on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:41 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Are you actually suggesting that given all of the materials written by all the different men and women in all the different cultures throughout the entire length and breadth human history, you have ingested everything?

Then there are all of the potential materials written by all the potential lifeforms on all the different planets thoughout the universe.

The multiverse?

And then there will still be the gap between this and all that any conscious being would need to grasp in order to be in sync with all that possibly can be known about "I" --- I "out in the world".

You're too pedantic in this case and making a meal out of it.


I know that in your head you're convinced that this is an adequate response to the point I raise. But in my head it is not even close.

I guess we're stuck.

You have either ingested all of the knowledge/information available pertaining to these relationships on planet earth or you have not. And while the speculations of those on other worlds is entirely hypothetical, any number of folks in the scientific community are convinced that they are out there.

Instead, you fall back on this:

Prismatic567 wrote: Note I have been discussing with you 'ALL that is to be known .." is an impossibility. Thus in this case when I stated 'all' it does not mean absolutely. Note the contexts I have used it...


What seems an impossibility here is any mere mortal having access to all that has been experienced, written, discussed etc., about these questions. In other words, who knows what insights have been accumulated in the exchanges that we are not privy to.

Right?

Instead, what folks like you insist is that the information/knowledge that you have accumulated is just enough --- just enough to make it possible for you to claim to know that what you know is all one needs to know in order to close the book on these mysteries.

Mysteries like this: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all

So, where does "I" fit into all of this?

Now, the God folks simply create a shortcut here to one or another Creator. And, dispite your protestations [here and elsewhere], you are not able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does not in fact exist. Other than pertaining to and predicated upon the assumptions embedded in the arguments in your head.

Or so it seems to me.

And then back up into the scholastic clouds bursting at the seams with "general descriptions" of...of something.

What is a Literature Review?
A literature review surveys scholarly articles, books, dissertations, conference proceedings and other resources which are relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory and provides context for a dissertation by identifying past research. Research tells a story and the existing literature helps us identify where we are in the story currently. It is up to those writing a dissertation to continue that story with new research and new perspectives but they must first be familiar with the story before they can move forward.

Purpose of a Literature Review
Identifies gaps in current knowledge
Helps you to avoid reinventing the wheel by discovering the research already conducted on a topic
Sets the background on what has been explored on a topic so far
Increases your breadth of knowledge in your area of research
Helps you identify seminal works in your area
Allows you to provide the intellectual context for your work and position your research with other, related research
Provides you with opposing viewpoints
Helps you to discover research methods which may be applicable to your work.

http://guides.lib.umich.edu/dissertationlitreview


How on earth does this pertain to the "intellectual integrity" of the arguments that I have raised on this thread?

Prismatic567 wrote: Your seemingly sole reliance on "dasein" [the corrupted version] is definitely not sufficient.

The above basis is objective.


Objective pertaining to what? Let's choose a context in which value judgments come into conflict. And then explore attempts made to resolve them in either a God or a No God world.

On the other hand, we are clearly at odds regarding the "practicals" here:

Prismatic567 wrote: If you don't like the intellectual and philosophical bit, you can take short-cuts to a state of equanimity via drugs, e.g. prozacs, various tranquilizers, hallucinogens. The short-cut way has potential side effects.

The above are the practicals I have proposed. So don't keep accusing me of being a intellectual maniac.


I can only call them as I construe them. And don't I point out over and again that the problem may well be me not understanding your own particular rendition of a "right makes might" world?

I'm just trying to connect the dots between conflicting human behaviors here and now and this imagined future of yours where objective moral interactions are finally achieved. And achieved not pharmaceutically but philosophically.

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree a qualified mechanics must be very knowledgeable of the necessary knowledge and skills to repair a car or a specific type of car. But note, even the best professionals would NOT dare to claim they know 100% of the knowledge of their profession.


No, but the point is that an automobile is constructed out of parts that are put together in a particular way. And this is true for all of us. One can then imagine someone with a knowledge of this. And having this knowledge, could repair the car. It's all encompassed in the either/or world. At least to the extent that science is able to grasp it here and now.

And while a mass transit system is itself able to be built [and then repaired] in the either/or world, there are any number of conflicted political agendas in the is/ought world that tug us closer to or further away from a world in which automobiles are replaced by them.


Prismatic567 wrote: You cannot compare the make up with human inventions [< 200 years] to a human being which has evolved from 4 billion years ago.
Note the difference between parts a car and the 100 billion of neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses in only the brain and other complicated parts of the human body.
It is ridiculous to compare them in this case.


Ridiculous perhaps in a wholly determined universe. But in a universe in which the human species is said to possess at least some measure of autonomy, where are the philosophers/ethicists able to concoct the definitive argument regarding the political prejudices revolving around those who either do or do not want to replace cars with mass transit systems?

The parts that comprise the car or the subway are able to be noted objectively. But what about the parts embedded in the conflicting goods here? Then we are back to the gap between the knowledge/information that any particular one of us might accumulate here and all of the knowledge/information that was, is or ever will be exchanged by all of those who have thought about this.

What key insights might we never have become aware of?

Prismatic567 wrote: Opposites and conflicting views are inevitable, e.g. dualism, Yin-Yang, Newton's third law, antinomies, etc. The challenge is how to hold both opposites in mind and yet live to optimize one's well being, that's the Middle-Way.


Okay, but there are still two ways to interpret this:

1] my own Middle-Way reflects the optimal frame of mind prompting the optimal human behaviors
2] I am right given my Middle-Way and you are right given your Middle-Way

And that [in my view] is where democracy and rule of law comes to reflect the "best of all possible worlds".

Just not excluding the historical imperatives embedded in political economy.


Prismatic567 wrote: There you go challenging merely for 'challenge' sake.
There is no your Middle-Way or my Middle-Way. It is a general principle of life not to be stuck to one extreme all the time.
Your approach is definitely not the Middle-Way especially when you deliberately ignore and not wanting to know the other-way.

Dualism and opposites are inevitable and inescapable in life and one must embrace and toggle between both sides where necessary but stick mainly to the Middle-Way.


All I can do here is to point out how hopelessly abstract this is. Unless and until we bring one or another existential rendition of the Middle-Way down out of the clouds and discuss it pertaining to an actual context, we're just batting words back and forth.

Although, for some, I suspect, that is really the whole point.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Anomaly654 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:09 pm

you're the one who is suggesting that there is some kind of truth embedded within the fabric of existence. So if you are right to get good feelings from helping the less fortunate, wrong to get good feelings from abusing them, then isn't being indifferent also a wrong (although a lesser wrong than outright abuse)?

Morality and ethics is a difficult subject, with few easy answers. To suggest that someone well off is responsible to every less fortunate person in the world or even in other parts of the country or state he lives in is sophistry. Whether a fortunate person has a moral obligation to share with the less fortunate in his own community is an interesting question, but consists in moral minutiae not relevant to this discussion. You’ll have to engage your introspection to determine whether or how much of your own wealth you should give to the poor if this is a matter of great concern to you.

