Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 25, 2016, 07:55:33 AM
-
I think it is high time to go back to the question that propelled us to Religionethics in the first place......................What is IT......ALL about?
Of course I realise that not all may have been called to that question .........that there are gate keepers who think we should not bother with such a question and gate it.
And others who think there is no It or no all that the world is just pieces with no unification possible.
What then is people's position on the question....."what is it all about"?
-
It might be to change the question to 'what am I all about?' i.e Know thyself.
-
What then is people's position on the question....."what is it all about"?
What's yours?
-
What's yours?
Goddidit.................but what he did and how he did it is for the finding out.
Any chance of you getting on the stage of contributing or are you feeling a little funny?
-
Goddidit.................but what he did and how he did it is for the finding out.
Any chance of you getting on the stage of contributing or are you feeling a little funny?
Isn't Goddidit more of response to the question, why is there something rather than nothing?
Doesn't seem to make much sense in answer to a what's it all about type question.
-
At the risk of being chunsternated I'll enter my thoughts.
I think that what I am looking for, if we are talking about R&E (because the board does, I suspect, fulfil several different needs in some if not all posters) is the answer to the big 'why' and 'What' questions.
You know 'Why are we here?' 'What is our purpose?' 'Do we have a purpose?' (Oh look a Do question).
And Goddidit just doesn't cut it for me.
The reasons it doesn't cut it are many and varied, but the main one as far as I am concerned is that God is far too anthropomorphic for my liking. Ah but you'll say - that is the only way we can comprehend him.
I reject that - maybe at one time in our history. But not now when our knowledge has expanded so much in every single area you can name - I think the human race is able to understand many more things in the abstract than they once had the ability to do.
The human imagination is a powerful tool, and the sheer breadth and depth of it represented throughout all cultures; leads me to the conclusion that religions are just that; the human imagination trying to make sense of our existence. However to cling to the outmoded thoughts of religions created two thousand years ago shows a perversity in the face of facts that testifies to that other thing required for the enjoyment of literature, films, drama and that is suspension of disbelief. I am willing to do that for art - but for religion, which potentially has much more far-reaching consequences I am not prepared to do it.
-
the question....."what is it all about"?
Goddidit.
That's it? ::) Wow, deep and insightful as ever.
Any chance of you getting on the stage of contributing or are you feeling a little funny?
Well it's obvious that you got on stage - after it wore off!
-
That's it? ::) Wow, deep and insightful as ever.
No....there's the bit you editted out.
-
I think it is high time to go back to the question that propelled us to Religionethics in the first place......................What is IT......ALL about?
Of course I realise that not all may have been called to that question .........that there are gate keepers who think we should not bother with such a question and gate it.
And others who think there is no It or no all that the world is just pieces with no unification possible.
What then is people's position on the question....."what is it all about"?
Thermodynamics.
Universe goes bang, gravity induces islands of complexity, life is the process that breaks down complex sugars in keeping with the overall universal tendency to heat death.
Not a very anthropocentric view, granted, but that is the sort of conclusion that looms when we stop thinking it is all about us.
-
At the risk of being chunsternated I'll enter my thoughts.
I think that what I am looking for, if we are talking about R&E (because the board does, I suspect, fulfil several different needs in some if not all posters) is the answer to the big 'why' and 'What' questions.
You know 'Why are we here?' 'What is our purpose?' 'Do we have a purpose?' (Oh look a Do question).
And Goddidit just doesn't cut it for me.
The reasons it doesn't cut it are many and varied, but the main one as far as I am concerned is that God is far too anthropomorphic for my liking. Ah but you'll say - that is the only way we can comprehend him.
I reject that - maybe at one time in our history. But not now when our knowledge has expanded so much in every single area you can name - I think the human race is able to understand many more things in the abstract than they once had the ability to do.
