Since we're into calling out dispicable philosophies... [Archive]

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 03:21 PM

seigfriedandroy recently stated (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7895702&an=0&page=0#Post 7895702) that he believes that atheistic philosphy is "heinous" and "evil" because we do cannot believe that what Hitler did is "absolutely" wrong..that we "may as well support the killing."

so I'm going to give my opinion...

I agree...I do not believe that what Hitler did was "abolutely" wrong...since I don't believe that anything can be "absolutely" wrong..I do however, believe that what he did was wrong to the extent that something CAN be wrong accoridng to my own morality..as well as the majority of peoples' moralities.

my question is...

Which seems like more of a "heinous" and "evil" philosophy??

1)Believing that the murder of millions of Jews (and others) was not "absolutely" wrong..but wrong to the extent that it can be

or

2)Beleiving that these millions of Jews, being sentenced to and eternity of hell, is not wrong at all.

I'm going to go with #2..

I can't beleive how christians have the nerve to claim the moral high ground on such an issue.

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't beleive how christians have the nerve to claim the moral high ground on such an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Position of strength. They place their faith in unprovables and condemn everybody else that doesn't follow suit to eternal damnation. It's nice and quite tailored to the lazy, risk/reward neophyte human. Whatcha gonna do?

DougShrapnel

11-12-2006, 04:41 PM

I'll also take number 2. The problem is I'm only subjectively and objectively defining moral, and not arbitrarily absolutely. A position that appears truthful on all accounts.

chezlaw

11-12-2006, 05:40 PM

siegfried is being illogical if he concludes from there being 'no absolute wrong' to 'we may as well support Hitler'.

On the despicable scale, those who worship a god that damns people to eternal hell, worship an ideal that makes hitler seem like an angel in comparison.

chez

carlo

11-12-2006, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
)Beleiving that these millions of Jews, being sentenced to and eternity of hell, is not wrong at all.

I'm going to go with #2..

I can't beleive how christians have the nerve to claim the moral high ground on such an issue

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only despicable part of the whole post. If there is a condemnation, it won't come from the individual Christians and you and they know this. Christianity is in movement and the Christ Being is in a real sense based within the saying"learn of me" as stated by Christ Jesus.

It should come as no surprise to you that people, including Christians, are trying to find their way.

Why do you think that everyone is so dumb? The malevolent idiocy of this post compares a real ennobling search(whether you realize it or not ) with the killing of millions of jews and others.

I piss on your shoes.

DougShrapnel

11-12-2006, 06:23 PM

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
)Beleiving that these millions of Jews, being sentenced to and eternity of hell, is not wrong at all.

I'm going to go with #2..

I can't beleive how christians have the nerve to claim the moral high ground on such an issue

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only despicable part of the whole post. If there is a condemnation, it won't come from the individual Christians and you and they know this. Christianity is in movement and the Christ Being is in a real sense based within the saying"learn of me" as stated by Christ Jesus.

It should come as no surprise to you that people, including Christians, are trying to find their way.

Why do you think that everyone is so dumb? The malevolent idiocy of this post compares a real ennobling search(whether you realize it or not ) with the killing of millions of jews and others.

I piss on your shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

you just confused the hell out of me...
except for the pissing on my shoes part..I guess

so christians aren't responsible for these beliefs??it is jesus's fault?

why does my post suggest that I think everyone is "so dumb"? I don't even know how you could have gotten that out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
The malevolent idiocy of this post compares a real ennobling search(whether you realize it or not ) with the killing of millions of jews and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

could you rephrase this so that someone of my intelligence can understand it..because I have no clue what you are trying to say here...

I guess you are saying that #2 is a noble act, whereas #1 is evil...I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way.

the point of my post was simple..according to my (and I believe what should be most people's) sense of morality, #2 would be considered more "bad" or "evil"

carlo

11-12-2006, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? I thought the OP was spot on, and raised an important objection to the likes of SAR. Do you also want to piss on his shoes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He responded to SAR and condemned the Christian sense. Where's the logic? I stand by what I said. To state that what he posited is Quixotic is being kind for this has the added nature of falsehood and he knows it.

DougShrapnel

11-12-2006, 06:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? I thought the OP was spot on, and raised an important objection to the likes of SAR. Do you also want to piss on his shoes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He responded to SAR and condemned the Christian sense. Where's the logic? I stand by what I said. To state that what he posited is Quixotic is being kind for this has the added nature of falsehood and he knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So the christain sense is that #1 is worse than #2? Care to defend what is 'good' about that moral position?

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? I thought the OP was spot on, and raised an important objection to the likes of SAR. Do you also want to piss on his shoes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He responded to SAR and condemned the Christian sense. Where's the logic? I stand by what I said. To state that what he posited is Quixotic is being kind for this has the added nature of falsehood and he knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

please stop making me open up dictionary.com...

and now knowing what quixotic means..I still have no clue what you are saying

if you have an actual objection..please state it clearly...just out of common courtesy..

it's pretty one sided when I don't even know what your argument is..

carlo

11-12-2006, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you are saying that #2 is a noble act, whereas #1 is evil...I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously think that generalizing about people is better than speaking specifically to an individual. The condemnation of peoples by what YOU THINK they believe is hubris of the highest order. Why is that so hard to understand?

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess you are saying that #2 is a noble act, whereas #1 is evil...I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously think that generalizing about people is better than speaking specifically to an individual. The condemnation of peoples by what YOU THINK they believe is hubris of the highest order. Why is that so hard to understand?

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus [censored] christ..if my assumption that most christians believe #1 to be wrong, but #2 not to be, is off, then just [censored] tell me that

you're driving me [censored] crazy carlo

SAR generalized these positions..as a response to him, why would I not hold the same generalizations for the purpose of my objection to his arguement?

carlo

11-12-2006, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the christain sense is that #1 is worse than #2? Care to defend what is 'good' about that moral position?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison between statements #1 and #2 is an irrationality based upon falsehoods. The choices are inflammatory and do not meet the test of reason.

