|
On July 19 2010 01:37 Epsilon8 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 01:30 Blyadischa wrote:
Wish there were more people who actually have read some of the big philosophers before making claims from messages they found in movies. Can you cite who these people are and make appropriate arguments for this? I'm tired of people coming into this thread and assuming that the people in this thread do not know what they are talking about. While there are individuals who might exhibit this from time to time, we are not idiots. Read the entire thread history before you start making claims. This isn't particularly addressed to you Blyadisha but to everyone who does this. One of TL's ten commandments is to respect threads and to read the history of the thread before makings posts.
Naw man. I'll give you an analogy. If I'm watching someone play poker and I see him misplay his hand pre flop and on the flop, I don't need to see his play on the turn and river to know that he has no goddamn clue what he's doing.
|
On July 19 2010 05:26 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 04:18 Gnosis wrote:
(How do you know his most basic principles, by the way?)
Because it teaches them in the bible. That is, if I am to assume those quotes are even correct. Given that Jesus was a holy and peaceful man, it would be obvious what his teachings are anyways. Love and understanding. Also, if Jesus was real, I don't think he strictly adhered to what was in the old testament. It's pretty ridiculous and also goes against his basic teachings. Anyways, I am looking forward to how you are going to tell me that those quotes do not contradict each other.
You appear to be presently unteachable, however, I'll now begin...
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote:A quote from jesus Show nested quote +
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Matthew 7:3–5
And yet, how does the bible tell us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc. Show nested quote +
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Leviticus 19:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
Corinthians 2:15
Some clarifications (which will in part, address your contradictions).
Corinthians 2:15: the important word in this particular passage is the one rendered "judgeth" (anakrinei) by the KJV. A better rendition of this word is "appraise" or "discern". To substitute using the KJV, we would get "But he that is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man". The NASB has more of a flow to it, "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one." The reason for rendering the word this way is understood if Corinthians 2 in its entirety is kept in mind -- that "spiritual" realities can only be discerned through the "Spirit," and that those who operate in the "Spirit" aren't understood by those without (the "Spirit"). There is no "judgment" is the sense you mean.
Leviticus 19:15: if you read the entire chapter (or even the entire verse), you will understand that this particular passage deals with treating others (i.e. neighbors) justly and righteously (as in not ripping them off during trade). When it says, "in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour," it means that you should treat them fairly.
So there is no contradiction between these verses and Matthew 7:3-5. Further, this does not prove your position that the bible "[tells] us to view others? Repeatedly it tells us how to view others and to look down on them. In spots it even goes as far to tell us to judge them. What does it say about homosexuals? Adulturers? Non-believers? Etc etc."
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote:
how about jesus on non-violence? I think we all know about Christianity's history of violence.
And Christians today would tell you that certain periods of violence did contradict Jesus' teaching, and shouldn't have happened.
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote:
"You will be hated by all men on account of my name; but the man who stands firm to the end will be saved. If they persecute you in one town, take refuge in the next; and if they persecute you in that, take refuge in another." Mt. 10.22-23
"You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5.38-41
but the bible doesn't always hold this message
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema.
Corinthians 16:22
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Psalm 109:6-14
blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.
Psalm 144:1
To address this, Matthew 5:38-41 isn't a statement of non-violence -- it is a challenge for equality. If one is slapped and then "turns the other cheek," the abuser must either slap with the back of the left hand, which would not have happened because it was considered unclean. Or, the abuser could slap with an open hand, which would have shown equality between the people.
With that aside, I'm not sure where else you believe these verses to contradict.
On July 19 2010 03:13 travis wrote:
here u go, some examples of 2 ways in which the bible contradicts the teachings of jesus
there are more
and much much much more plentiful than that is the ways in which the bible contradicts itself.
but clearly, I have no clue what I am talking about. clearly you have to be a scholar to see these blatant contradictions (among hundreds more)
Uh huh... I tried to make it short, knowing the attention span of most forum goers. You really don't have much of a case with these examples (especially since you've never bothered to look into them).
|
What does this religious mysticism stuff have anything to do with philosophy
|
yeah man, im unteachable. thats how i've learned everything i know currently, by being so unteachable. All you've done is say that my argument isn't well thought out, that you disagree with me, and now that im unteachable.. that's impressively ridiculous considering you haven't even presented anything of substance whatsoever.
|
On July 19 2010 06:33 travis wrote:
yeah man, im unteachable. thats how i've learned everything i know currently, by being so unteachable. All you've done is say that my argument isn't well thought out, that you disagree with me, and now that im unteachable.. that's impressively ridiculous considering you haven't even presented anything of substance whatsoever.