The human imagination is a powerful tool, and the sheer breadth and depth of it represented throughout all cultures; leads me to the conclusion that religions are just that; the human imagination trying to make sense of our existence. However to cling to the outmoded thoughts of religions created two thousand years ago shows a perversity in the face of facts that testifies to that other thing required for the enjoyment of literature, films, drama and that is suspension of disbelief. I am willing to do that for art - but for religion, which potentially has much more far-reaching consequences I am not prepared to do it.
Now that's a post.
-
Isn't Goddidit more of response to the question, why is there something rather than nothing?
Doesn't seem to make much sense in answer to a what's it all about type question.
Yes, I kind of half put it in because it was Sebastian Toe and I like to shock him now and then.
I admit that a statement such as Goddidit as an answer to whats it all about? is in the same kind of category as nature did it.
My line of distinction though in this affair is not atheist vs Theist but those who think ''what's it all about'' to be a valid question and those who don't. Those who think there is an ''all'' or an ''it'' and those who don't and are ''non newtonian' on the question of the universe.
-
Thermodynamics.
Universe goes bang, gravity induces islands of complexity, life is the process that breaks down complex sugars in keeping with the overall universal tendency to heat death.
Not a very anthropocentric view, granted, but that is the sort of conclusion that looms when we stop thinking it is all about us.
As usual Torridon, the epitome of a ruthless reductionism.
I'd take my hat off to you if it hadn't already been reduced to something more ,,,,reduced.
-
As usual Torridon, the epitome of a ruthless reductionism.
I'd take my hat off to you if it hadn't already been reduced to something more ,,,,reduced.
I like to get to the bottom of things; everything else is just stamp collecting ;)
-
Dear Vlad,
I admit that a statement such as Goddidit as an answer to whats it all about? is in the same kind of category as nature did it.
God is nature, God is supernatural, but only if you think nature is super.
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Nature, the simple fact that it all works, mind blowing!! and as science advances the more mind blowing it becomes.
God did do it, the how? the why? I will leave that to the scientists.
Dear Torridon,
Why did the Universe go bang?
Dear Trent,
'What is our purpose?' 'Do we have a purpose?
Nice to see an atheist asking this question, "just is" is for me a cop out.
Gonnagle.
-
At the moment, I'm typing this, then I'm off to t'shops for some dinner. Is there supposed to be some 'it' or some 'all' which I should be worried about? It sounds too intellectual to me. I'm happy with the details of life.
-
At the moment, I'm typing this, then I'm off to t'shops for some dinner. Is there supposed to be some 'it' or some 'all' which I should be worried about? It sounds too intellectual to me. I'm happy with the details of life.
when I was younger, so much younger than today. I liked the big questions, lots of whys and hows, and who won the FA Cup in 1927, but I :'('m with wigginhall, as I age those things seem superfluous, a remnant of an arrogant youth, not really seeking knowledge but thinking I already knew it. Now the world has shrunk to the quotidian and seems so much more meaningful for its small absurdity.
-
when I was younger, so much younger than today. I liked the big questions, lots of whys and hows, and who won the FA Cup in 1927, but o'm with wigginhall, as I age those things seem superfluous, a remnant of an arrogant youth, not really seeking knowledge but thinking I already knew it. Now the world has shrunk to the quotidian and seems so much more meaningful for its small absurdity.
Very good point about thinking I already knew it. I've given up really. A good Zen story - a Western visitor to a monastery is brilliant at solving koans, but his teacher says, 'interesting, but not Zen'. Eventually, he gets it wrong, and his teacher says, yes, true Zen. As far as I can see, in my limited experience, he made two errors: thinking that there was a problem to be solved, and thinking that he'd found the solution. But human, all too human.
-
At the moment, I'm typing this, then I'm off to t'shops for some dinner. Is there supposed to be some 'it' or some 'all' which I should be worried about? It sounds too intellectual to me. I'm happy with the details of life.
Are you therefore sneering at those whom for whom getting the details of life isn't enough?
-
Very good point about thinking I already knew it. I've given up really. A good Zen story - a Western visitor to a monastery is brilliant at solving koans, but his teacher says, 'interesting, but not Zen'. Eventually, he gets it wrong, and his teacher says, yes, true Zen. As far as I can see, in my limited experience, he made two errors: thinking that there was a problem to be solved, and thinking that he'd found the solution. But human, all too human.