Don Quxiote fought windmills for which he placed imaginary beings. Many consider this in a romantic sense. Op set up a windmill but added the nature of condemnation and falsehood, no romance here.

carlo

11-12-2006, 07:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SAG generalized these positions..as a response to him, why would I not hold the same generalizations for the purpose of my objection to his arguement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he spoke to atheism and it's lack of a moral sense intrinsic to it's nature. A constructive view of atheism was in order here and don't forget you are responding to him, specifically and the spreading of the net to Christianity offers nothing to the issue.

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the christain sense is that #1 is worse than #2? Care to defend what is 'good' about that moral position?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison between statements #1 and #2 is an irrationality based upon falsehoods. The choices are inflammatory and do not meet the test of reason.

Don Quxiote fought windmills for which he placed imaginary beings. Many consider this in a romantic sense. Op set up a windmill but added the nature of condemnation and falsehood, no romance here.

[/ QUOTE ]

please kill me...

my post was only meant as a response to SAR's post...as far as I know, the nature of both are the same..I am using the same tone (complete with any possible problems) purposefully

I know that the assumptions needed to make such statements are not necessarily true...and the same were not necessarily true in SAR's post, which we tried to go over...I was trying to show..that by SAR's logic...my "argument" as to a philosophy that is despeciable could also be made...

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SAG generalized these positions..as a response to him, why would I not hold the same generalizations for the purpose of my objection to his arguement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he spoke to atheism and it's lack of a moral sense intrinsic to it's nature. A constructive view of atheism was in order here and don't forget you are responding to him, specifically and the spreading of the net to Christianity offers nothing to the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

he made a generalization about atheism...he seems to feel that that was intrinsic to its nature...I mde a generalization about christianity...which I feel is intrinsic to its nature as well..I have never met a christian who believe that god's form of "justice" can be considered as "evil"..I believe it is intrinsic to christianity that god does not do evil or unjust things...that it is contrary to his nature..and he cannot (or at least does not) violate that nature.

vhawk01

11-12-2006, 07:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SAG generalized these positions..as a response to him, why would I not hold the same generalizations for the purpose of my objection to his arguement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he spoke to atheism and it's lack of a moral sense intrinsic to it's nature. A constructive view of atheism was in order here and don't forget you are responding to him, specifically and the spreading of the net to Christianity offers nothing to the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, SAR made an obviously inflammatory post generalizing the worldviews of atheists (and contrary to this post, there probably arent ANY people correctly categorized) and so Prodigy did the same for Christianity, in AN OBVIOUS PARODY. And for some reason I didn't see any of your outrage when SAR did it.

carlo

11-12-2006, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he made a generalization about atheism...he seems to feel that that was intrinsic to its nature...I mde a generalization about christianity...which I feel is intrinsic to its nature as well..I have never met a christian who believe that god's form of "justice" can be considered as "evil"..I believe it is intrinsic to christianity that god does not do evil or unjust things...that it is contrary to his nature..and he cannot (or at least does not) violate that nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So, SAR made an obviously inflammatory post generalizing the worldviews of atheists (and contrary to this post, there probably arent ANY people correctly categorized) and so Prodigy did the same for Christianity, in AN OBVIOUS PARODY. And for some reason I didn't see any of your outrage when SAR did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post wasn't meant to justify SAR . The question of aethism and what it is exactly can be the subject of study. I refer to my previous posts as to the applicability of using the comparison in this manner.

thylacine

11-12-2006, 11:04 PM

I really don't see any significant difference in "siegfriedandroy"'s christian philosophy and Hitler's christian philosophy. Both "siegfriedandroy"'s and Hitler are Christian Supremacists.

luckyme

11-13-2006, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

My post wasn't meant to justify SAR . The question of aethism and what it is exactly can be the subject of study.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'd be much more interesting to discuss what the meaning of 'is' is.
Atheism takes a short sentence, there is nothing to study.
An atheist does not believe there is a god.
Study away.

luckyme

carlo

11-13-2006, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It'd be much more interesting to discuss what the meaning of 'is' is.
Atheism takes a short sentence, there is nothing to study.
An atheist does not believe there is a god.
Study away.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the consequences of the aethism that only states that it doesn't believe(or posit, or sense, or know, or understand) in a supersensible reality?

I can only conclude that an atheiest only knows and sees the material reality. He states that "all is material". He states "only that which can be weighed and measured is real and is in fact materiality(eternity of the material).

If you say this isn't atheism I stand to be corrected for I believe it definitely takes study. What I've said is no way exhaustive but I sense that many who propound and speak to "atheism" are in fact very spiritually oriented. To state that "I am an atheist" is not like joing a club where you are given your welcoming gifts. What atheism means in your inner life is very important and has consequences and is consequential.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It'd be much more interesting to discuss what the meaning of 'is' is.
Atheism takes a short sentence, there is nothing to study.
An atheist does not believe there is a god.
Study away.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the consequences of the aethism that only states that it doesn't believe in a higher world?

I can only conclude that an atheiest only knows and sees the material reality. He states that "all is material". He states "only that which can be weighed and measured is real and is in fact materiality(eternity of the material).

If you say this isn't atheism I stand to be corrected for I believe it definitely takes study. What I've said is no way exhaustive but I sense that many who propound and speak to "atheism" are in fact very spiritually oriented. To state that "I am an atheist" is not like joing a club where you are given your welcoming gifts. What atheism means in your inner life is very important and has consequences and is consequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting alot of words in the mouths of atheists.

The thing is, atheism is not a philosophical position in itself, it is merely a lack of religion. There are moral atheists, there are nihilists and pessimists, there are existentialists...

To ask "what atheists believe" is no less ridiculous than to ask "what foreigners are like".

