Philosophy Now Forum

to properly understand Descartes, one has to note what he
actually brought to the table.. the fact is without Descartes,
we don't have the next two centuries dealing with the "central"
problem of philosophy which from Descartes to Kant, being
epistemology...

Epistemology... "the theory of knowledge,
especially with regards to its methods, validity, and scope.
Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes
justified belief from opinion....

and that is what philosophers from Descartes to Kant did,
an engagement with the theory of knowledge...
one confirmation of this is Hume and his theory of
Epistemology... think about his "cause and effect"
and what actually happens in "cause and effect"...

but the idea that Descartes brought to the table,
is consciousness... "I think therefor I am"
is a statement of consciousness... and what Descartes
meant was the only thing we can be sure of, absolutely
sure of, was consciousness...
reread his "Method" and notice what he does, he doubts all
other aspects of human existence.. as possibly being fake
or forged or fabricated... and so he searches for the aspect
of reality that we cannot, cannot doubt...and the only thing he
can find is consciousness...

while this is interesting, philosophically anyway, it doesn't really
answer any questions of existence.. "who am I?" "what am I to do?"
"what should I believe in?" "what should I hope for?" " what is the
telos of my existence?" (Telos, refers to the goal or purpose or final
cause of a natural organ or entity, or of a work of art)

I am conscious, now what? Therein lies the failure of Descartes,
it doesn't answer any of the questions of existence, the why of
existence..

and I hold that part of why we are so divided, fractured, both
individually and collectively, is because we lack any sort of
telos.. a goal or purpose or a final cause in our existence...

the old answers of god, state, community, are no longer effective,
dispersed by modern values and ism's.... what is capitalism but
a ism that divides us and fractures us...what is religion, a
means of dividing and fracturing us.. for in religion,
the goal, the point of religion is to find personal, solo
entry into heaven.. Christianity doesn't engage with the
us, but it engages with the one.. the goal is to reach heaven,
not to improve or benefit society.. and if one engages with
the us, the society, it is to individually reach heaven...
according to the religious, the telos of existence is to be
saved, not to save the state or the society one lives in,
but to reach heaven, individually, not collectively...

capitalism is the exact same thing, not to engage us collectively,
but to be ''saved'' individually... for seeking wealth, to become
wealthy, is to be ''saved'' and that is the telos of our modern times...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:26 pm . for in religion,
the goal, the point of religion is to find personal, solo
entry into heaven.. Christianity doesn't engage with the
us, but it engages with the one.. the goal is to reach heaven,
not to improve or benefit society..

Except all the do unto others as you would...etc.
Or the fact that religious people give more to charities.
Or the love thy neighbor as thyself.
Or

Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]

Or Martin Luther King and Ghandi, or the Liberation Theologists in Latin America.

I'm not Christian and I have all sorts of issues with the various Christian churches, but I think your oversimplifications and, in fact, misrepresentations, are toxic.

You're part of the problem.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:04 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:26 pm . for in religion,
the goal, the point of religion is to find personal, solo
entry into heaven.. Christianity doesn't engage with the
us, but it engages with the one.. the goal is to reach heaven,
not to improve or benefit society..

Except all the do unto others as you would...etc.
Or the fact that religious people give more to charities.
Or the love thy neighbor as thyself.
Or

Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. [1] Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.[1][2]

Or Martin Luther King and Ghandi, or the Liberation Theologists in Latin America.

I'm not Christian and I have all sorts of issues with the various Christian churches, but I think your oversimplifications and, in fact, misrepresentations, are toxic.

You're part of the problem.

K: Your response is not particularly useful as it doesn't engage
with many of the points I brought up.. but let us briefly engage
in your points... your points are engaged with a small part of
my op... and doesn't address the main points of my post...
and your points about slavery, while interesting, has nothing
to do with the post.. it is, as we like to say, a red herring...
as the points you bring up are two hundred years old..
and as far as your other points, that the religious give more to
charity, I would suggest that it is another means to buy your way
into heaven...

and to ''love thy neighbors as yourself'''

Surely, you are kidding right?

The hypocrisy of the religious right is stunning to anyone who is paying
attention.... the religious right proclaims itself ''pro-life''
and few in America is as pro-death as the religious right...
the police shooting unarmed civilians, no problem as long as they
are black or people of color...the death penalty.. no problem..
a society must be able to defend itself no matter what...
protect the rights of the unborn, no problem until
they are born and then they are on their own..

So the religious right, known as conservatives and MAGA types
have no problem kicking people off of programs designed to give
them assistance...such as WIC, Social Security, Medicare, welfare....
even to destroying public education, which the last guy spent 4 years
trying to do... See Betsy DeVos....any benefits program designed to aid
the lower middle class or the working poor is a target for elimination...

So I believe the religious right guilty of hypocrisy, and on a large scale of
hypocrisy....