Is the word ''Zen'' being used shamanically here?
-
Very good point about thinking I already knew it. I've given up really. A good Zen story - a Western visitor to a monastery is brilliant at solving koans, but his teacher says, 'interesting, but not Zen'. Eventually, he gets it wrong, and his teacher says, yes, true Zen. As far as I can see, in my limited experience, he made two errors: thinking that there was a problem to be solved, and thinking that he'd found the solution. But human, all too human.
When I was about 15, a couple of friends and came up with with Suss Law (the pun dates this pretty precisely) which was you only have it sussed when you know you can't have it sussed. For a group of the acne brigade, I still don't think that it's that bad but it once again has that mythical 'it' appearing as does the thread title
-
When I was about 15, a couple of friends and came up with with Suss Law (the pun dates this pretty precisely) which was you only have it sussed when you know you can't have it sussed. For a group of the acne brigade, I still don't think that it's that bad but it once again has that mythical 'it' appearing as does the thread title
Yes, it's the 'it' that makes people miserable. Byron Katie has a ton of stuff about this, but even then, she has a kind of agenda.
-
Are you therefore sneering at those whom for whom getting the details of life isn't enough?
Are you therefore trolling?
-
The universe is a competition between Arrgleflotsam The Great and Hignu The Ocelot to see whether Arrgleflotsam can create the more black holes than Hignu can create species of beetles.
Hignu's losing atm, but Arrgleflotsam hasn't fully reckoned on his black holes collapsing into one another yet...
-
When I was about 15, a couple of friends and came up with with Suss Law (the pun dates this pretty precisely) which was you only have it sussed when you know you can't have it sussed. For a group of the acne brigade, I still don't think that it's that bad but it once again has that mythical 'it' appearing as does the thread title
When did you find that ''it'' was mythical rather than something you didn't want to bother about?
-
Are you therefore trolling?
Is that a serene Zen response?
-
Are you therefore sneering at those whom for whom getting the details of life isn't enough?
No. Because that would presume the details of life are an 'it'. They aren't. They are what wigginhall sees with no itness attached.
-
When did you find that ''it'' was mythical rather than something you didn't want to bother about?
when I stopped beating my wife. I suggest if you want to have a sensible discussion on a topic you don't make assumptions and then challenge people for being wrong if something is based on their non acceptance of those assumptions. Or to misrepresent what they have said to imply that they did accept those assumptions
-
No. Because that would presume the details of life are an 'it'. They aren't. They are what wigginhall sees with no itness attached.
I see itness in terms of connection, unification, logos and a few technical terms i couldnt spell.
How does methodology fit in with a non newtonian philosphy like your own?
-
when I stopped beating my wife. I suggest if you want to have a sensible discussion on a topic you don't make assumptions and then challenge people for being wrong if something is based on their non acceptance of those assumptions.
was the phrase 'mythical it' not yours then?
-
was the phrase 'mythical it' not yours then?
And yet your question implied that I had decided to avoid something that I knew existed. It is exactly a when did you stop beating your wife question. Stop with the dishonest tactics and engage.
-
I see itness in terms of connection, unification, logos and a few technical terms i couldnt spell.
How does methodology fit in with a non newtonian philosphy like your own?
I have no idea what your first sentence means
And as for your second, this is your old trope that people have coherent and consistent philosophies, which at least in my case I don't think I have.
-
And yet your question implied that I had decided to avoid something that I knew existed. It is exactly a when did you stop beating your wife question. Stop with the dishonest tactics and engage.
I'm sorry you see it like that. But IMHO you have tended to look down on those who ask the ''bigger questions'' rather than living what IMHO you see to be a more authentic existence which is living in the quotidian.
-
Agree with NS - coherence and consistency have gone for me. There is no 'worldview' anymore. Generalities appal.