They don't believe in God. That is what they have in common.

carlo

11-13-2006, 12:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're putting alot of words in the mouths of atheists.

The thing is, atheism is not a philosophical position in itself, it is merely a lack of religion. There are moral atheists, there are nihilists and pessimists, there are existentialists...

To ask "what atheists believe" is no less ridiculous than to ask "what foreigners are like".

They don't believe in God. That is what they have in common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'd say that "atheism" is as little understood by some of it's proponents as say the unsophisticated man on the street knows differential calculus. Don't forget that if you are only speaking to the word"atheism" the "a" denotes "not" and "theism" denotes "supersensibility" or "spirituality" . Does this mean you can appreciate "angels" or "archangels" but not the "G" word?

Many people can not find their bearings in modern religions but does that make them "atheists" even if thay find the presentation of the "G" word lacking by these religions?

luckyme

11-13-2006, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Many people can not find their bearings in modern religions but does that make them "atheists" even if thay find the presentation of the "G" word lacking by these religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

The G word, the F word , the entire alphabet soup. Why is it difficult for you to picture 1000 people of whom I can say "they do not believe there is a purple cow buried 1 mile below the surface on the far side of the moon".

You would know nothing else about their philosophical position. Atheism is the same situation, those 1000 people may not have one other position in common since they simply share a non-belief ( if that is even a meaningful use of 'sharing'). The only thing we know about all animals that don't have horns is that they don't have horns, yet it hardly seems that they're sharing even that ahorniness.

luckyme

carlo

11-13-2006, 12:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The G word, the F word , the entire alphabet soup. Why is it difficult for you to picture 1000 people of whom I can say "they do not believe there is a purple cow buried 1 mile below the surface on the far side of the moon".

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand and see your point but I am only speaking to you and not to 1000 people. Doing the flip side, do you only believe(I have trouble with this word but I'll use it) in a material universe(materialism). Take your time, I'll wait.

luckyme

11-13-2006, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand and see your point but I am only speaking to you and not to 1000 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you've been expressing views on 'atheism' and making great leaps about what it entails. Speaking to me will tell you nothing about atheism, nothing. The phrase "I am an atheist" contains all the information that is to be had by that designation. I have nothing more I can give you to expand your understanding of it, there is nothing more to understand.

luckyme

CityFan

11-13-2006, 01:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're putting alot of words in the mouths of atheists.

The thing is, atheism is not a philosophical position in itself, it is merely a lack of religion. There are moral atheists, there are nihilists and pessimists, there are existentialists...

To ask "what atheists believe" is no less ridiculous than to ask "what foreigners are like".

They don't believe in God. That is what they have in common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I'd say that "atheism" is as little understood by some of it's proponents as say the unsophisticated man on the street knows differential calculus. Don't forget that if you are only speaking to the word"atheism" the "a" denotes "not" and "theism" denotes "supersensibility" or "spirituality" . Does this mean you can appreciate "angels" or "archangels" but not the "G" word?

Many people can not find their bearings in modern religions but does that make them "atheists" even if thay find the presentation of the "G" word lacking by these religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, people may incorrectly label themselves. People who believe in some "other" spirituality may call themsleves atheists wihtout having thought about how best to describe their position.

Those people are clear that they don't believe in the God presented by Chirstianity or any major religion, yet they can still countenance a higher power.

Whether you include them with "atheists" or not, doesn't change the fact that atheism captures a vast array of philosophies. To say that someone is atheist does not describe their belief system, it merely discounts a few of the usual suspects.

madnak

11-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Theism isn't "supersensibility" and certainly isn't broad enough to describe any extranatural phenomena - it's purely about gods and specifically omnipotent, present gods. Atheism is only a lack of belief in any god, it doesn't imply materialism.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 01:22 PM

I hate the word "atheism".

I have an atheist philosophy. That is, I have a philosophy that is not theist. It does not refer to the existence of a God.

It is not an "-ism" though, and I am not "an atheist". Atheist is not a noun. The word atheism and the noun atheist suggest some kind of active denial of God. The non-existence of God is not a cornerstone of my philosophy. If other people didn't keep going on about God, the idea would never cross my mind.

I hope that explains my own position, but I would warn against applying it to others. I live in a very secular society, and in a more religious society I might be "actively" atheist, because of my obvious disagreement with the people around me.

Carded

11-13-2006, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand and see your point but I am only speaking to you and not to 1000 people.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you've been expressing views on 'atheism' and making great leaps about what it entails. Speaking to me will tell you nothing about atheism, nothing. The phrase "I am an atheist" contains all the information that is to be had by that designation. I have nothing more I can give you to expand your understanding of it, there is nothing more to understand.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people here are analytically mined. In terms of viewing morality assumptions such as Atheism servers as an Archimedean point. Then again, after being subjected to luckyme’s analogies I would never accuse him of analytical reasoning, determining conclusions based on premises.

carlo

11-13-2006, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you include them with "atheists" or not, doesn't change the fact that atheism captures a vast array of philosophies. To say that someone is atheist does not describe their belief system, it merely discounts a few of the usual suspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are just talking of "words" which have no meaning beyond the last fleeting piece of paper they are written upon then I suppose one could consider oneself as an "athiest" as per Luckyme.

What I am saying is that rationality and logic will display the consequences of this philosophy(nonphilosophy?) and that one can see and experience the consequences of this thought. Looked up "atheism" on Wilipedia and saw that there are many approaches to this matter("strong" or "weak" atheism) and others but I would like to deal with you and/or Luckyme without falling back on authority.

Again, I ask you as I did Luckyme, do you only see the material(materialism) in our world? Please, and remember that moral commandments and morality is another topic but of course germane to the issue.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I ask you as I did Luckyme, do you only see the material(materialism) in our world? Please, and remember that moral commandments and morality is another topic but of course germane to the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a difficult one. Do I believe in anything beyond the material? Well, what about consciousness? Consciousness is the most obvious non-material "thing" I'm aware of. In fact, it is the only non-material thing I can think of. If it's nothing but an illusion, then it's a very powerful one.