"Unteachable" in the sense I mean it does not refer to merely gaining knowledge, but to the correction of existing knowledge.
|
United States43965 Posts
On July 19 2010 06:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
What does this religious mysticism stuff have anything to do with philosophy
Indeed. This appears to have run its course. Once you move into the areas of belief it ceases to be a thought exercise and becomes a broken record. Please get back on topic or take it to pms.
|
On July 19 2010 06:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 06:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
What does this religious mysticism stuff have anything to do with philosophy Indeed. This appears to have run its course. Once you move into the areas of belief it ceases to be a thought exercise and becomes a broken record. Please get back on topic or take it to pms.
fine, i'll stop. but i've never been a fan of this view. it's ok for discussions to evolve.
gnosis: i'll read your reply and form my opinion of it. I would have gladly replied to it and continued this discussion, though.
note: very gladly
|
We can continue in PM's if you wish, I'm perfectly willing to. And I'll likewise state my disagreement with Kwark - that is a very superficial treatment of "belief". Well, that and philosophy is much, much more than "thought exercise" and includes religious mysticism...
|
United States43965 Posts
It's not your discussion I object to so much as the location of it. If you look at the op it says "It is distinguished from other ways of addressing fundamental questions (such as mysticism, myth, or the arts) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.". By all means feel free to create a mysticism topic for this.
I know discussions evolve but I suspect I'm not alone in having a keen interest in philosophy while being turned off by unsubstantiated belief systems. So while I don't want you to stop talking if you're having fun I'd rather it stuck to the topic. Hopefully that seems fair.
|
It's a poor definition of philosophy, but I'll take it to PM. Nothing against you.
|
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
|
On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote:
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy?
It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
|
On July 19 2010 02:22 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 01:15 travis wrote:
I was going to offer to take you up on that dialogue. But I changed my mind about it. But Maybe I'll discuss it some anyways.
To me it's clear that his teachings were corrupted. The bible is supposed to be based on his teachings. But the new testament is written by people who never even knew him. Hell, the fact that jesus didn't write the bible and it has stories in it should be enough evidence that the bible isn't the teachings of jesus, and thus neither is Christianity in any of it's forms. Jesus didn't write those stories, jesus didn't teach those lessons. Those lessons are written by other men.
I mean honestly, the bible is bullshit. Anyone with a brain and reading comprehension can see it. And I assure you, if Jesus was real and had the following he did, he didn't walk around teaching that kind of bullshit.
One more question before I reply - are you able to tell me what sources you've used to come to use view? Because it seems to me - and I mean no offense, I appreciate the view and that you've taken time to write it down - you haven't done much (or any) study of the bible (outside from adopting a logically fallacious argument; The New Testament authors didn't know Jesus personally, therefore, the New Testament isn't the teaching of Jesus). Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 01:19 Maji wrote:On July 18 2010 21:37 Gnosis wrote:On July 18 2010 19:04 Maji wrote:On July 18 2010 11:00 Gnosis wrote:
Epsilon, I'll post a reply to you tomorrow (just to let you know I haven't forgotten). Maji, I heard you said that the teachings of Jesus have been corrupted. As I'm already dialoging with Epsilon concerning Buddhism, would you be willing to dialogue with me concerning the teachings of Jesus, and of their corruption (as you claim)? Yes you may discourse, the original teachings of Christ held secrets to sacred geometry simlar to the japnese technique of Reiki, in past these teaching where known as palochristanity within the believe system it held that pathogens were related to demonic energys and through specific tecnhniques and natural herds as well could be exocised, it also was about learning to work as networks sharing information and learning from one another to complete a greater task, but main message was always brotherly love which if the original teachings of Christ had been available today people would re-develop techno-spirituality which is what humanity truely needs to survive the coming years ahead. Adonai bless Interesting, I've never heard this before... What are your sources? On July 18 2010 19:41 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
hju, these threads always suck^^
I read about 3 posts and none of them was at least a bit "philosophy". Its like ppl think: "oh philosophy, lets just write a wall of text with complete absence of reason, filled with my biases, beliefs and shit, no one can argue against it and so they are true. Coz if they argue Im just gonna tell em my other beliefs and they are TRUMP."