-
I'm sorry you see it like that. But IMHO you have tended to look down on those who ask the ''bigger questions'' rather than living what IMHO you see to be a more authentic existence which is living in the quotidian.
And I'm sorry if I have given such an impression. I don't think that there is a superior here as that implies a big question. I'm not seeking to, nor do I understand how to, communicate that sort of 'better', 'more right', 'more authentic' or whatever. I can only try and cover how it looks to me.
-
Agree with NS - coherence and consistency have gone for me. There is no 'worldview' anymore. Generalities appal.
Then to you both...........I am therefore slightly puzzled as to why you would choose to be on a forum which could be described as 'worldview rich'. Is there not an an ever so slight possibility that in some sense you have either acquired resolution of something big and/or wish others to find this settlement in themselves?
-
Yes, I kind of half put it in because it was Sebastian Toe and I like to shock him now and then.
Don't fret Vlad. It hasn't happened yet but be assured I'll let you know the first time it does. ::)
-
Don't fret Vlad. It hasn't happened yet
Damn!
-
Then to you both...........I am therefore slightly puzzled as to why you would choose to be on a forum which could be described as 'worldview rich'. Is there not an an ever so slight possibility that in some sense you have either acquired resolution of something big and/or wish others to find this settlement in themselves?
What does 'acquired resolution of something big' mean to you? It' s not a term that I have an understanding of.
Is the board 'worldview rich', whatever that means?
-
What does 'acquired resolution of something big' mean to you? It' s not a term that I have an understanding of.
Is the board 'worldview rich', whatever that means?
Ah yes .....are you a contented non possessor of a world view of coherence,consistency and generalities?
Well IMHO you know what a worldview is because you don't have one.....................Am I right?
And religions and naturalism are world views.........and if I were looking for one of these represented this would be the forum as opposed to say ''Remembering fizzy sweets of the sixties.co.uk''.
-
Ah yes .....are you a contented non possessor of a world view of coherence,consistency and generalities?
Well IMHO you know what a worldview is because you don't have one.....................Am I right?
And religions and naturalism are world views.........and if I were looking for one of these represented this would be the forum as opposed to say ''Remembering fizzy sweets of the sixties.co.uk''.
Are religions worldviews? Surely that depends on both the religion and the individual. I don't see any religions posting on here, just individuals and I try to relate to what they say. As for naturalism, I presume you are here talking about the philosophical type, rather than the methodological type, based on your past posts. It also seems a reluctant poster, and an opinion that despite you saying others are, they seem to deny consistently.
As for 'contented', you jeep trying to shoehorn in a judgement thati have a view that I have chosen because of its qualities. I don't know if that makes any srnse , it's just the way I have ended up thinking. And I don't seem able to apply consistency and coherency to it.
I am also struggling as to (a) why you think that that not believing one has a worldview that is coherent and consistent means you are precluded from talking about things, and (b) whether you actually need a coherent and consistent worldview to be allowed to talk about things as might be taken as the implication?
-
Are religions worldviews? Surely that depends on both the religion and the individual. I don't see any religions posting on here, just individuals and I try to relate to what they say. As for naturalism, I presume you are here talking about the philosophical type, rather than the methodological type, based on your past posts. It also seems a reluctant poster, and an opinion that despite you saying others are, they seem to deny consistently.
As for 'contented', you jeep trying to shoehorn in a judgement thati have a view that I have chosen because of its qualities. I don't know if that makes any srnse , it's just the way I have ended up thinking. And I don't seem able to apply consistency and coherency to it.
I am also struggling as to (a) why you think that that not believing one has a worldview that is coherent and consistent means you are precluded from talking about things, and (b) whether you actually need a coherent and consistent worldview to be allowed to talk about things as might be taken as the implication?
I kind of liken our positions to a newtonian view and a non newtonian view in which the worldviewist sees consistency,coherence and interconnection between phenomena against treating each phenomena as seperate.....is this fair?
-
I kind of liken our positions to a newtonian view and a non newtonian view in which the worldviewist sees consistency,coherence and interconnection between phenomena against treating each phenomena as seperate.....is this fair?