For those who don't accept explanations involving God, consciousness and the related question of free will is one of the great philosophical puzzles.

On one level I really DO believe that I am nothing but a collection of tissues and my consciousness is nothing but the result of a few billion electro-chemical reactions. On the other hand, it is very hard to reconcile that belief with the fact that I obviously am conscious, or at least I feel conscious. I am aware. "Cogito, ergo sum" as a wise man once said.

I don't have all the answers. However, I remain atheist. Explantions involving God aren't really anything other than non-explanations, to my mind. Just saying "God made it so" is a cop out: it doesn't address the question.

carlo

11-13-2006, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Theism isn't "supersensibility" and certainly isn't broad enough to describe any extranatural phenomena - it's purely about gods and specifically omnipotent, present gods. Atheism is only a lack of belief in any god, it doesn't imply materialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my point You and I have talked on this before. I believe you stated that the physical body produces thoughts and of course I stated that thought is a supersensibile reality in and of itself. This in no way negates a supersensible presentation of the physical body(big paradox).

My point relates to your statement in that you can find fault with common religious perceptions of an organized(?) supersensibility because many see this aspect only in its coercive sense("DO or be condemned"). Taking one step at a time without taking the leap that "theism is about supersensibility" the beginnings of understanding in this area is a perception that thought is supersensible. For this one has to look into his own inner being and if one can conclude that thought is supersensible(without assuming its sourse to be the material mileu(speculation) then one can work with thought and see its inner reality. From this the great philosophies/religions can open a new world to the observant. All in time of course.

carlo

11-13-2006, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have all the answers. However, I remain atheist. Explantions involving God aren't really anything other than non-explanations, to my mind. Just saying "God made it so" is a cop out: it doesn't address the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot argue with this and from one perspective it is a "cop out". Another is that the person answering the question in that way does find the world most incomprehensible and is not ready to travel the road to cognizant perception. At best he displays a humility and of course at the negative aspect he might condemn another for a p[urported"lack of belief". In between there can be many variations on the theme.

See my post to Madnak. It seems to me that to say "I AM THIS" is constricting especially since our life really brings the lie to this type of statement as we are quite more than we say we are. In knowledge we find ourself and self statements are roadstops along the way.

luckyme

11-13-2006, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On one level I really DO believe that I am nothing but a collection of tissues and my consciousness is nothing but the result of a few billion electro-chemical reactions. On the other hand, it is very hard to reconcile that belief with the fact that I obviously am conscious, or at least I feel conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're familiar with the neurologist Damasio's book, "The Feeling of What Happened"? It contains this comment -
"There is more to mind than just consciousness and there can be mind without consciousness, as we discover in patients who have one but not the other."

Now, he's defined consciousness in his presentation, but in any case, he's not refering to any mysterious ethers or out-of-body spiritualism, just that there are ways of studying the topic without making wild lieaps into the supernatural.

He puts it in several frameworks at various times, including Dennett's "multiple drafts" analogy, and does a good job of bringing it to a laymans level.

luckyme

madnak

11-13-2006, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly my point You and I have talked on this before. I believe you stated that the physical body produces thoughts and of course I stated that thought is a supersensibile reality in and of itself. This in no way negates a supersensible presentation of the physical body(big paradox).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the same as materialism. I don't even think thoughts are necessarily wholly physical. Only that physical factors have a clear causal impact on the expression of thoughts, but extraphysical factors have no observable impact on the expression of thoughts, and that the most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that if thoughts have an extraphysical element, that element can only "receive," it cannot "transmit." And thus it's most useful to consider thoughts as physical phenomena.

[ QUOTE ]
My point relates to your statement in that you can find fault with common religious perceptions of an organized(?) supersensibility because many see this aspect only in its coercive sense("DO or be condemned"). Taking one step at a time without taking the leap that "theism is about supersensibility" the beginnings of understanding in this area is a perception that thought is supersensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understanding according to what criteria? If you can give me some kind of test or scale of understanding I'd be happy to pass it for you, but as it is you're using your own personal standards to evaluate the subject, and you have been unable to validate those standards in any objective way.

[ QUOTE ]
For this one has to look into his own inner being and if one can conclude that thought is supersensible(without assuming its sourse to be the material mileu(speculation) then one can work with thought and see its inner reality. From this the great philosophies/religions can open a new world to the observant. All in time of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all quite a long way from A to B. And you're still assuming certain results. Who are you, or anyone else, to say what I will find if I explore my thoughts and inner self? How can you be certain I'll find the same thing that you find? Moreover, even if religion is sufficient condition for the experience of this inner world (and I contend it's not, I see religion and spirituality as contradictory), that doesn't mean it's a necessary condition. It's possible to achieve a nominally good end through bad means, in other words.

Back to the subject of atheism, you haven't mentioned God, so this viewpoint is entirely consistent with atheism. All materialists are atheists, but that doesn't mean all atheists are materialists.

vhawk01

11-13-2006, 05:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On one level I really DO believe that I am nothing but a collection of tissues and my consciousness is nothing but the result of a few billion electro-chemical reactions. On the other hand, it is very hard to reconcile that belief with the fact that I obviously am conscious, or at least I feel conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're familiar with the neurologist Damasio's book, "The Feeling of What Happened"? It contains this comment -
"There is more to mind than just consciousness and there can be mind without consciousness, as we discover in patients who have one but not the other."

Now, he's defined consciousness in his presentation, but in any case, he's not refering to any mysterious ethers or out-of-body spiritualism, just that there are ways of studying the topic without making wild lieaps into the supernatural.