Now for my last point, you call me toxic and part of the problem...
and it is very, very easy to resort to such tactics, but I stand with
those who are considered to be heretics, troublemakers, traitors..
indeed, I stand with those like Luther, Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Gandhi, MLK.. and I oppose the current state of affairs... the
false praise of guns, god and country.... the easy acceptance of values
and beliefs that haven't been challenged or overcome....

if I were to have a motto, it would be this:

''It is not enough to have the courage of my convictions,
but I must have the courage for an attack upon my convictions"

do you have that courage?

Kropotkin

K: Your response is not particularly useful as it doesn't engage
with many of the points I brought up.. but let us briefly engage
in your points... your points are engaged with a small part of
my op... and doesn't address the main points of my post...
and your points about slavery, while interesting, has nothing
to do with the post.. it is, as we like to say, a red herring...
as the points you bring up are two hundred years old..
and as far as your other points, that the religious give more to
charity, I would suggest that it is another means to buy your way
into heaven...

What goes around comes around

Kropotkin, Descartes was a great modern thinker who ushered in the French and Scottish enlightenment thinkers.

However his scepticism did not reach the far corner of his metaphysical reasoning , and he failed to question the first person singular as embedded in cogito.True, thinking was happening but there was no evidence for a thinking agent. Love of the good is nothing to do with quid pro quo involving God.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:49 pm K: Your response is not particularly useful as it doesn't engage
with many of the points I brought up.

It may not be useful for you. For me however I focused on an ongoing pattern in your posts where you oversimplify at best and at worst actually falsely describe reality. And in a way that I think causes and maintains problems

. but let us briefly engage
in your points... your points are engaged with a small part of
my op... and doesn't address the main points of my post...
and your points about slavery, while interesting, has nothing
to do with the post.. it is, as we like to say, a red herring...
as the points you bring up are two hundred years old..

One of the points was, yes, others were not.
Are you lying or incompetent?

and as far as your other points, that the religious give more to
charity, I would suggest that it is another means to buy your way
into heaven...

It's nice to use one's psychic ability to support one's arguments. On the other hand, you have no evidence for the assertions in the OP, nor for those here. And of course the motives of the non-religious donating cannot also be for ego, self-image or other not really caring about people motivations. We should trust your psychic assessments....on faith.

and to ''love thy neighbors as yourself'''

Surely, you are kidding right?

No, you ridiculously oversimplified a religion. You presented it as creating only one goal. That's either a lie or an incompetent observation. You seem to have chosen a role as a lecturer here. You might want to actually look into things before you lecture.

Let me quote again...
. for in religion,

the goal, the point of religion is to find personal, solo
entry into heaven.. Christianity doesn't engage with the
us, but it engages with the one.. the goal is to reach heaven,
not to improve or benefit society..

Instead of acknowledging what you said about Christianity, note Christianity, not the religious right, you, strawman a response. Does this mean you can't stand behind what you said about religion and that's why you changed the focus when defending what you didn't write?

The hypocrisy of the religious right is stunning to anyone who is paying
attention.... the religious right proclaims itself ''pro-life''
and few in America is as pro-death as the religious right...
the police shooting unarmed civilians, no problem as long as they
are black or people of color...the death penalty.. no problem..
a society must be able to defend itself no matter what...
protect the rights of the unborn, no problem until
they are born and then they are on their own..

So the religious right, known as conservatives and MAGA types
have no problem kicking people off of programs designed to give
them assistance...such as WIC, Social Security, Medicare, welfare....
even to destroying public education, which the last guy spent 4 years
trying to do... See Betsy DeVos....any benefits program designed to aid
the lower middle class or the working poor is a target for elimination...

So I believe the religious right guilty of hypocrisy, and on a large scale of
hypocrisy....

Now for my last point, you call me toxic and part of the problem...
and it is very, very easy to resort to such tactics, but I stand with
those who are considered to be heretics, troublemakers, traitors..
indeed, I stand with those like Luther, Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Gandhi, MLK.. and I oppose the current state of affairs... the
false praise of guns, god and country.... the easy acceptance of values
and beliefs that haven't been challenged or overcome....

I can easily believe you identify yourself with people who have skills you do not nad who actually participated in the making of history, but that does not make you are heretic, troublemaker or traitor. Your criticisms of the right are really quite banal online. So, many lefties and liberals say much the same things, though many manage to actually know the topics they are writing about. And of course there are toxic people on the right who don't argue honorably and paint everything in binary terms.
And of course, you're still pretending that you wrote about the religious right. When in fact you wrote about religion.

if I were to have a motto, it would be this:

''It is not enough to have the courage of my convictions,
but I must have the courage for an attack upon my convictions"

do you have that courage?

All I see is you defending your ideas in a philosophy forum. The answer to your question to me should be rather obvious.

I think your motto is don't let the facts get in the way of your convictions and the truth is less important than painting those you disagree with as badly as possible. Toss in a dash or narcissistic identification and we have your lecture series.

If religion vs the Enlightenment is the issue of the day, then make ridiculous oversimplifications and ignore everything that doesn't fit your model.
If it's convervative vs. liberal, same approach.

And the claims you make about conservatives and individualism (contrasted with the Englightement's view) in the other thread are so hilariously wrong, one wonders if you aren't talking about yourself and inherent antiintellectualism.