Seems very binary to me, and not something I recognise it also seems to ignore my questions
-
Seems very binary to me, and not something I recognise it also seems to ignore my questions
Binary in what way? Are you saying that you are prepared to counter consistency,coherence and generality.......to borrow from Wigginhall?
Now to your questions. Of course you are not barred from talking about anything....but aren't there topics around newtonian philosphical principles that yuo might gate because they are general and holistic?
You have the advantage over me if you have the power to think and operate in newtonian philosophy when I cannot imagine thinking of stuff in the way you suggest as completely non related phenomena.
-
Binary in what way? Are you saying that you are prepared to counter consistency,coherence and generality.......to borrow from Wigginhall?
Now to your questions. Of course you are not barred from talking about anything....but aren't there topics around newtonian philosphical principles that yuo might gate because they are general and holistic?
You have the advantage over me if you have the power to think and operate in newtonian philosophy when I cannot imagine thinking of stuff in the way you suggest as completely non related phenomena.
binary in the sense that not necessarily believing that all phenomena are connected, doesn't mean that you believe all phenomena have no connection.
You seem to be taking a position that if I don't think I have a world view that is coherent, I think nothing can be coherent. That's once again creating a weird conflation of my statements into your binary world. I think you also need to be careful of using the term Newtonian beyond physics, I know some have tried but I don't think it lends itself well to this sort of split. At base I see people, not these abstractions you seem to see
-
binary in the sense that not necessarily believing that all phenomena are connected, doesn't mean that you believe all phenomena have no connection.
You seem to be taking a position that if I don't think I have a world view that is coherent, I think nothing can be coherent. That's once again creating a weird conflation of my statements into your binary world. I think you also need to be careful of using the term Newtonian beyond physics, I know some have tried but I don't think it lends itself well to this sort of split. At base I see people, not these abstractions you seem to see
No, IMHO Phenomena can be internally coherent so it is not the case that I think you think nothing can be coherent .....although in some way Wiggs takes exception to coherence,consistency and generality.
The puzzle therefore is not why do you not have coherence but where does the cut off point come. What is it that you think has no coherence consistency and generality?
I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.
-
No, IMHO Phenomena can be internally coherent so it is not the case that I think you think nothing can be coherent .....although in some way Wiggs takes exception to coherence,consistency and generality.
The puzzle therefore is not why do you not have coherence but where does the cut off point come. What is it that you think has no coherence consistency and generality?
I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.
Again you seem to see things as abstractions, what does it mean to say I might have coherence? Are you talking that I might believe in coherence in some circumstances? Again you seem to be using coherence and consistency to talk about things when I've been talking about whether what I believe in has or needs to have internal consistency and coherence.
If you think Newtonianism works beyond physics you are going to have tonoutline how.
-
I don't see what the danger of using the Newtonian philosophical principles beyond physics is.....in fact I would hazard that it comes dangerously close to the lost methodology.
Seriously I would be very cautious of using the phrase Newtonian. I did make me smile.
As someone who studies the microstructure and rheology of liquids and soft solids (amongst other things) it did make me laugh (in a nice way).
Based on my experience so far I would say that Human and indeed any other animal I can think of are non Newtonian, in that there viscosity probably does change with the amount of physical stress applied. If I had a big enough rheometer then maybe you would volunteer to get between it's parallel plates?
Although the ethics committee might have something to say about it.
-
Is that a serene Zen response?
That's quite funny. I have seen Zen retreats that were definitely non-serene, more like a scene from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.
-
Again you seem to see things as abstractions, what does it mean to say I might have coherence? Are you talking that I might believe in coherence in some circumstances? Again you seem to be using coherence and consistency to talk about things when I've been talking about whether what I believe in has or needs to have internal consistency and coherence.
If you think Newtonianism works beyond physics you are going to have tonoutline how.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonianism
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonianism
And? Do you think that four lines in a Wiki entry gets round the problems? Could you outline MacLaurin's thesis and how you think it works? Moreover given the challenge you have been asked for before where does it link to any of your claims?