Human beings are fragmentally falsified. The consequence of this is that we perceive both factual and moral matters obscurely. This is well known; it’s not unusual for human imperfection to be injected into conversation. Our indistinct grasp of the depth and breadth of truth and the moral issues surrounding it naturally makes conceptualization of ambiguous matters—like whether a well-off person is responsible for all the world’s poor—difficult and irrelevant. What I’m suggesting has a single goal: the pursuit of truth is the single most important goal one can engage in. Let that be your guide to ambiguous moral questions.

Sure. It's obviously wrong to you. But he doesn't think that it is wrong. Why are you right in your evaluation and why is he wrong?

More sophistry. As you well know, I made no claims to rightness. I claim that truth is right and that clarity of truth is unavailable to fragmentally falsified humans. If you want to discuss, don’t twist the issues. I don’t have much patience with bullshit.

You're saying that he knows it's wrong. But maybe he doesn't know it "on any level" at all. Maybe he does it because he thinks it's absolutely right.

Now you’re either being purposefully absurd or everyone you hang with is an amoral sociopath. If the latter, I suggest you find some new friends whose behaviour can give you a refreshingly new slant on life and improve your understanding of moral issues. If the former, the interesting question is, what is it about what I wrote that stings you? Are there truths in the informational content presented that provoke the sophist inside? One of the interesting features of this hypothesis of truth is its predictive capabilities, you know.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:40 am

Oh, I see.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10637
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:20 am

iambiguous wrote:All I can do here is to point out how hopelessly abstract this is. Unless and until we bring one or another existential rendition of the Middle-Way down out of the clouds and discuss it pertaining to an actual context, we're just batting words back and forth.

Although, for some, I suspect, that is really the whole point.
Many of the above points are repeats so I will not go through them again.

As I had stated many times to optimize living one has to complement the 'knowing' [intellectual knowledge] with the 'doing' [the practical] and thus they Middle-Way, i.e. the way of Wisdom. 'Doing' is the most critical whilst must be supported by the 'knowing.'

What I find you are lacking is sufficient 'knowing' and also insufficient 'doing' i.e. actual practices that would rewire your brain for wisdom.

It is as if you want to be like Roger Federer or Stephen Curry or even 50% of their ability. What is lacking here is you have not bothered to gather the necessary knowledge and doing the right actions and sufficient practices in the right direction to develop the necessary knowledge and relevant skills.
Note the generic model re life problem solving technique I presented in the various posts.

I had stated ALL humans are infected with desperate existential psychology that generate existential angst.
One of the most effective solution to the existential angst is theism, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved and feel secured. As you had mentioned you were once clinging to this 'straw' in your life.
Whilst theism provides REAL psychological security, it is very flimsy like clinging to straws in the middle of the deep ocean. Theism supporting knowledge and practices are very faith-based, irrational and insecure thus will raise doubts in those with rising intellect and rationality BUT the fact is it works [with limited conditions].

I believed you was once one of those with rising [in baby steps] intellect and rationality and saw through the irrationality [or stupidity] of theism. Then you jumped into existentialism [Barrett] and others.

The problem is the jumping into existentialism is like 'jumping from the frying pan into the fire'.
Whilst existentialism is more rational than the rigid theological doctrines of theism, in generally and in most cases it does not by itself provide the real psychological security that theology does. What it will do or did to you as you have stated is it shattered the "I" and leave all its broken pieces suspended in mid-air and ungrounded.
Note the exception of Kierkegaard who shifted into existentialism but he kept his theistic beliefs and thus maintain the necessary real psychological security to deal with the real inherent existential angst.
Note Sartre who had to eventually clung back to theism.

On your part you abandon theism and clung to secular existentialism thus giving up the essential REAL psychological security and thus digging a deeper and deeper hole and being trapped therein.

Existentialism which directs onto the subject [rather than external objects or god] is filled with all sorts of flimsy intellectual contraptions [Existence precedes essence,
The Absurd & Meaningless, Facticity Authenticity The Other and the Look
Angst and dread, Despair, etc.] that do not provide a strong enough real psychological security to deal with the very desperate inherent real existential angst.

When you cling to the above ideas, you lack the right knowing and worst I don't see any 'doing' on your part. Question: What are doing to secure the anchor to deal with the inherent and unavoidable turbulences in life? Look like you are not doing anything but merely intellectualizing the ideas.

As least with theism [irrational and whatever] the belief [unreal] ensures real psychological security to deal with the real desperate existential crisis and angst.

With existentialism of your kind you may acquire some truth that the focus must be on the subject and self, but you deliberately don't want to acquire the relevant knowledge of the self or "I" as I had proposed nor cultivate the necessary wisdom and equanimity in doing the necessary practicals [to rewire the brain with the right circuitry].

You keep accusing me of being stuck to intellectual contraptions. Nah it is not 'contraptions', but in a forum the only activity has to intellectual, what else? But I am intellectualizing on the right knowledge not contraptions.
Outside the forum I am doing the right practice [over many many years] to cultivate equanimity and practical wisdom to modulate the inherent and inevitable unavoidable existential angst. What right practices have you done?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:04 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
You function as if what you are doing it better. That is the implicit message in your interactions. Is it better if the message is not stated? Does that make it less real? Does not saying it directly, that your non-objectivism would make things better and more rational on earth, mean that you are not embodying it? No.


What on earth are you talking about here?

What I have come to embody [in the is/ought world] is a fractured and fragmented "I". And on this thread that revolves around my speculation that in a No God world there does not appear to be a font/foundation that mere mortals can turn to in order to make a philosophical distinction between right and wrong, good and evil.

All I do here is invite those who do embody one or another God world narrative to explore the relationship between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it.

And I recognize that my own value judgments are basically existential contraptions [political prejudices] rooted in dasein.

How are yours not?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Couples have a millions ways to let the other person know they are a bad person or morally off on an issue, without openly saying it. This is often more effective.


So what? What counts [from my perspective] is the extent to which any particular individual is able to demonstrate that his or her own value judgments reflect the optimal or the only rational understanding of human virtue.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The claim here is that you have moved from embodying objectivism to now embodying non-objectivism - with provisos for being a fallible person. But in fact it is ssytemic.


All we can do here is to bring this assertion down to earth --- by exploring a particular context. Is there a "systemic" fallibility that ethicists are able to discern? And then encompass in an argument intertwined in a description/assessment of a particular context?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:The overwhelming message here is that objectivists are worse than you morally.


I don't agree. But clearly you know me better than I know myself. So, by all means, convince me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 31, 2018 7:07 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
As I had stated many times to optimize living one has to complement the 'knowing' [intellectual knowledge] with the 'doing' [the practical] and thus they Middle-Way, i.e. the way of Wisdom. 'Doing' is the most critical whilst must be supported by the 'knowing.'


What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In a No God world.

Note to others:

I don't read all of his posts. Has he attempted to demonstrate this to you on another thread? All I want to do here is to bring these assessments down to earth.

Think about it: How is it even possible for one mere mortal to "gather all of the necessary knowledge" when any particular one of us only has access to a tiny sliver of all the exchanges [experiences/information/knowledge] that our species has disseminated amongst and between ourselves over the centuries.

Then think about this:

There may well be be any number of key insights here that we are completely oblivious to. As this pertains to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

Right?