Sorry but philosophy is something completely different, besides having, in special occasions, the same questions.
Oh the irony... Difficult to find sources would take some time as it mostly covered up specially teachings of techno-spirituality I think most of the public would be interested in that if knew about it. There is a website www.cassiopaea.org which has a research team working on rediscovering the techniques of palochristanity and techno-spirituality my source is personal experience but not gonna go into that at present. You are referring to the early Gnostic sects? We can't really do much dialoging if you aren't willing to provide me with information.
You will have trouble finding information on it brother specially techno-spirituality you may have heard of the power of manifestation from your gnostic research, those who practice techno-spirituality will achieve it, some in illuminati possess such a ability already in humans perception it would be called magic as being able to manifest a thought created object out of thin air would indeed seem magical.
As you are aware such discipline is not easily obtained and most humans couldnt do it due to the noise they listen to in this corrupt world. You may have more luck looking for palochristanity that too would be of great assistance and eventually lead to techno-spirituality.
adonai bless
|
If a person believes that his or her life has become so vile and disgusting or useless or even a drain to the whole of humanity, then maybe that person might consider suicide as a way to relieve perceived pain. I
The vast vast vast majority of suicides are not committed because the person is worthless (think tubgirl or something), but because the person feels worthless, specifically, he feels that life is no longer worth living. It has nothing to do with "Oh my life is worthless I don't contribute to society", its simply "I can't take living anymore".
|
On July 19 2010 07:15 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote:
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy? It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!)
i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
|
On July 19 2010 07:33 Win.win wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 07:15 Gnosis wrote:On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote:
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy? It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!) i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia
That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example in relation to the definition provided (it appears I got Hume'd). However, I see no reason to believe that wisdom can't be pursued through mystical practices, only that it could not be relayed.
|
On July 19 2010 07:44 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 07:33 Win.win wrote:On July 19 2010 07:15 Gnosis wrote:On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote:
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy? It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!) i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example as I can't think of anyone to cite outside of personal contacts. Friends who practice mysticism in the sense that they decided that there was such a thing as a divine being through traditional means, but then attempt to connect with it through meditation, feeling, etc.
1. Its an easy accessable source of knowledge. So why not take a definition from there? I could define it wih my own words or with those of the pope or Napoleon, it would still be a definition and as long as someone thinks it fits its fine.
2. and wait? didnt u want to tell us that mysticism is rational? so something like not-meditation or not-feeling?
|
On July 19 2010 07:51 RolleMcKnolle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2010 07:44 Gnosis wrote:On July 19 2010 07:33 Win.win wrote:On July 19 2010 07:15 Gnosis wrote:On July 19 2010 07:06 Win.win wrote:
critical, systematic approach, reliance on rational argument... which part of that poorly describes philosophy? It's a poor definition in that it's unnecessarily exclusive. Mysticism (or "belief"), myth and "the arts" - whatever that means - aren't, by default, non-critical, non-systematic and / or non-rational. Philosophy is the "pursuit of wisdom," it is the child asking "why". It is a pursuit that can be pursued in mysticism and belief, in myth, or in "the arts". (Did the OP post a description of an academic philosophy course?!) i thought mysticism was a so-called method of connecting with the divine through feeling/intuition (not exactly critical/rational). btw i googled the OP's definition and it's from wikipedia That explains the definition (why people cite wikipedia - especially on philosophy topics - is beyond my understanding)... As for mysticism, I'll have to concede the example as I can't think of anyone to cite outside of personal contacts. Friends who practice mysticism in the sense that they decided that there was such a thing as a divine being through traditional means, but then attempt to connect with it through meditation, feeling, etc. 1. Its an easy accessable source of knowledge. So why not take a definition from there? I could define it wih my own words or with those of the pope or Napoleon, it would still be a definition and as long as someone thinks it fits its fine. 2. and wait? didnt u want to tell us that mysticism is rational? so something like not-meditation or not-feeling?
1. Wikipedia is notorious for being extremely inadequate when it comes to philosophy. I'll use William of Ockham as an example: see blog "Beyond Necessity".