He puts it in several frameworks at various times, including Dennett's "multiple drafts" analogy, and does a good job of bringing it to a laymans level.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually halfway through Dennet's Consciousness Explained right now, and this thread is very interesting to me. I'd be interested to know what some of you guys' views (Rduke, lucky, FM, madnak, NotReady) on it were. I must say I am a naive materialist, meaning I dont know enough about the field to really have much more than intuition to go on.

carlo

11-13-2006, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And thus it's most useful to consider thoughts as physical phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be useful but one must realize that no amount of physical measurement can measure a thought. Take a memory of a tree. Is it within the realm of science to weigh and measure such a memory thought? One may be able to observe EEG readings, changes in temperature of a person, and other types of measurtements which are dependent upon the physical body but this , at best, is an indirect evaluation of "thought".

The criteria for the truths in this realm of thinking and thought are contained within the object of study and in this is open to confirmation by others. If you read Plato, is there any mention of mechanical/machine based confirmation?

Science can only, with mechanistic confirmations, attempt to study outer reality but cannot connect that outer reality with Man's inner nature with machines but only with thinking.

Thoughts, concepts, imaginations, inspirations, intuitions cannoit be machine based. The scientific mileu of our day would like it if people didn't think for the underlying exegesis is that of mechanism with no thought allowed.

By the by, when you say that all materialists are aetheists but not all atheists are materialists I would like to hear how a atheist cannot be a materialist except by lack of insight. An atheist who is aware of spirituality(theism) would have to change his nomen in order to be factually correct which is OK with me.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On one level I really DO believe that I am nothing but a collection of tissues and my consciousness is nothing but the result of a few billion electro-chemical reactions. On the other hand, it is very hard to reconcile that belief with the fact that I obviously am conscious, or at least I feel conscious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're familiar with the neurologist Damasio's book, "The Feeling of What Happened"? It contains this comment -
"There is more to mind than just consciousness and there can be mind without consciousness, as we discover in patients who have one but not the other."

Now, he's defined consciousness in his presentation, but in any case, he's not refering to any mysterious ethers or out-of-body spiritualism, just that there are ways of studying the topic without making wild lieaps into the supernatural.

He puts it in several frameworks at various times, including Dennett's "multiple drafts" analogy, and does a good job of bringing it to a laymans level.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll add it to my list.

I do understand roughly how consciousness can arise out of brain activity (a decent illustration of the ideas is given by Doug Hoffstadter in Godel, Escher and Bach). Still, it is hard for a conscious being to reconcile.

I have a lot of time for Carlo's point that spirituality is an attempt to understand/describe/explain/discuss the metaphysical, where by metaphysical I mean the conscious mind, whether or not we understand its physical roots. That's why I maintain that there could still be a lot of value in religious texts, because they contain a lot of metaphysical wisdom, albeit phrased in an outdated paradigm. Modern religion does not appear to take that temperate approach though: old dogma and pre-scientific myths are still paraded as truth. For that reason, I dislike religion.

madnak

11-13-2006, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
An atheist who is aware of spirituality(theism) would have to change his nomen in order to be factually correct

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is related to gods. Spirituality doesn't imply gods. Extraphysical phenomena don't imply spirituality.

This really isn't a hard concept if you don't try to artificially lump extraphysicality, spirituality, and theism into one. They're very distinct, and I think spirituality is in opposition to gods. If a God existed, I would consider such a being most likely a demiurge and opposed to spiritual knowledge. But I don't believe a God exists (thank God).

As for the rest - as yet we can't measure a thought, and that will probably remain true during our lifetimes. We can localize thoughts to some degree, but to another degree they seem to be all over the place. We would need a full understanding of the nervous system to actually see thoughts from a physical standpoint.

What we do know is that affecting the neurons affects thought. Therefore we know there's a physical element. We also know that the neurons themselves work according to physical properties - thus in order for a change in the neurons to affect thoughts, either thoughts must exist in the neurons or the neurons must telegraph that thought. We also know that all human action comes from the neurons. Since the neurons obey physical laws, we know that any thought which leads to an action must originate in the neurons, or must be transmitted to the neurons according to a physical mechanic (quantum perhaps).

The fact is that when you take an action, it's because of proteins and ions in your brain, that work in a chain reaction to affect proteins in your muscles that result in changes in chemical composition that cause the muscle fibers to contract. Whether or not an action originally comes from some kind of "mind," it must pass through this chemical process in order to have an effect on the body. Given that this effect starts in the neurons, if the mind affects the body then the mind must somehow affect the neurons. However the neurons don't appear to be affected by anything extraphysical. In fact they function through basically deterministic and probabilistic mechanisms - the only room for a mind to affect them is in the probabilistic mechanisms, and thus in quantum interference. Thus, if there's a mind that can affect the body it must be represented through quantum interference - otherwise thoughts that affect the body (in other words, thoughts that result in actions) must be physical.

Therefore, the fact that science isn't yet able to read minds doesn't mean it can't establish a physical basis for thought.

bunny

11-13-2006, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And thus it's most useful to consider thoughts as physical phenomena.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be useful but one must realize that no amount of physical measurement can measure a thought. Take a memory of a tree. Is it within the realm of science to weigh and measure such a memory thought? One may be able to observe EEG readings, changes in temperature of a person, and other types of measurtements which are dependent upon the physical body but this , at best, is an indirect evaluation of "thought".

[/ QUOTE ]
This is begging the question. Can you justify your claim that a complete description of a thought requires more than a catalog of physical facts?

carlo

11-13-2006, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is begging the question. Can you justify your claim that a complete description of a thought requires more than a catalog of physical facts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion focused on atheism and Madnak states you can have extraphysical(his words) events but not gods.He states that spirituality is OK so long as gods or the "G" word is not evident.

In effect he states that the world is materialistic science based and of course I tried to show that an evaluation of thought or thinking doesn't lend itself to present scientific endeavor which is immersed in materiality. And of course the neurons,etc. of his last post confirm a scientific materialistic basis for what I perceive to be his perspective. This is materialism, the reference of all events in the world to a physical basis. In this materialism there is no need nor desire for any supersensible happenings as all is related to matter. But of course he sees that thought appears to be extra physical and therefore is allowed in his scientific material approach. I'm led to the impression that Man is this being who is projecting out from himself these extra physical events which are called thoughts and of course feelings which are related to the physical and are from the creative physicallity and therefore matter. All is matter.