Prismatic567 wrote:I had stated ALL humans are infected with desperate existential psychology that generate existential angst.
One of the most effective solution to the existential angst is theism, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved and feel secured. As you had mentioned you were once clinging to this 'straw' in your life.
Whilst theism provides REAL psychological security, it is very flimsy like clinging to straws in the middle of the deep ocean. Theism supporting knowledge and practices are very faith-based, irrational and insecure thus will raise doubts in those with rising intellect and rationality BUT the fact is it works [with limited conditions].


Here you don't grasp the manner in which I surmise that, psychologically, you too are merely concocting [in a world of words] the secular rendition of God and theism. A frame of mind into which you can subsume "I". Why? In order to sustain "in your head" the comfort and consolation embodied in championing one or another TOE. Indeed, at ILP alone there have been dozens of them proposed over the years. They clearly cannot all be right but down to the individual objectivist, they are all argued to be the one true assessment of the human condition.

Still, as with most of the other secular [humanist] narratives, when you die that's it. No immortality, no salvation, no divine justice.

But at least you can take pride in having both the Intestinal fortitude and the intellectual integrity of encompassing All There Is -- as it really, really is -- in a No God world.

And folks like me are deemed "weak" because we won't/don't display the same qualities. We are still groping for a way up out of an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

You, on the other hand, have figured out how this all works. You understand God and religion [and why folks embrace them] wholly, fully, definitively. Not only that but "in your head" you have concocted the intellectual scaffolding from which mere mortals can derive absolute moral agendas in a No God world. As in fact they finally will "in the future".

Prismatic567 wrote:The problem is the jumping into existentialism is like 'jumping from the frying pan into the fire'.
Whilst existentialism is more rational than the rigid theological doctrines of theism, in generally and in most cases it does not by itself provide the real psychological security that theology does. What it will do or did to you as you have stated is it shattered the "I" and leave all its broken pieces suspended in mid-air and ungrounded.
Note the exception of Kierkegaard who shifted into existentialism but he kept his theistic beliefs and thus maintain the necessary real psychological security to deal with the real inherent existential angst.
Note Sartre who had to eventually clung back to theism.

Existentialism which directs onto the subject [rather than external objects or god] is filled with all sorts of flimsy intellectual contraptions [Existence precedes essence,
The Absurd & Meaningless, Facticity Authenticity The Other and the Look
Angst and dread, Despair, etc.] that do not provide a strong enough real psychological security to deal with the very desperate inherent real existential angst.

When you cling to the above ideas, you lack the right knowing and worst I don't see any 'doing' on your part. Question: What are doing to secure the anchor to deal with the inherent and unavoidable turbulences in life? Look like you are not doing anything but merely intellectualizing the ideas.

As least with theism [irrational and whatever] the belief [unreal] ensures real psychological security to deal with the real desperate existential crisis and angst.


Here [of course] you speak of existentialism in an intellectual contraption. A "general description" of the philosophy. Okay, so let's bring it down to Earth by embedding its components [as we understand them] in the is/ought world. In a context most here will likely to be familiar with.

In other words, "what in the world" are you talking about here:

Prismatic567 wrote:With existentialism of your kind you may acquire some truth that the focus must be on the subject and self, but you deliberately don't want to acquire the relevant knowledge of the self or "I" as I had proposed nor cultivate the necessary wisdom and equanimity in doing the necessary practicals [to rewire the brain with the right circuitry].


From my frame of mind, this sort of thing smacks of pedanty. Almost as though you are imagining others reading it and marveling at how "deep" it sounds. How intellectual. But what on earth does it have to do with any actual conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods pertaining to a particular "human all too human" context?

Here you demur:

Prismatic567 wrote:You keep accusing me of being stuck to intellectual contraptions. Nah it is not 'contraptions', but in a forum the only activity has to intellectual, what else? But I am intellectualizing on the right knowledge not contraptions.
Outside the forum I am doing the right practice [over many many years] to cultivate equanimity and practical wisdom to modulate the inherent and inevitable unavoidable existential angst. What right practices have you done?


What "right practices"? In what context?

Then back again to this: How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?

Hell, you don't even follow "politics". In other words, so as to discern just how many conflicting goods still abound thousands of years after the pre-Socratics first broached [as philosophers] these interactions in the is/ought world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:01 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
As I had stated many times to optimize living one has to complement the 'knowing' [intellectual knowledge] with the 'doing' [the practical] and thus they Middle-Way, i.e. the way of Wisdom. 'Doing' is the most critical whilst must be supported by the 'knowing.'


What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In this contexts of complementing the knowing with the doing, I was referring the necessary exercises one has to do to deal with conflicts.
Personally I have been striving to cultivate a state of equanimity & other qualities and doing the necessary practices for MANY years to achieve reasonable progress to deal with conflicting goods whatever they are. I will not claim I have attained a 90/100 state of equanimity, etc. but at least I have ventured into it and been continually improving over the MANY years I have been into it.

I am not very sure what example of conflicting goods you want me to present.
Life is filled with all sorts of dilemma and the mother of all dilemma is the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. I have tackle this existing inherent unavoidable existential dilemma via theism to non-theism with a state of equanimity and whatever is necessary.

I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer's standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.

So how can I demonstrate to you unless you know me personally and have seen what I have done physically or mentally.
The only way you can know what I know is from what I have posted here which is restricted to knowledge [knowing] but not the practical [doing].

But in your case, using the intention to be a skillful tennis player, you have learned (brainwashed) with ineffective knowledge on tennis and have not bothered to practice to develop your skills.


Prismatic567 wrote:You keep accusing me of being stuck to intellectual contraptions. Nah it is not 'contraptions', but in a forum the only activity has to intellectual, what else? But I am intellectualizing on the right knowledge not contraptions.
Outside the forum I am doing the right practice [over many many years] to cultivate equanimity and practical wisdom to modulate the inherent and inevitable unavoidable existential angst. What right practices have you done?


What "right practices"? In what context?

Then back again to this: How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?

Hell, you don't even follow "politics". In other words, so as to discern just how many conflicting goods still abound thousands of years after the pre-Socratics first broached [as philosophers] these interactions in the is/ought world.
There are many perspectives to "right practices."
Your problem is you don't even have the concept of "right practices" within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed "right practices" [non-intellectualizing].

In contrast, Buddhism is also involves in existentialism in its own way, note;

Existential philosophy is a Western idea, originating in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Buddhism is much older, said to have originated in the fifth century B.C.E. Despite their disparate origins and development, there are several striking similarities.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... s-buddhism


Whilst Buddhism [existential] has tons of practices with deal with the real problems faced by the individual, Continental existentialists do not come up with actual practices [rewiring the brain] to deal with the existential issues.

I do follow 'politics' intellectually and analyze it philosophically but I don't practice politics [not a member of any political party nor a fan of any political ideology].

As for conflicting goods I do not believe fire-fighting is effective, thus what I have done is to analyze the root cause of the mother of all conflicting goods, i.e. the existential crisis and apply the generic solution to all other conflicting goods or evil that naturally arise within my circumstances.

    You are like living in a place surrounded by water and do not know how to swim but has a terrible fear of water.
    Because you are surrounded by water, you have been advised to learn how to swim to be on the safe side just in case.
    But unfortunately you have been exposed to superficial theories of swimming and has no interest [out of fear] and developed great resistance to get into the water to practice swimming.