-
And? Do you think that four lines in a Wiki entry gets round the problems? Could you outline MacLaurin's thesis and how you think it works? Moreover given the challenge you have been asked for before where does it link to any of your claims?
1: Yes. Newtonian can be applied since newton introduced consistency, coherence and generality against alternative approaches where phenomena were studied and explained in relative isolation from each other
2: No I won't outline it .....because you want me to.
-
1: Yes. Newtonian can be applied since newton introduced consistency, coherence and generality against alternative approaches where phenomena were studied and explained in relative isolation from each other
2: No I won't outline it .....because you want me to.
Again I would suggest it's better not to conflate the concepts of personal coherence to a philosophical concept. I think it's better to use the concept of rationally discoverable laws here, and while i'l happily agree that Newtonian thought (which existed pre Newton, of course) is hugely influential in spheres where both coherence and rationality are assumed, it has it's issues as you stray into to the social sciences and with post Newtonian physics.
At base though the problems as a philosophy appears to me to be the need for the assumption that it describes a reality rather appearance of reality which is, I suppose, just another expression of hard solipsism, and its basis on that idea of reality means that it can only be descriptive.
This then leads to the overall problem for gods of deism and more particularly theism being posited, since if they are part of this they are either bound by it, or they cannot exist. Following this there can be no miracles and the resurrection if it happened is no more important than a fart.
-
Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.
-
Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.
But Nearly there must for you be at least one coherent and generality running through your experience. The need for a methodology. We know this because you keep banging on about it.
-
Overall though the problem here in terms of the discussion is that while I find philosophy interesting, it doesn't seem to be how I live. Maybe it is how I should live, maybe we all should develop some coherent and consistent world view but given our limitations, and that applies to the great philosophers as much as me, I fail to see how. I don't find it worrying.
I find that following these gets me through life quite adequately, thank you!
The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.
-
I find that following these gets me through life quite adequately, thank you!
The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.
The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.
The third law of philosophy: You feel a little funny...........and then it wears off.
-
What is IT......ALL about?
This question almost always seems to lead to the same answer - us. Perhaps that's why we ask it.
-
The third law of philosophy: You feel a little funny...........and then it wears off.
You're wrong! ;)
-
This question almost always seems to lead to the same answer - us. Perhaps that's why we ask it.
Anything wrong with that?
-
Anything wrong with that?
I would say so.
-
I would say so.
What's wrong with it?
-
What's wrong with it?
I can't tell whether you're being serious. Perhaps you're not asking me whether anthropocentrism is problematic but whether asking your question is wrong. Maybe you could clarify. If you genuinely can't see anything wrong with believing that the universe is all about us then I'm not sure I can really help you.
-
But Nearly there must for you be at least one coherent and generality running through your experience. The need for a methodology. We know this because you keep banging on about it.
You often bring up the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism, and indeed state that you are a methodological naturalist..the method applies to matter of facts after you accept an axiom that these things can be investigated using the set of methods that make up the methodology. Beyond that the philosophical claims about reality are not addressed, nor are the questions about subjects that do not appear within the original assumption. Hope's and other's claims of miracles are specifically outside that methodology by definition. That's what the ask is for a methodology for supernatural claims.
The working and known methods I have are those of naturalism, and a pinch of logic in terms of such concepts of the excluded middle (though perhaps even that addition is suspect and only appears true because of how we experience things). However the vast majority of what I regard as important to me, how I should act, how I interact with others, how I live seem unamenable to such methods and investigation. I have no concept other than a tenuous one of coherence in such things, nor do I see it in something Newtonian or even non Newtonian (note I think that as a binary set is problematic - where does Liebniz fit there?
And as I have not even the circular certainties of Cartesianism, what can be coherent, what might be consistent? Philosophies or world views are abstractions from living.