In the above I've tried to carry the thought(no pun intended) into its logical consequence. Man is matter. He is born as matter from his parents,goes through childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, maturity, old age and death. All is matter. This man has disappeared into a destructive force of the mineral kingdom He is no more. He is earthbound and has turned to dust. Sodium, potassium,iron,copper,etc. Death of the world follows from this logic as the earth will likewise fall into a destructed powder and one thinks of the law of thermodynamics that states that the earth turns into something like a tepid heat(correct me please). That is materialism.

But he does admit a spirituality but refuses gods or "G" but spirituality is OK. Ok, my statement is that you can tether a part of that spiritual world by that which is germane to all humans and that is thought and thinking. It may not be that each individual can do this exploration but some can and the results of this thought laden activity can be brought to others who also live in thought and can see the truth without weight or measure.

Great art such as music,poetry and painting can bring this world to us as can philosophy and religion. The world of mathematics comes to us in the same way. Mankind has always reached for that other world and you see it in his great achievements.

It just so happens that we are at present in an age of scientific materialism which is not an abberation. In our thinking we have become more "I" focused and consequentially lost sight of that world from which we belong. Mankind has a strong sense of self which was not present say 4000 years ago.At that time he still had a atavistic clairvoyance in shich he didn't need "proofs" of the supersensible world. Many of the prophesies of the Bible are related to sleep in which mankind was more alive as he sojorned in that realm. We have lost this ability but have gained our "I". At that time the sense of self was not as strong as Man felt himself more a part of the cosmic whole. During our time we have developed the intellect to which was not present (though in germ it was) 4000 years ago.

Our present work is the use of this intellect to again become a part of that spiritual world.We will in the EXPERIENCING of thoughts add to our stature and in this sense thought becomes manna. In this we will be free spiritual beings as INDIVIDUALS where previously we were a part of a whole with a diminished sense of self.

It may become clear to some that thought can change us and therefore a perspective such as materialism can certainly change us and become our home. Separation from spirituality into crass materialism is an illness which calls for remedy.

A complete description of thought is not the issue but the sight of what it is is life giving.

RJT

11-13-2006, 11:07 PM

The form of the answer to example #1 is an opinion (not a belief) . The murdering of millions of Jews did happen. “What is your opinion of Hitler for causing that?” And asking if one “believes” it was wrong only makes sense in the context of God existing.

Also, Number 2 is a hypothetical.

I don’t think comparing the two things makes much sense. (But, then again not many things have been making sense to me lately.)

bunny

11-13-2006, 11:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is begging the question. Can you justify your claim that a complete description of a thought requires more than a catalog of physical facts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion focused on atheism and Madnak states you can have extraphysical(his words) events but not gods.He states that spirituality is OK so long as gods or the "G" word is not evident.

In effect he states that the world is materialistic science based and of course I tried to show that an evaluation of thought or thinking doesn't lend itself to present scientific endeavor which is immersed in materiality. And of course the neurons,etc. of his last post confirm a scientific materialistic basis for what I perceive to be his perspective. This is materialism, the reference of all events in the world to a physical basis. In this materialism there is no need nor desire for any supersensible happenings as all is related to matter. But of course he sees that thought appears to be extra physical and therefore is allowed in his scientific material approach. I'm led to the impression that Man is this being who is projecting out from himself these extra physical events which are called thoughts and of course feelings which are related to the physical and are from the creative physicallity and therefore matter. All is matter.

In the above I've tried to carry the thought(no pun intended) into its logical consequence. Man is matter. He is born as matter from his parents,goes through childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, maturity, old age and death. All is matter. This man has disappeared into a destructive force of the mineral kingdom He is no more. He is earthbound and has turned to dust. Sodium, potassium,iron,copper,etc. Death of the world follows from this logic as the earth will likewise fall into a destructed powder and one thinks of the law of thermodynamics that states that the earth turns into something like a tepid heat(correct me please). That is materialism.

But he does admit a spirituality but refuses gods or "G" but spirituality is OK. Ok, my statement is that you can tether a part of that spiritual world by that which is germane to all humans and that is thought and thinking. It may not be that each individual can do this exploration but some can and the results of this thought laden activity can be brought to others who also live in thought and can see the truth without weight or measure.

Great art such as music,poetry and painting can bring this world to us as can philosophy and religion. The world of mathematics comes to us in the same way. Mankind has always reached for that other world and you see it in his great achievements.

It just so happens that we are at present in an age of scientific materialism which is not an abberation. In our thinking we have become more "I" focused and consequentially lost sight of that world from which we belong. Mankind has a strong sense of self which was not present say 4000 years ago.At that time he still had a atavistic clairvoyance in shich he didn't need "proofs" of the supersensible world. Many of the prophesies of the Bible are related to sleep in which mankind was more alive as he sojorned in that realm. We have lost this ability but have gained our "I". At that time the sense of self was not as strong as Man felt himself more a part of the cosmic whole. During our time we have developed the intellect to which was not present (though in germ it was) 4000 years ago.

Our present work is the use of this intellect to again become a part of that spiritual world.We will in the EXPERIENCING of thoughts add to our stature and in this sense thought becomes manna. In this we will be free spiritual beings as INDIVIDUALS where previously we were a part of a whole with a diminished sense of self.

It may become clear to some that thought can change us and therefore a perspective such as materialism can certainly change us and become our home. Separation from spirituality into crass materialism is an illness which calls for remedy.

A complete description of thought is not the issue but the sight of what it is is life giving.