The above is an analogy of the dilemma and catch-22 you are in.
You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.

I believe I have talked enough, it is up to you to gather more knowledge and get into the 'water' and act [do the doing].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:46 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In this contexts of complementing the knowing with the doing, I was referring the necessary exercises one has to do to deal with conflicts.
Personally I have been striving to cultivate a state of equanimity & other qualities and doing the necessary practices for MANY years to achieve reasonable progress to deal with conflicting goods whatever they are. I will not claim I have attained a 90/100 state of equanimity, etc. but at least I have ventured into it and been continually improving over the MANY years I have been into it.

I am not very sure what example of conflicting goods you want me to present.
Life is filled with all sorts of dilemma and the mother of all dilemma is the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. I have tackle this existing inherent unavoidable existential dilemma via theism to non-theism with a state of equanimity and whatever is necessary.


This thread revolves around the moral narratives of those who embrace one or another God.

You of course don't.

For you "progressive" behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.

Yet you are telling us that in the course of livng your life from day to day over the years, you are unable to recall a specific context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with anothers.

A context in which you are able to flesh out/illustrate the points that you are making scholastically above.

As I was once forced to with respect to John and Mary and abortion. A fundamental context in my own life because, in conjunction with William Barrett's "rival goods", my own embodiment of objectivism began to crumble.

I'm simply trying to grasp how your ideas might work given a particular context. If not one of your own then one that we might all be familiar with in following any number of conflicted goods "in the news".

Not in other words something like this:

Prismatic567 wrote: I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer's standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.


Here the relationship between knowing and doing revolves largely around the either/or world. The results are clearly calcuable in that you either do or do not become a great tennis player.

But, again, shift the discussion from that to the arguments [pro and con] about parents who take their kids at a very early age and try to shape and mold them into great tennis players. The controversy surrounding the "sports parent". 24/7 some kids are made to live and breathe tennis.

Or some other sport.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? What would constitute a "progressive" parent in this particlar context?

The sort of controversy that swirls around things like this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-oas ... 50790.html

And yet everytime I try to bring these things down into the realm of day to day human interactions in conflict...

How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?


You basically respond like this...

Prismatic567 wrote: There are many perspectives to "right practices."
Your problem is you don't even have the concept of "right practices" within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed "right practices" [non-intellectualizing].


All I can do then is to point out just how far removed we are from forging this exchange into a substantive discussion of conflicting goods in a No God world.

Then this:

Prismatic567 wrote: You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.


Or:

You do not have a dilemma because you have managed to think yourself into believing that you have exhausted all of the necessary knowledge and views. And in the course of living your life from day to day you are wholly in sync with that.

And this brings you comfort and consolation. It brings you equanimity. And some day down the road when everyone else shares your knowledge and views, they too will all be doing the same things.

And, who knows, it may even be possible that you will actually be around to see this happen.

How confident are you of this?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:36 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In this contexts of complementing the knowing with the doing, I was referring the necessary exercises one has to do to deal with conflicts.
Personally I have been striving to cultivate a state of equanimity & other qualities and doing the necessary practices for MANY years to achieve reasonable progress to deal with conflicting goods whatever they are. I will not claim I have attained a 90/100 state of equanimity, etc. but at least I have ventured into it and been continually improving over the MANY years I have been into it.

I am not very sure what example of conflicting goods you want me to present.
Life is filled with all sorts of dilemma and the mother of all dilemma is the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. I have tackle this existing inherent unavoidable existential dilemma via theism to non-theism with a state of equanimity and whatever is necessary.


This thread revolves around the moral narratives of those who embrace one or another God.

You of course don't.
Normally after >50 pages the theme gets lost and sway into other things. Since what we are into is related to existentialism, it is possible to reconcile this to the OP?

For you "progressive" behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.
Nope! my emphasis is not solely on the rational.
My principle is complementarity, i.e. the rational must be complemented by the empirical, i.e. experiences by the subject toward continuous improvement based on the system approach.
Note the Yin-Yang where the opposites must embrace each other spirally.

I have stated one must be rational [using reason and intellect] to establish the knowing but at the same time one must act [doing] on what is known and reflect on the experiences within a Framework and System with a drive for continuous improvement in all aspects of life.

Yet you are telling us that in the course of livng your life from day to day over the years, you are unable to recall a specific context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with anothers.

A context in which you are able to flesh out/illustrate the points that you are making scholastically above.

As I was once forced to with respect to John and Mary and abortion. A fundamental context in my own life because, in conjunction with William Barrett's "rival goods", my own embodiment of objectivism began to crumble.

I'm simply trying to grasp how your ideas might work given a particular context. If not one of your own then one that we might all be familiar with in following any number of conflicted goods "in the news".
Being human I am definitely exposed to all sorts of dilemma, including those of conflicting goods [Barrett's 'rival goods'].

But the philosophy I had adopted treat these naturally inevitable and unavoidable dilemmas like water droplets on a lotus leaf. I experience these dilemma but they don't stick around for me to ruminate on them like you do.
That is why I am not able to narrate any significant dilemma I have experienced in life that is traumatic {PTSD} enough for me to recall easily.

That is why I always fall back to the inherent principle of 'learning how to fish' i.e. doing and a generic do-it-yourself to tackle any life problems.

Barrett introduced the concept of 'rival goods' in his book, The Irrational Man'.

William Barrett wrote:For the choice in such human situations is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the ultimate outcome and even—or most of all—our own motives are unclear to us.

The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rule that will apply, if only it will save them from the task of choosing themselves.

Unfortunately, in a good many cases there is no such universal 167 rule or recipe available, and the individual can do nothing but muddle through on his own and decide for himself.

Life seems to have intended it this way, for no moral blueprint has ever been drawn up that covers all the situations for us beforehand so that we can be absolutely certain under which rule the situation comes. Such is the concreteness of existence that a situation may come under several rules at once, forcing us to choose outside any rule, and from inside ourselves.

The most exhaustive ethical blueprint ever drawn up is the system of moral theology of the Catholic Church; and yet the Church has to supplement this by casuistry and the confessional. -168


As you will note from the above, religions [Christianity in this case] has at least some crude rickety system [based on illusion and impossibilities but it works] to deal with the dilemma of 'rival goods.'
The point is when existentialism explains away flimsy-theistic-religions into nothingness, meaningless and absurdities, it does not provide an alternative 'crutch' for the terrified and panicky newly converted believers of existentialism to cling on.

The above is your existing dilemma, i.e. in a limbo.
To resolve the dilemma I suggested a Framework and System of 'knowing and doing' as a generic technique to deal with the inherent dilemma.
What I had proposed is a generic [how to fish] technique re how to resolve dilemmas in life and not addressing any specific dilemma [feeding one fishes on a daily basis].

Once the person has cultivated the necessary state and skills to deal with whatever dilemmas, the dilemmas [including the worst] will be like continuous water [even if polluted] falling on and off lotus leaves.

Image

Not in other words something like this:

Prismatic567 wrote: I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer's standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.


Here the relationship between knowing and doing revolves largely around the either/or world. The results are clearly calculable in that you either do or do not become a great tennis player.