-
I can't tell whether you're being serious. Perhaps you're not asking me whether anthropocentrism is problematic but whether asking your question is wrong. Maybe you could clarify. If you genuinely can't see anything wrong with believing that the universe is all about us then I'm not sure I can really help you.
If you want to annihilate your existent self to avoid thought that is up to you.
What makes thinking about what it's all about anthropocentric?
-
If you want to annihilate your existent self to avoid thought that is up to you.
What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.
What makes thinking about what it's all about anthropocentric?
Nothing, as far as I know, and I haven't suggested that it does. However, I did suggest that the question 'What is it all about?' has an uncanny habit of leading to the conclusion that it's all about us, which is anthropocentric. It needn't do so, of course. That wouldn't be anthropocentric.
-
What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.
Bramble, meet Vlad. Vlad, meet Bramble
-
What on earth are you talking about? I can't even connect this bizarre comment with anything I've so far said.
Why leave yourself out as unimportant. Yes size wise we are a sub particle in the rectum of a sub particle of an insignificant sub particle but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around and we do exist so there is no warrant to ignore ourselves.
-
but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around
Vladies and gentlemen I give you - Daphnia pulex.
No need to applaud.
-
Vladies and gentlemen I give you - Daphnia pulex.
No need to applaud.
Alright then smartarse how many Facebook friends does Daphnia pulled have?
-
Alright then smartarse how many Facebook friends does Daphnia pulled have?
28. Why do you ask?
-
Why leave yourself out as unimportant. Yes size wise we are a sub particle in the rectum of a sub particle of an insignificant sub particle but in terms of complexity there is nothing comparable for at least light years around and we do exist so there is no warrant to ignore ourselves.
Who said anything about leaving humans out? I think this is one of the weirdest exchanges I've ever had.
-
We can't know what it is all about for we are all in an unfinished process who's ultimate outcome is beyond our vision, imagination and capacities. All we can do is play the 'game' without even knowing what the full scope of the rules are, and because of this we often get burned.
-
We can't know what it is all about for we are all in an unfinished process who's ultimate outcome is beyond our vision, imagination and capacities. All we can do is play the 'game' without even knowing what the full scope of the rules are, and because of this we often get burned.
I may be reading you wrong but you seem to imply that there is enough understanding for you to think there is an ultimate outcome and rules to the game.
-
I may be reading you wrong but you seem to imply that there is enough understanding for you to think there is an ultimate outcome and rules to the game.
But is it not natural to feel that way?
-
But is it not natural to feel that way?
I don't, are you suggesting I'm unnatural?
-
I don't, are you suggesting I'm unnatural?
What way is it natural to feel then? I feel you might be suppressing this feeling but note that your ability to engage with the big questions shows the question of what's it all about to be one of your drivers.
-
What way is it natural to feel then? I feel you might be suppressing this feeling but note that your ability to engage with the big questions shows the question of what's it all about to be one of your drivers.
I am engaging with you. You are indulging in a form of begging the question in that the fact that you have conceived of 'big' questions makes them valid or meaningful. On top of that you then think you can make statements about me lying through begging that question. Using that approach that you have talked to bluehillside about leprechauns, means that you actually think they exist but are suppressing it.
I also don't get why you are asking me what it is natural to feel. I am just explaining how I feel. Is there something important in what you think it is natural to feel?
-
I am engaging with you. You are indulging in a form of begging the question in that the fact that you have conceived of 'big' questions makes them valid or meaningful. On top of that you then think you can make statements about me lying through begging that question. Using that approach that you have talked to bluehillside about leprechauns, means that you actually think they exist but are suppressing it.
I also don't get why you are asking me what it is natural to feel. I am just explaining how I feel. Is there something important in what you think it is natural to feel?
You are overreacting and forgetting that in saying that the big questions are what you did in your youth suggests an accusation of immaturity in those who still confess to considering the question.
As such you could actually be the only poster on the thread who has attempted a value judgment on any of the positions expressed on this thread.
If you are trying to say that nothing you do is driven by any big question then fine.I never suggested that you were conscious of avoiding those drivers.
