideological control can function tyrannically.

These are thoughts that folks have become attached to and cling to. Breaking them happens naturally when one grows accustomed to silencing thoughts, because in retrospect, after thoughts have been silenced and then again commence, one understands the arbitrary, temporary, chimerical nature of thoughts, and what makes some thoughts more important than other thoughts. The thoughts are conceptual. The understanding of thoughts is conceptual. What is understood after knowing mental stillness, is the nature of non-conceptual attachment to thoughts. For instance, attachment to thoughts are a comfort as in, thoughts define one’s conceptual place and purpose in the universe. The comfort is found in attachment, but woe the betrayal and discouragement when those defining thoughts are challenged, or even proven false, by circumstance. Folks will even start blaming God for their disillusionment.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:01 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

Well fuck me. Are you one of those really really deep walkers...the zombie that just keeps posting?

It happens now and then, but all things pass.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 1:43 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

Yeah like something you have made-up out of thin empty air, therefore totally meaningless and non-existent except as a belief no one ever believed.

The one who questions doesn't exist, if it does then where is it, what does it look like?

A tree can never tell itself it's a tree, or question it's reality.


You have no idea Walker, you just blindly go along believing things that are not there in reality. And then you expect others to believe you, and piss and moan complaining to everyone, oh why oh why don't you believe me.

- If I listened to anyone who had such a low opinion of my being as a Word Existence (WE), I would indeed be weak-minded and thus as foolish as the nasty one who spews hate.

- If that person possessing such low opinion was a self-proclaimed source of no regard, and no respect, for the meaning and purpose of words, then I would have context in which to order the importance of their words.

- Looks like I’m in luck.

- Personally, as a deplorable person so defined by a drunken Leftist propagandizer who also wanted to be my dear leader, I find wheezing, squeeze box noises such as squeaks to be somewhat amusing, however the sounds do serve the purpose of stirring energy.

- So it must be true. Everything made by God has a purpose. The challenge is turning every purpose to advantage.

- What is advantage, you may ask? I’m glad you do.

- The advantage, or the trick of it, the turn of the screw as men know, is to detach the energy from the emotion and feed it back into awareness, for the purpose of noticing this and that. Thus, we are civilized and not just monkeys slinging shit.

- This is what the gooroos will teach you, once you empty your cup of that foul brew that spews back out from your lips, and you begin showing gumption enough to hear.

- Savvy that, toot sweet?

*

Question: How does a little snot, aka the B word, respond to all that?

Answer: “blah blah blah”

DAM wrote: ...

Do you ever blaspheme, DAM?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

"Does" what?

That's a circular definition, you've given there: "blasphemy is blasphemy," is all you've really said, and "the blasphemer is one who blasphemes."

What we don't know is what you understand to be blasphemy, and who it is that you're indicting with it. And we don't know what you want to do about it, either. Can you provide that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:28 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:54 am It's a question about Christian doctrine.

Who blasphemes is anyone who does.

"Does" what?

That's a circular definition, you've given there: "blasphemy is blasphemy," is all you've really said, and "the blasphemer is one who blasphemes."

What we don't know is what you understand to be blasphemy, and who it is that you're indicting with it. And we don't know what you want to do about it, either. Can you provide that?

What does the bible say that blasphemy, is?
What does the bible say happens to blasphemers?

Doesn't matter what I think.
I'm not some atheist interpreting the bible according to my personal whims, or notions.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:09 pm It is pretty plain to see. Does not require a great deal more proof.

All you've shown is that there are unpleasant and erronous ideas around. That's not a surprise.

What you haven't shown, even a bit, is that any idea is capable of "control" or of depriving a person of their freedom, or "tyrannizing" them -- because the truth is that ideas can't even do that.

It's always one's own choice what ideas one decides to believe. And one always has freedom to criticize, evaluate, question, doubt, and even contradict new ideas before absorbing them. One just has to be willing to think, and have a modicum of courage, intellectual astuteness and maturity.

Now, I agree that access to information is becoming a problem, especially as the major media are becoming so partisan and dishonest in their reportage. But even so, it's not hard to disbelieve most of what they say, because contrary facts remain available. And Lindsay is an advocate of more freedom of speech, not of damning particular ideas as "tyrannizing."

So no, ideas are not tyranny. Anybody who thinks the are, and wants us to believe they are, is most likely trying to limit what we can know so as to control us more effectively. So it's not new ideas we have to fear, so much as the denial of access to ideas.

The hand-waiving, swooning, triggering, crying, deplatforming, hissy fits, doxxing, snivelling, bullying, silencing and whining of the Left that their ideas are being challenged is the real problem. They want us to believe that ideas have "hurt" them, and "done violence" to them. I have yet to see a drop of blood. And it's not surprising that their ranks seek out "safe rooms" fitted out with teddy bears and colouring books: that's the intellectual level at which their complaints operate.

And that's how seriously they should be taken.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:37 pm ...interpreting the bible according to my personal whims, or notions.

That's "blasphemy"?

I don't think so. It's just error, maybe. A person can be wrong without being deliberately insulting to very sacred things...which is what blasphemy actually entails. There's nothing "blasphemous" about a person who honestly misinterprets a passage. He's not trying to insult God.