But, again, shift the discussion from that to the arguments [pro and con] about parents who take their kids at a very early age and try to shape and mold them into great tennis players. The controversy surrounding the "sports parent". 24/7 some kids are made to live and breathe tennis.

Or some other sport.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? What would constitute a "progressive" parent in this particlar context?

The sort of controversy that swirls around things like this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-oas ... 50790.html

And yet everytime I try to bring these things down into the realm of day to day human interactions in conflict...
My example is for a person who has a strong drive and personal interest in playing tennis to the highest level.
In this case you are shifting the goalpost of the discussion or changing the subject matter from the person who is personally interested in learning, to the parents.

But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.

The ultimate point is still about 'knowing' and 'doing'.


How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?


You basically respond like this...

Prismatic567 wrote: There are many perspectives to "right practices."
Your problem is you don't even have the concept of "right practices" within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed "right practices" [non-intellectualizing].


All I can do then is to point out just how far removed we are from forging this exchange into a substantive discussion of conflicting goods in a No God world.

Then this:

Prismatic567 wrote: You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.


Or:

You do not have a dilemma because you have managed to think yourself into believing that you have exhausted all of the necessary knowledge and views. And in the course of living your life from day to day you are wholly in sync with that.

And this brings you comfort and consolation. It brings you equanimity. And some day down the road when everyone else shares your knowledge and views, they too will all be doing the same things.

And, who knows, it may even be possible that you will actually be around to see this happen.

How confident are you of this?
Note my focus is on 'how to fish' while you want me to find the next fish to you, then presumably I have to do it on a daily basis.

It is not that I think I don't have a dilemma.
Based on the right efforts I have put in over many years, I have managed to develop the necessary mental state to modulate 'rival goods' spontaneously without having to cry and ruminate over it.

As for the majority, I won't be around to see the average person having the average state to deal with the existential dilemma effectively. However, given the progressing trend, I am optimistic it will happen, perhaps in >75 >100 years from now. What we can do is discuss the issue at present.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:21 pm

The idea/ideal of God is based on this projection of man his increasing and always incomplete knowledge and understanding of self.
Gods change to accommodate increasing human self-awareness.
Man projects into the unknown what he knows.
He sees himself everywhere.


Yes, a fairly standard articulation of the faithful. They project into God all that they would be unable to fully comprehend about themselves in a No God world.

In other words, if God did not exist, He would have to be invented.

On the other hand, there are those who, having yanked God up and out of our lives, come to insist that God is not even necessary in order that mere mortals acquire a complete "knowledge and understanding of self".

Ever and always their own. And then the irony here is completely lost on them.

God is gone, but not our capacity to differentiate right from wrong behaviors.

As "on of us" or "one of them".

Naturally it seems.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:09 am

iambiguous wrote:
The idea/ideal of God is based on this projection of man his increasing and always incomplete knowledge and understanding of self.
Gods change to accommodate increasing human self-awareness.
Man projects into the unknown what he knows.
He sees himself everywhere.


Yes, a fairly standard articulation of the faithful. They project into God all that they would be unable to fully comprehend about themselves in a No God world.

In other words, if God did not exist, He would have to be invented.

On the other hand, there are those who, having yanked God up and out of our lives, come to insist that God is not even necessary in order that mere mortals acquire a complete "knowledge and understanding of self".

Ever and always their own. And then the irony here is completely lost on them.

God is gone, but not our capacity to differentiate right from wrong behaviors.

As "on of us" or "one of them".

Naturally it seems.

But it doesn't matter. If there is no way to determine right or wrong, good or evil, discussions of morals do not matter, and cannot be judged bad or problematic. Or, at least, you have no way to know if being objectivist is good or bad, if having opposing objectivisms is good or bad. You have no idea if your own repeated meta-ethical position is good or bad,does harm or good. There is nothing to complain about since for all you know it may be great that there are objectivists, even if their epistemology sucks. Perhaps the only harm being done is by nihilists. Who knows? we have no criteria to evaluate this
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:22 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
For you "progressive" behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.


Nope! my emphasis is not solely on the rational.
My principle is complementarity, i.e. the rational must be complemented by the empirical, i.e. experiences by the subject toward continuous improvement based on the system approach.
Note the Yin-Yang where the opposites must embrace each other spirally.

I have stated one must be rational [using reason and intellect] to establish the knowing but at the same time one must act [doing] on what is known and reflect on the experiences within a Framework and System with a drive for continuous improvement in all aspects of life.


All I can do here is to patiently explain to you [and to others like you] that until this sort of "general description" is intertwined in a context most will be familiar with, I have no clear idea at all of what you are trying to convey here regarding conflicting goods.

In other words, from my point of view you have not really explained [substantively] much at all

Prismatic567 wrote: Being human I am definitely exposed to all sorts of dilemma, including those of conflicting goods [Barrett's 'rival goods'].

But the philosophy I had adopted treat these naturally inevitable and unavoidable dilemmas like water droplets on a lotus leaf. I experience these dilemma but they don't stick around for me to ruminate on them like you do.


This basically revolves around two things:

1] the extent to which your day to day interactions with others precipitates conflicts that revolve around value judgments that precipitate out of sync behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

2] the extent to which you can then subsume these interactions in an intellectual contraption that allows you to believe that there are in fact actual "progressive" behaviors to be embodied.

And that, eventually, in the future, everyone will understand this. And, no doubt, they will be behaviors that you are already privy to here and now "in your head".

Prismatic567 wrote: The point is when existentialism explains away flimsy-theistic-religions into nothingness, meaningless and absurdities, it does not provide an alternative 'crutch' for the terrified and panicky newly converted believers of existentialism to cling on.


That's your rendition of existentialism. Mine suggest not that meaning revolves around nothingness...around absurdities...but that meaning [in the is/ought world] is embedded historically, culturally and experientially in particular contexts construed from partiuclar points of view embedded in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But here you scramble straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Prismatic567 wrote: The above is your existing dilemma, i.e. in a limbo.
To resolve the dilemma I suggested a Framework and System of 'knowing and doing' as a generic technique to deal with the inherent dilemma.
What I had proposed is a generic [how to fish] technique re how to resolve dilemmas in life and not addressing any specific dilemma [feeding one fishes on a daily basis].

Once the person has cultivated the necessary state and skills to deal with whatever dilemmas, the dilemmas [including the worst] will be like continuous water [even if polluted] falling on and off lotus leaves.


What on earth am I to make of this?

Prismatic567 wrote: But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.


Again, you are actually arguing that if the progressive parents have sufficient knowledge and are able to impart this knowledge skillfully to their children, they will then discern precisely where that line is drawn between too much tennis and too little tennis.

And what might that entail?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
The idea/ideal of God is based on this projection of man his increasing and always incomplete knowledge and understanding of self.
Gods change to accommodate increasing human self-awareness.
Man projects into the unknown what he knows.
He sees himself everywhere.


Yes, a fairly standard articulation of the faithful. They project into God all that they would be unable to fully comprehend about themselves in a No God world.

In other words, if God did not exist, He would have to be invented.