[/ QUOTE ]
This really sounds like a "no". To say materialism is an illness which calls for a remedy may be true. A materialist could easily counter that the set of supersensible events, objects or categories is empty. I havent seen a good justification of either claim and wondered if you had one.

When you say a complete description of thought is not the issue, it is certainly something you claimed - ie that a physical description is incomplete. If this premise is not accepted then your argument loses a lot of persuasive power.

madnak

11-13-2006, 11:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Great art such as music,poetry and painting can bring this world to us as can philosophy and religion. The world of mathematics comes to us in the same way. Mankind has always reached for that other world and you see it in his great achievements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny that such art is produced by physical mechanisms? That a brush or instrument must be lifted and manipulated with bones, tendons, muscles? Do you deny that such physical objects move as a result of nervous signals, and that those nervous signals can be traced to the brain? Do you deny that these cells work according to their chemical properties? What part of this chain are you stopped at?

I don't know of any artist that doesn't make extensive use of physical technique.

[ QUOTE ]
Our present work is the use of this intellect to again become a part of that spiritual world.We will in the EXPERIENCING of thoughts add to our stature and in this sense thought becomes manna. In this we will be free spiritual beings as INDIVIDUALS where previously we were a part of a whole with a diminished sense of self.

It may become clear to some that thought can change us and therefore a perspective such as materialism can certainly change us and become our home. Separation from spirituality into crass materialism is an illness which calls for remedy.

A complete description of thought is not the issue but the sight of what it is is life giving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, the material is crass and the spiritual is all. The dichotomy between spirit and body is the greatest fallacy of our age. So few are able to appreciate both as necessary (and equally meaningful) components.

Exsubmariner

11-13-2006, 11:13 PM

http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/strawman.jpg

Prodigy54321

11-13-2006, 11:32 PM

although I don't see why my post is a strawman argument specifically

you're right in that I was generalizing the position of christians...it may not be the position of all christians..for example, it is not the opinion of my parents, who are christians...

this was specifically directed at those who do hold that opinion.

carlo

11-13-2006, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you say a complete description of thought is not the issue, it is certainly something you claimed - ie that a physical description is incomplete. If this premise is not accepted then your argument loses a lot of persuasive power

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be zigging when you're zagging. To complete a scientific understanding the senses(or machines) only display that sensory part but the thought or concept which is a living entity completes the issue. Our thoughts are basically lifeless but are the projection of those beings which are alive and manifest in the world.You could say that outer reality is the sensory expression of the supersensible realities. They are not separate from mankind but because of our present sensory nature we only see the outer half and come to their supersensible experience through thought.

As an important aside our bodies are also part of this outside world in which the individual human spirit incarnates to perform his work. The spirit works the earth in order to become this individual free spirit.He gains qualities here on earth of which he cannot do after death. Reincarnation of the spirit is very important here as knowledge of this a boon to mankind in that his destiny is not tied into one incarnation. The world and cosmos changes and so does Man.

Prodigy54321

11-13-2006, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The form of the answer to example #1 is an opinion (not a belief) . The murdering of millions of Jews did happen. “What is your opinion of Hitler for causing that?” And asking if one “believes” it was wrong only makes sense in the context of God existing.

Also, Number 2 is a hypothetical.

I don’t think comparing the two things makes much sense. (But, then again not many things have been making sense to me lately.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying..you are probably correct..this post was obviously a rant against SAR's post..mine is probably just as ridiculous as his was...

I don't know exactly how to look at this...

if I were to use a hypothetical in place of the real world example, I think it would hold better..right?..I used the hitler one specifically because it was SAR's example...

also, i believe that even #1 as it is is dependent on the beliefs of what is "right and wrong"...just as #2 is.

not sure if this changes anything though

carlo

11-13-2006, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, the material is crass and the spiritual is all. The dichotomy between spirit and body is the greatest fallacy of our age. So few are able to appreciate both as necessary (and equally meaningful) components

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're right, they are both a necessay and equally meaningful expression of this life.Absolute denial of the spirit is what I originally referred to and that is materialism. The question is how does one complete the issue? See my previous post.

Leaving the "wheel of life" upon death is not what this is about.The earth is sacred but the attempt to see it in it's "wholeness' for want of a better word is in order.

madnak

11-13-2006, 11:51 PM

I don't see how the study of neurons is in conflict with such a goal.

bunny

11-13-2006, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I might be zigging when you're zagging. To complete a scientific understanding the senses(or machines) only display that sensory part but the thought or concept which is a living entity completes the issue. Our thoughts are basically lifeless but are the projection of those beings which are alive and manifest in the world.You could say that outer reality is the sensory expression of the supersensible realities. They are not separate from mankind but because of our present sensory nature we only see the outer half and come to their supersensible experience through thought.

As an important aside our bodies are also part of this outside world in which the individual human spirit incarnates to perform his work. The spirit works the earth in order to become this individual free spirit.He gains qualities here on earth of which he cannot do after death. Reincarnation of the spirit is very important here as knowledge of this a boon to mankind in that his destiny is not tied into one incarnation. The world and cosmos changes and so does Man.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand this is your assertion - I am asking if you can justify your claim that there is something beyond the physical or if you take it to be "obviously true". Many would not accept it as true, let alone obvious.

FortunaMaximus

11-13-2006, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the study of neurons is in conflict with such a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me either. Brain mapping, in theory, should improve and the reference data should be solvable in a number of ways. I'm fairly certain there are limits to how it can be altered, much like pushing mercury around with a pencil in a bowl with a very shallow depression.