And as for Christians, they have no duties to police blasphemy, or punish it, or even to prevent it; but rather their duty is to minimize their own activity in occasioning it from others, as did Paul in Acts 18:6, for example.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:46 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:37 pm ...interpreting the bible according to my personal whims, or notions.

That's "blasphemy"?

I understand. You're into that sort of thing. Ok.

No, I'm not asserting that is blasphemy. You asked me to define blasphemy. I responded that my definition does not matter. This is because I am interested in you telling me the Christian doctrine of what blasphemy is, and what happens to blasphemers. This is because I am not like an atheist who interprets the bible in terms of my personal whims, and notions. It is because I am interested in hearing the official, Christian definition and position, from you.

However, I'm pretty sure you are aware of this.

You've certainly made it clear that you are not going to provide the information for the clear, simple, and unambiguous initial request, that for one reason or another you are purposely blurring.


No problemo. I'm easy.

AJ,

It seems to me that here you have conceded the point I wished to make: you have recognized indoctrination (in children) and people in a community.

No sir, I haven't.

As I say: a person cannot be leashed by an idea. He must accept it and he'll only do that if it resonates, if it makes sense, if he finds it useful, if he finds it true. Of course he can be wrong. Why it resonates, why it makes sense, the usefulness of the idea, the truth of it, may be horseshit. But this is not tyranny, only error.

As I say: As for (the assertion of) children indoctrinated (or, more generally, people in a community, indoctrinated, over the long haul): even children are free wills (though inexperienced, ignorant). The trope of brainwashed from birth really holds no water. Junior is reared in a cult, taught the Most Holy/Glorious Leader/Proper Culture is the way. If these ideas serve him, if he finds them true, he retains them (and he may tyrannize to spread them). If not, he rejects them (with sometimes great cost). If there is a tyranny it is one he self-imposes when he doesn't break with the idea he knows is false or lacking in utility. Such a man is (self) leashed more securely than one, who havin' rejected the idea, is in the Gulag for his thought crime.

So, it stands to reason that an ideological control can function tyrannically.

This is silly. As I say: Only man tyrannizes. He may take an idea -- (borrowing from atto) to consider onself a Christian is to believe in the life, death and resurrenction of Christ and to live by the standards that He set -- and use it as a cudgel or salve, as an endpoint or an option, The idea itself is not tyrannical (no matter how it's twisted).

My point in regard to you and the system of thought that you front here is that it is far far too rigid and it is a system which operates through an extreme form of emotional and *existential* terrorism. You declare that if one does not submit oneself to the god-image and god-concept as you define it, that you will suffer eternal torment in a hell-realm.

Let's say Mannie is in fact the transmitter of tyrannical ideas (I don't believe he is; I don't believe the ideas are, or can be, tyrannical). So what? Like Stan (from my up-thread posts) Mannie has no say-so. He may condemn and damn in the name of till the cows come home. Till he lays hands on me, blocks my way, interferes in my living, I am not threatened. And should this Evil Mannie from an alternate reality with his evil goatee find himself self-empowered (he gives himself permission), or empowered by TPTB, to interfere with me I'll bust his chops or shoot him in the face. Note: it is not the ideas that interfere with me; it's the holder of the ideas. You might say this person is possessed by the ideas, is tyrannized by them. I say he is the holder of them, he possesses them. He chose, continually chooses, to hold them. He is the tyrant, not what rattles around his head.

Let's say Evil Mannie with his memetic tyranny has kids. Let's say he does his damnedest to inject his memetic corrosiveness into their lil brain pans. No matter what he does, at some point each will choose. The choice each makes is rooted in who they are as free wills and, as I say, how what's on the table resonates, makes sense, is useful, or is found to be true. Which brings us to...

But getting free, according to those who have been constrained ('tyrannized') is often arduous and demanding. So, it stands to reason that an ideological control can function tyrannically.

Yes, I'm familiar with the stories of folks who break with tribe. As I say: such breaks are often accompanied by great cost. But where is the trouble? Do the ideas grab the heretic by the lapels or is it the flesh, blood, and bone holders of the ideas who wheedle and threaten and ostracize?

Once a man has made up his mind this is wrong, this is false, this has no utility for me, once he rejects, all that stands between him and the road are the holders of what he has set aside. His struggle with them is the struggle against tyranny. His struggle with the ideas is really his struggle with himself.

Man tyrannizes. He tyrannizes himself and the other guy. The ideas -- no matter how true or untrue -- do not, can not, tyrannize.

Let's take this prickly notion: you will burn forever in hell if you don't accept Christ as your personal savior. Let's say this is true. Let's say, somehow, I know it's true and have no doubts about it. The idea, the threat, is, itself, not tyrannical. I am a free will (and far too self-confident). Even with devils pokin' me in the bum with pitchforks, I'll be lookin' for escape. I do not, can not, accept the sentence. The tyranny of Hell, then, lies not Hell itself or in the threat of Hell, but only in my head, only in my willingness to accept the sentence.

Man tyrannizes. He tyrannizes himself and the other guy. The ideas -- no matter how true or untrue -- do not, can not, tyrannize.

It is pretty plain to see. Does not require a great deal more proof.

I do not see it. You've offered no proof.