On the other hand, there are those who, having yanked God up and out of our lives, come to insist that God is not even necessary in order that mere mortals acquire a complete "knowledge and understanding of self".

Ever and always their own. And then the irony here is completely lost on them.

God is gone, but not our capacity to differentiate right from wrong behaviors.

As "on of us" or "one of them".

Naturally it seems.

But it doesn't matter. If there is no way to determine right or wrong, good or evil, discussions of morals do not matter, and cannot be judged bad or problematic. Or, at least, you have no way to know if being objectivist is good or bad, if having opposing objectivisms is good or bad. You have no idea if your own repeated meta-ethical position is good or bad,does harm or good. There is nothing to complain about since for all you know it may be great that there are objectivists, even if their epistemology sucks. Perhaps the only harm being done is by nihilists. Who knows? we have no criteria to evaluate this


Quite true. On the other hand, I have always argued here that my own contribution to the discussion is no less an existential contraption.

This thread was created in order to encourage religious folks to connect the dots between the beahviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.

Clearly, with an extant God [often said to be omniscient and omnipotent], there is unequivocally a deontological font available in order to know the difference between right and wrong behaviors.

But what of the No God world?

What is the font -- the criterion -- then?

Given that mere mortals are anything but omniscient and omnipotent.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:04 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
For you "progressive" behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.


Nope! my emphasis is not solely on the rational.
My principle is complementarity, i.e. the rational must be complemented by the empirical, i.e. experiences by the subject toward continuous improvement based on the system approach.
Note the Yin-Yang where the opposites must embrace each other spirally.

I have stated one must be rational [using reason and intellect] to establish the knowing but at the same time one must act [doing] on what is known and reflect on the experiences within a Framework and System with a drive for continuous improvement in all aspects of life.


All I can do here is to patiently explain to you [and to others like you] that until this sort of "general description" is intertwined in a context most will be familiar with, I have no clear idea at all of what you are trying to convey here regarding conflicting goods.

In other words, from my point of view you have not really explained [substantively] much at all
From what I have gathered so far is you too defensive to learn anything.
Note I am not pushing and insisting on you to learn or accept ALL of MY views.

What I had proposed is very positive and generic like, learn how to fish, increase your level of philosophical education, see the pros and cons of various issues and other self-improvement methods.
It is very unfortunate you have very rigid and non-pliable neurons in the learning part of your brain.

I sense your thinking is very perverted from the norm and that is why it is giving you so much problems, dilemma and conundrums.

Prismatic567 wrote: Being human I am definitely exposed to all sorts of dilemma, including those of conflicting goods [Barrett's 'rival goods'].

But the philosophy I had adopted treat these naturally inevitable and unavoidable dilemmas like water droplets on a lotus leaf. I experience these dilemma but they don't stick around for me to ruminate on them like you do.


This basically revolves around two things:

1] the extent to which your day to day interactions with others
precipitates conflicts that revolve around value judgments that
precipitate out of sync behaviors that
precipitate actual consequences.
I am not too sure what this is leading to. Perhaps you can give an example.

Whatever the problems with the above, I would propose we 'learn how to fish' as a generic approach to deal with the issues.

2] the extent to which you can then subsume these interactions in an intellectual contraption that allows you to believe that there are in fact actual "progressive" behaviors to be embodied.

And that, eventually, in the future, everyone will understand this. And, no doubt, they will be behaviors that you are already privy to here and now "in your head".
Note sure 'understand what'.

I mentioned the generic solution to life's problem to tackle whatever the problem, i.e.
    1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
    2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
    3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
    4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

If we let the suffering or problem be X, then we can resolve whatever the problem through the above model.

Don't be doubtful because it has only 4 lines.
To be adept in the above one need years of knowledge and practices plus continuing attention on it to sustain its effectiveness.

Prismatic567 wrote: The point is when existentialism explains away flimsy-theistic-religions into nothingness, meaningless and absurdities, it does not provide an alternative 'crutch' for the terrified and panicky newly converted believers of existentialism to cling on.


That's your rendition of existentialism. Mine suggest not that meaning revolves around nothingness...around absurdities...but that meaning [in the is/ought world] is embedded historically, culturally and experientially in particular contexts construed from partiuclar points of view embedded in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But here you scramble straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

Prismatic567 wrote: The above is your existing dilemma, i.e. in a limbo.
To resolve the dilemma I suggested a Framework and System of 'knowing and doing' as a generic technique to deal with the inherent dilemma.
What I had proposed is a generic [how to fish] technique re how to resolve dilemmas in life and not addressing any specific dilemma [feeding one fishes on a daily basis].

Once the person has cultivated the necessary state and skills to deal with whatever dilemmas, the dilemmas [including the worst] will be like continuous water [even if polluted] falling on and off lotus leaves.


What on earth am I to make of this?
Abstraction??
This is your problem that prevent you from any breakthrough.
As I had stated many times, all knowledge has to start with abstraction from past experiences to progress.
If you dismiss abstraction as 'clouds' then you are into trouble.

As stated there is no other way in such a discussion except to start with abstractions, i.e. hypothesis, thesis and various knowledge on the intellectual and theoretical basis.

What on earth am I to make of this?
The onus is on you to look into the Why, What, How, When, Who, and the likes towards knowing and doing.

Note the views of 'existentialism' is not mine but that is the general theme.
I believe your invention and understanding of your 'dasein' is wrong and out of alignment with the original. This is why you are having so much problems with it.

But the general view with existentialism is it does not provide existentialists with as set of practices to get them out of the problems of life it exposes. Agree?

Prismatic567 wrote: But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.


Again, you are actually arguing that if the progressive parents have sufficient knowledge and are able to impart this knowledge skillfully to their children, they will then discern precisely where that line is drawn between too much tennis and too little tennis.

And what might that entail?
Note we can deduce from empirical observations and matching with average expectations of what good parenting entails.
As for tennis we can gather evidences [good and bad] from what all the top tennis players and other non-pros has done in their life. This is not difficult at all. Then we can abstract the general norms of what constitute good parenting in relation to playing tennis and other sports.

As for good parenting we can do the same from observations, setting expectations, etc.
We can abstract what are the norms relative to various conditions.
In addition we will note what are the extremes to be avoided and the risks involved.
Again we reduce the above to 'knowing' and 'doing' with a striving for continuous improvements.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
All I can do here is to patiently explain to you [and to others like you] that until this sort of "general description" is intertwined in a context most will be familiar with, I have no clear idea at all of what you are trying to convey here regarding conflicting goods.

In other words, from my point of view you have not really explained [substantively] much at all


From what I have gathered so far is you too defensive to learn anything.
Note I am not pushing and insisting on you to learn or accept ALL of MY views.


Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.

And you are either convinced that others can learn from you to embody rational/progressive behaviors regarding conflicting goods [in a No God world] or you are not.

But:

You will either bring all of this down to earth in order to substantiate your claims or you will not.

But you can't resist it:

Prismatic567 wrote: What I had proposed is very positive and generic like, learn how to fish, increase your level of philosophical education, see the pros and cons of various issues and other self-improvement methods.


You tell me: Is it even possible to be more abstract?