2. I was going to say that some forms of mysticism incorporate practices which would be viewed as rational (such as coming to the belief in a deity through rational means, but pursing this deity through mystical means), but as I couldn't find "famous" examples, I conceded the point. In any case, I focused on the wrong thing. Instead I highlighted that in the "pursuit of wisdom," I see no reason why mysticism should be discounted. But perhaps that is conflating "philosophy" with "pursuit of wisdom".
|
I would have to agree with Gnosis by the fact that "philo" means love and "sophy" means wisdom. Philosophy literally means the love of wisdom and the pursuit of that wisdom.
In more modern terms we can define philosophy as correct reasoning built on valid assumptions that build towards a logical conclusion. Now this does not mean that all philosophies are built on valid assumptions or have logical arguments. We can all see this in various different philosophers and philosophical systems. Indeed, philosophy is the argument and debate of individuals trying to sort through these different understandings and getting rid of the incorrect thought systems.
Taken in this definition religion and mysticism are types of philosophy. It makes arguments and conclusions in order to support its philosophical view. Whether or not the arguments are sound does not contradict what philosophy is.
So what I would say is that bringing religion and mysticism into this discussion is not wrong by the definition of what philosophy is. However, it is wrong if you are not approaching your discussion from a philosophical point of view. Therefore, when presenting any kind of thought paradigm to this thread one should build from valid assumptions to arguments and conclusions. In this way we will facilitate real philosophical discussion rather than just a bunch of individuals stating their beliefs without giving just cause for those beliefs.
|
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote:
Yes, I see where you are going now. I agree with you now. Except on one minor point. And is probably because I haven't been explaining myself very well. Emptiness does not constitute itself as reality. What does constitute itself as reality is the underlying cause of why emptiness exists. This cause can be deduced by examining the implications of emptiness.
Much of this we both have already discussed :
Emptiness means that perceived phenomena when examined cannot be established as having any inherent existence. This is because phenomena are defined by a relative point to everything else. From this point we understand that when we perceive phenomena they are like illusions because what we perceive is not actually in any definite way what we perceive it to be. From this point we reason that if we cannot define any kind of phenomena without a reference point then said phenomena and reference point do not exist outside of each other and therefore must not be separate. We then reason that everything we perceive or that can possibly exist cannot be separate from everything else because that would mean that we would not be able to define it. At this point we realize that it is wholeness that is the cause of emptiness. If everything were not whole and of one thing then necessarily emptiness could not exist.
This concept of wholeness has parallels in many other persuading arguments as well such as modern science.
I believe we both get what the other is saying, it's just that we're using language that is going past the other (I hope, or perhaps it's just me). The only thing I would disagree with here is the notion that a thing which exists dependently (that is, empty) cannot be an actual, distinct being (in terms of ontology), such as a "Platonic form" (such a thing need not inherently exist).
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote:
I do not think I can make any further argument on the 'step of faith' aspect of this. However, I would like to say that, and you may already know this, in Buddhism we do have an essential nature and that nature is what I described in the above paragraph. Of one being and existence upon which phenomena in which emptiness can be seen arise.
I would like to hear your reasoning for things of Platonic nature to interact and effect each other. I am well versed in Buddhism where they discredit this idea and so have not really thought about the opposite.
In my mind the general idea of emptiness and what it implies is so incontrovertible that I no longer believe that it is a step of faith. However, I do realize that this does not mean that I am right.
I am very interested in how you perceive of things to exist.
This is the reason my reply took so long, and honestly, I didn't get all that far looking into this (so you may need to explain Buddhist refutations, to me). I take Platonic forms only so far, as only applying to people, animal, plants... Things which are naturally occurring, rather than manufactured (such that Buddhist refutations exampling chariots, cars, cups, etc. become moot, missing the point). I really don't have a complex argument for it other than what I explained earlier. Perhaps you could highlight for me how Buddhists refute Plato, and I may be able to elaborate more.
I do not believe perception influences or defines reality as it is, even if perception has some part to play in the experiences of an individual in relation to reality. I believe things are all made of the same basic materials, but I do not believe that this necessarily means that everyone is part of a whole, such that 'this' or 'that' is an illusion of our perception. I would view myself as a contingent being (by virtue of my parents), so I wouldn't describe myself as "inherently existing". But I would say that I exist, have an essential nature, etc. I'm repeating myself, so I'll leave it for your reply.
On July 16 2010 02:10 Epsilon8 wrote:
No you are not being pushy at all. The dialogue has also been very enjoyable for me. I very rarely get to talk to anyone about philosophy and TL was the last place I expected it from. But you know - TL can solve anything.
Well, I don't know much at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