As for the next logical steps, no. Even I don't want to [censored] with that tonight.

carlo

11-14-2006, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the study of neurons is in conflict with such a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not as we all have our work to do. But one can see thought process in this science and see if their reality meets the test of truth. Condemnation of scientists is not what this is about. Characterization is important.

carlo

11-14-2006, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
understand this is your assertion - I am asking if you can justify your claim that there is something beyond the physical or if you take it to be "obviously true". Many would not accept it as true, let alone obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rational appreciation of the character of thought and thinking does not claim(really a legalistic term used for earthly matters) but perceives and experiences this reality. So can you.

madnak

11-14-2006, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the study of neurons is in conflict with such a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not as we all have our work to do. But one can see thought process in this science and see if their reality meets the test of truth. Condemnation of scientists is not what this is about. Characterization is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, scientists are a hard group to classify.

carlo

11-14-2006, 12:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, scientists are a hard group to classify

[/ QUOTE ]

True again, there are many scientific approaches in the various disciplines and studying the works of the great men in their respective fields can give one an appreciation of their thinking. Newton is everywhere and approaches to heat, mechanics, electromagnetism are still taught in our universities where the f=ma is transfoemed from a mechanical basis to the mechanical theory of heat. Likewise electromagnetism is taught in the same way.Light also.
Can't go any farther, too tired. Reading Goethe's Treatise on Light may offer a perspective which is not tied to materiality.

bunny

11-14-2006, 05:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
understand this is your assertion - I am asking if you can justify your claim that there is something beyond the physical or if you take it to be "obviously true". Many would not accept it as true, let alone obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rational appreciation of the character of thought and thinking does not claim(really a legalistic term used for earthly matters) but perceives and experiences this reality. So can you.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your justification is subjective experience? Ie it seems that way to you (and you would suggest to me too?)

carlo

11-14-2006, 07:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So your justification is subjective experience? Ie it seems that way to you (and you would suggest to me too?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the way you perceive subjectivity. Put anopther way, how are you and I ever to understand each other except through thought? We certainly would have a hard time with feelings and the will . If I place a microscope on a part of the world and offer it to you has not the inventor's thought interfaced with your microscopic view of the world? Has not the thoughts of the inventor(subjective you say...)taken over your perspective? are you any closer to truth because of this microscope?

This subjectivity you talk about is really refering to soul qualities. I walk through a field of flowers and and buoyed by the wonderful landscape while your experience is debilitating because you have allergies. In this we have both taken the world into us with diffferent experiences. But the fact is that the flowers grow and die during the year in rhythmic succesion and in the spring return and one can perceive rthe truths intrinsic to the flowers which is separate from our "subjective experiences". The laws of growth and decay can be thought by both of us and in this we can both come to grips with a portion of reality. This is through thinking which is not "subjective" for we live by the grace of thinking.The thought is intrinsic to the flowers and we perceive this in us and this becomes self knowledge also.

Modern scientific thinking separates Man from the world and this is seen from the cartesian coordinate system. Man, watching the world go by having no part in it's creation or movement.Mankind is intrinsic to this world and cosmos and cannot separate himself for he is the great enigma. You can't separate yourself from the world and expect to obtain reality. You are a part of it and in your thoughts we are not talking about "subjectivity" as you present it.

All that has been brought to Mankind has been through individual men and in your perspective subject to "subjectivity' and and in your sense not objective enough. You would deny yourself in your purity. Through thought we experience the great truths and in this we become free. The thoughtful path is its own "proof" for want of a better word. Not a foiled "subjectivity".

bunny

11-14-2006, 05:13 PM

You have misunderstood me if you think I am denying platonism or dualism - or indeed making any claim as to the nature of the world. In my view, the point of philosophy is to analyse reasons individuals have for taking positions - the positions themselves are almost irrelevant.

You have made many assertions about thought, about what is "of the soul" and what isnt - the nature of subjectivity, etc etc.. I'm not particularly interested in that, more in why you think what you do. My question is why you believe thoughts are something more than physical and the answer you gave was that they present themselves that way on rational inspection. This seems the best argument for dualism to me, also but it is not convincing to a materialist as it begs the question.

carlo

11-14-2006, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have misunderstood me if you think I am denying platonism or dualism - or indeed making any claim as to the nature of the world. In my view, the point of philosophy is to analyse reasons individuals have for taking positions - the positions themselves are almost irrelevant.

You have made many assertions about thought, about what is "of the soul" and what isnt - the nature of subjectivity, etc etc.. I'm not particularly interested in that, more in why you think what you do. My question is why you believe thoughts are something more than physical and the answer you gave was that they present themselves that way on rational inspection. This seems the best argument for dualism to me, also but it is not convincing to a materialist as it begs the question.

Post Extras:

[/ QUOTE ]

You are3 moving around quite a bit. You brought up subjectivity and I answered and then you state that you don't care about subjectivity. Now you want to know "why" I've taken a position.

My work is in "How" things work, not "why". Now you say that I am not allowed to see thoughts as spiritual but must have a reason to do this and then posit a "theory'. I think this is going into a labyrinthian muck and your questions will only allow your own answer.

I also see that you will have to clarify "dualism" as you seem to be saying that if thought is spiritual and we still have a physical sense world this is "dualism' and it cannot be overcome.This is the WORK.

[ QUOTE ]
In my view, the point of philosophy is to analyse reasons individuals have for taking positions - the positions themselves are almost irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is irrational under guise of the rational.

Have to stop here. See you around the block.

bunny

11-15-2006, 03:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are3 moving around quite a bit. You brought up subjectivity and I answered and then you state that you don't care about subjectivity. Now you want to know "why" I've taken a position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not moving at all - I've always been asking why you've taken the position you have. I didnt "bring up" subjectivity, I asked if that's what you were alluding to.

[ QUOTE ]
My work is in "How" things work, not "why". Now you say that I am not allowed to see thoughts as spiritual but must have a reason to do this and then posit a "theory'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really didnt say this.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is going into a labyrinthian muck and your questions will only allow your own answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont have an answer and was hoping you did.

[ QUOTE ]
I also see that you will have to clarify "dualism" as you seem to be saying that if thought is spiritual and we still have a physical sense world this is "dualism' and it cannot be overcome.This is the WORK.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I mean by dualism is the existence of at least two types of things - physical and mental.