Yet even in discussing abstraction you fall back on more of it:

Prismatic567 wrote: Abstraction??
This is your problem that prevent you from any breakthrough.
As I had stated many times, all knowledge has to start with abstraction from past experiences to progress.
If you dismiss abstraction as 'clouds' then you are into trouble.


Prismatic567 wrote: It is very unfortunate you have very rigid and non-pliable neurons in the learning part of your brain.


Well, if this is true it smacks of determinism. And if determinism is applicable what does it really mean to hold me responsible for whatever I think, feel and do?

Prismatic567 wrote: I sense your thinking is very perverted from the norm and that is why it is giving you so much problems, dilemma and conundrums.


The norm? Subtantiate this please. A context. A set of conflicting goods.

This basically revolves around two things:

the extent to which your day to day interactions with others
precipitates conflicts that revolve around value judgments that
precipitate out of sync behaviors that
precipitate actual consequences.


Prismatic567 wrote: I am not too sure what this is leading to. Perhaps you can give an example.

Whatever the problems with the above, I would propose we 'learn how to fish' as a generic approach to deal with the issues.


Are you telling me you have never encountered others who objected to your behaviors because they violated their own understanding of right and wrong? What on earth then does it mean to "learn to fish" here? How was the dispute "dealt" with to the satisfaction of both of you?

Instead, your argument [to me] is that there is a progressive Middle-Way behavior out here and that in the future both of you will come to embody it if you wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

But only if this is "dealt" with first in an exchange of "general descriptions" of human interactions. You have this "thing" about "generic solutions to life's problems". But that doesn't surprise me at all.

For example this thing:

Prismatic567 wrote: 1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)


And then when I ask you to bring this down to earth in order to grapple with an actual suffering human being in an actual context, you don't see the point of that. Or you claim that [with me or with others] you already have done this.

I'm just not privy [yet] as to where and when.

Either that or we just have to agree to disagree regarding what that exchange entails.

Prismatic567 wrote: Note the views of 'existentialism' is not mine but that is the general theme.


Indeed, that is why folks like de Beauvoir wrote novels in order to situate the general themes out in a particular world that revolved largely around the actual existential lives of herself and those around her.

Even the mother of all Objectivists, Ayn Rand, made that attempt.

Prismatic567 wrote: But the general view with existentialism is it does not provide existentialists with as set of practices to get them out of the problems of life it exposes. Agree?


No, they suggested that those who insist that "essense precedes existence" [in the is/ought world] acted out of "bad faith", acted "inauthentically". Why? Because in order to embrace their doctrinaire, dogmatic and generally authoritarian moral/political prescriptions, they insisted that everyone else had to embrace the same set of practices that they did. In other words, the psychology of objectivism: one of us vs. one of them.

That you know what is true not what you know is true.

Prismatic567 wrote: But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.


Again, you are actually arguing that if the progressive parents have sufficient knowledge and are able to impart this knowledge skillfully to their children, they will then discern precisely where that line is drawn between too much tennis and too little tennis.

And what might that entail?


Prismatic567 wrote: Note we can deduce from empirical observations and matching with average expectations of what good parenting entails.
As for tennis we can gather evidences [good and bad] from what all the top tennis players and other non-pros has done in their life. This is not difficult at all. Then we can abstract the general norms of what constitute good parenting in relation to playing tennis and other sports.


Again, substantively, "what might that entail?" What particular behaviors would be in sync with a "progressive" frame of mind in regards to striking a Middle-Way balance [from day to day to day] between too much tennis and too little tennis?

What would all of the great tennis players agree upon here?

Though I suspect that you [much like me] don't really have a clue because you [much like me] have never been a parent faced [existentially] with that dilemma. You just know that if one thinks about it in the right way equanimity will prevail.

Theoretically as it were.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:34 am

iambiguous wrote:Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.
I want to repeat the above has nothing to do with 'objectivist', it is about dualism and related to Moral Dualism in this case.

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. - wiki


I do not believe it is possible for a God to exist as real.
I do not believe objective morality exist ontologically in the non-theistic No-God perspective.

However I believe we humanity can generate the idea of objective morality via the highest possible reason and work them together complementarily with relative morality. In this case it is not an either/or thing.

Note my concept of complementarity neutralize your dualistic either/on concept.

Whenever you encounter a dead-end either/or scenario look at it from the complementary perspective. This is the principle used in Taoism re Yin-Yang and elsewhere to generate optimality and rationality.
Note in Physics as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:03 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: I am not too sure what this is leading to. Perhaps you can give an example.
Whatever the problems with the above, I would propose we 'learn how to fish' as a generic approach to deal with the issues.


Are you telling me you have never encountered others who objected to your behaviors because they violated their own understanding of right and wrong? What on earth then does it mean to "learn to fish" here? How was the dispute "dealt" with to the satisfaction of both of you?

Instead, your argument [to me] is that there is a progressive Middle-Way behavior out here and that in the future both of you will come to embody it if you wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

But only if this is "dealt" with first in an exchange of "general descriptions" of human interactions. You have this "thing" about "generic solutions to life's problems". But that doesn't surprise me at all.

For example this thing:

Prismatic567 wrote: 1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)


And then when I ask you to bring this down to earth in order to grapple with an actual suffering human being in an actual context, you don't see the point of that. Or you claim that [with me or with others] you already have done this.

I'm just not privy [yet] as to where and when.

Either that or we just have to agree to disagree regarding what that exchange entails.
It is very common and normal for me to have disagreements with others.

Here is an example;
Note theists will not agree with my non-theistic views.
I believe there is a Middle-Way out of that chasm, i.e. the theists should learn 'how to fish' using the generic problem solving technique;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
like I do which is much more that the theist's mere belief based on faith.

Thus theists will have to execute [take real action on] right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The theist will have to take real action to understand the issue in the whole perspective to get the right view, i.e. on


There is no easy way out, to learn how to fish [beside the above] one will have to learn and research as much as possible and practice whatever is necessary.

If one do not want to learn, research and practice, then it is the end of discussion.

Example;
Generally*, the route to be well rounded in education, one has to go through certain basic phases of educational processes, e.g. attend grade/home school to a PhD program.
But if the person refuse to go through the educational phases, give all sorts of excuses, be defensive and prefer to do nothing about it, then that the end of the discussion on the topic of education.
* not taking into account the autodidactic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:33 pm

Here is an example;
Note theists will not agree with my non-theistic views.
I believe there is a Middle-Way out of that chasm, i.e. the theists should learn 'how to fish' using the generic problem solving technique;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
like I do which is much more that the theist's mere belief based on faith.

Thus theists will have to execute [take real action on] right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The theist will have to take real action to understand the issue in the whole perspective to get the right view, i.e. on

Why God is an Impossibility?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

the real solution is found in;
The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697


There is no easy way out, to learn how to fish [beside the above] one will have to learn and research as much as possible and practice whatever is necessary.
Do you notice what you say in your response?

You say that other people need to learn things. Other people need to know and do a bunch of "right" stuff. They don't know how to fish and they don't know the "right" things, but you do.

If only they knew what you know and if they did the things that you do, then they would also be as good as you.

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that other people might know how to fish, they might know what is "right" better than you.

The two links which you provided have had many responses. People have pointed out your errors and yet you simply deny legitimacy of what they have said. You bring up those threads as if they are proof of your claims when in fact, they show how poor your claims are.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10637
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:39 am

phyllo wrote:
Here is an example;
Note theists will not agree with my non-theistic views.
I believe there is a Middle-Way out of that chasm, i.e. the theists should learn 'how to fish' using the generic problem solving technique;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
like I do which is much more that the theist's mere belief based on faith.

Thus theists will have to execute [take real action on] right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The theist will have to take real action to understand the issue in the whole perspective to get the right view, i.e. on

Why God is an Impossibility?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

the real solution is found in;
The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697


There is no easy way out, to learn how to fish [beside the above] one will have to learn and research as much as possible and practice whatever is necessary.
Do you notice what you say in your response?

You say that other people need to learn things. Other people need to know and do a bunch of "right" stuff. They don't know how to fish and they don't know the "right" things, but you do.

If only they knew what you know and if they did the things that you do, then they would also be as good as you.
I am not expecting every one who knows what I know to be as good as myself. They could be better or lesser.

You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that other people might know how to fish, they might know what is "right" better than you.
It depends on the subject matter. I don't claim to be expert on everything but only in those areas I have expertise.
As far as my discussion with Iambiguous is concern, i.e. his dilemma related to existentialism and digging a hole so deep he cannot get out, I believe I am well equiped in knowledge and practices to address this specific problem.

The two links which you provided have had many responses. People have pointed out your errors and yet you simply deny legitimacy of what they have said. You bring up those threads as if they are proof of your claims when in fact, they show how poor your claims are.
Note this is a philosophy forum which by default is for people to present their views, the more the better.

In those two links, as far as I am concern I have countered all arguments against my views and there are no outstanding points for me to address and counter in the above two links. If there are outstanding points I will definitely want to address and I cannot leave them hanging and leaving my proposition in doubt.

I believe you have raised the same issues a few times and I have addressed them.
Why don't you highlight the outstanding points you think I have not addressed in those links, I will definitely appreciate that and will addressed them accordingly.
I am also hoping there will be new counter arguments from different perspectives other than the ones already presented.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:46 am

Why don't you highlight the outstanding points you think I have not addressed in those links, I will definitely appreciate that and will addressed them accordingly.
I'm not going to waste any more time on those threads.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10637
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:23 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
I do not believe it is possible for a God to exist as real.


Note to others:

He believes that he does not believe this. Others, however, believe that they do not believe that he what he believes he does not believe is what a virtuous man or woman ought to believe.

Then what?

Prismatic567 wrote:I do not believe objective morality exist ontologically in the non-theistic No-God perspective.

However I believe we humanity can generate the idea of objective morality via the highest possible reason and work them together complementarily with relative morality. In this case it is not an either/or thing.


What on earth does that mean? You won't tell us. Why? Because, in my view, you are just one more of Durant's "epistemologists".

Either that or it's a Yin-Yang thing.

Then this thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

So, what on earth does that have to do with the secular equivalent of choosing behaviors in a No God world as it relates to your fate after you are dead and gone?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:25 am

iambiguous wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
I do not believe it is possible for a God to exist as real.


Note to others:

He believes that he does not believe this. Others, however, believe that they do not believe that he what he believes he does not believe is what a virtuous man or woman ought to believe.

Then what?

Prismatic567 wrote:I do not believe objective morality exist ontologically in the non-theistic No-God perspective.

However I believe we humanity can generate the idea of objective morality via the highest possible reason and work them together complementarily with relative morality. In this case it is not an either/or thing.


What on earth does that mean? You won't tell us. Why? Because, in my view, you are just one more of Durant's "epistemologists".

Either that or it's a Yin-Yang thing.

Then this thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

So, what on earth does that have to do with the secular equivalent of choosing behaviors in a No God world as it relates to your fate after you are dead and gone?


You won't tell us.

As I had stated this is a separate topic which need to be discussed in a separate thread within the Philosophy of Morality.
I believed I have discussed parts of this in various posts but as usual your memory is failing you. e.g. [a quick search]
viewtopic.php?p=2629864#p2629864
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:18 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Iambiguous: Either that or it's a Yin-Yang thing.


As I had stated this is a separate topic which need to be discussed in a separate thread within the Philosophy of Morality.
I believed I have discussed parts of this in various posts but as usual your memory is failing you. e.g. [a quick search]
viewtopic.php?p=2629864#p2629864

He obviously remembered, he mentioned the Yin Yang thing above in this post you quote, then say his memory is failing him.

Here is the post you link to that you think explains something....

I understand the is-ought dilemma raised by Hume was resolved by Kant.
If one were to understand fully both Hume's views and Kant's solution then one would have at least 95% understanding and resolution of the issue.

One cannot expect an "is" to be an "ought" in moral terms.
What is critical is the "is" and "ought" must interact in complementarity without dissolving into each other.

Image
Let the white be "is" and black be "ought" then let them jive in a rock and roll dance.
First off, to say that something is resolved by Kant is a mere appeal to authority. It doesn't demonstrate anything. Kant could have been wrong, for example, which many modern philosophers believe. Your 'explanation' in the bolded portion is as mystical as anything from, say, St. Teresa.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:14 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Iambiguous: Either that or it's a Yin-Yang thing.


As I had stated this is a separate topic which need to be discussed in a separate thread within the Philosophy of Morality.
I believed I have discussed parts of this in various posts but as usual your memory is failing you. e.g. [a quick search]
viewtopic.php?p=2629864#p2629864

He obviously remembered, he mentioned the Yin Yang thing above in this post you quote, then say his memory is failing him.

Here is the post you link to that you think explains something....

I understand the is-ought dilemma raised by Hume was resolved by Kant.
If one were to understand fully both Hume's views and Kant's solution then one would have at least 95% understanding and resolution of the issue.

One cannot expect an "is" to be an "ought" in moral terms.
What is critical is the "is" and "ought" must interact in complementarity without dissolving into each other.

Image
Let the white be "is" and black be "ought" then let them jive in a rock and roll dance.
First off, to say that something is resolved by Kant is a mere appeal to authority. It doesn't demonstrate anything. Kant could have been wrong, for example, which many modern philosophers believe. Your 'explanation' in the bolded portion is as mystical as anything from, say, St. Teresa.
I fully understand what I stated re Kant is merely a statement and ultimately my point must be justified.
This is not the place but I am fully prepared to justify my point where appropriate. Note I spent >3 years researching on Kant on a full time basis and I have a reasonable understanding of his philosophies.
It is not easy to understand Kant philosophy and the majority of philosophy do not understand Kant's philosophy fully. Even those who are Kantian and pro-Kant end up having different interpretations of Kant's philosophy, e.g. on the concept of the thing-in-itself aka noumenon.

The majority of philosophers understand Kant's morality as deontological, but this is totally wrong.
Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.
...
-wiki
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:03 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.
I want to repeat the above has nothing to do with 'objectivist', it is about dualism and related to Moral Dualism in this case.


That's precisely why I want to bring all of this down to a particular context. I'm confused regarding your point here. Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying "progressive Middle-Way" behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

In other words, what on earth does this...

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. - wiki

...have to do with the conflicting goods embedded [here and now] in an issue like abortion?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24726
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1mpious