Now...you seem to have stated that these "big" questions are not natural. What then do you think their origins are?
-
You are overreacting and forgetting that in saying that the big questions are what you did in your youth suggests an accusation of immaturity in those who still confess to considering the question.
As such you could actually be the only poster on the thread who has attempted a value judgment on any of the positions expressed on this thread.
If you are trying to say that nothing you do is driven by any big question then fine.I never suggested that you were conscious of avoiding those drivers.
Now...you seem to have stated that these "big" questions are not natural. What then do you think their origins are.
In what way am I overreacting? Suppressing is an active verb.
Rather you are reading things into what I have written which aren't there. That I have changed over time is a mere fact not a value judgement. My path is not your's. That is the point of subjectivity. It isn't a claim to truth.
Further at no point have I mentioned anything about questions big or small as not being natural. Merely that currently I don't see their validity and that seems natural for me. You were the one that claimed they were natural as if in some sense that was important. So I will ask again, the question that you missed - Is there something important in what you think it is natural to feel?
-
In what way am I overreacting? Suppressing us an active verb.
Rather you are reading things into what I have written which aren't there. That I have changed over time is a mere fact not a value judgement. My path is not your's. That is the point of subjectivity. It isn't a claim to truth.
Further at no point have I mentioned anything about questions big or small as not being natural. Merely that currently I don't see their validity and that seems natural for me. You were the one that claimed they were natural as if in some sense that was important. So I will ask again, the question that you missed - Is there something important in what you think it is natural to feel?
I don't think asking you to explain what you have written important anymore.
Next contributer please.
-
I don't think asking you to explain what you have written important anymore.
Next contributer please.
It never was.
-
It never was.
Yes......It was.
-
I was trying to think of a world-view which is all-encompassing, but it's pretty difficult. For example, Marxists might analyze various historical events, but would Marxism help them in personal relationships? I doubt it, but I would be interested to hear of anything different.
It starts to become very intellectual, if you are applying a world-view all the time. For example, as I am walking along the salt-marsh in Norfolk, which world-view will I apply here? From my point of view, none really. I like the view, and the migration has started early this year. Etc.
We are fragmentary beings, who construct collages of bits and bobs, which don't add together coherently. Life is a bricolage! This is a posh word for a mess.
-
Life is a bricolage old chum, come to the Bricolage. Come taste the wine, come hear the band............
I am very much liking bricolage.
-
The most consistent Christian approach I have heard of is from Bonhoeffer, who said (roughly) that the next person you meet is Christ. It's said that he lived like that as well, pretty impressive, although incredibly difficult, I would think. (In the book, 'God is in the Manger').
-
Just remembered that when I was working in gender studies, and also feminist studies, 'bricolage' was the word that everyone used, along with 'subaltern'. In the end, you scream when you see them.
-
It starts to become very intellectual, if you are applying a world-view all the time. For example, as I am walking along the salt-marsh in Norfolk, which world-view will I apply here? From my point of view, none really. I like the view, and the migration has started early this year. Etc.
How's the samphire doing there, wiggi? There used to be bushes of it one and a half feet tall in my childhood there (there was a monster growth of 5 feet reported after the floods of 1953). Down here by the Bristol Channel, it hardly grows to six inches.
Ahem - back to the topic in question....
-
How's the samphire doing there, wiggi? There used to be bushes of it one and a half feet tall in my childhood there (there was a monster growth of 5 feet reported after the floods of 1953). Down here by the Bristol Channel, it hardly grows to six inches.
Ahem - back to the topic in question....
Pretty good, Dicky. Yes, over a foot high. We go to Snettisham, where there are tons of it. I once met an ancient guy who used to pick it for a living, but I suppose it's farmed nowadays, very yuppy food. Waitrose sell it!
-
How's the samphire doing there, wiggi? There used to be bushes of it one and a half feet tall in my childhood there (there was a monster growth of 5 feet reported after the floods of 1953).
Apparently the Bream fishing has never completely recovered from those floods.
-
I may be reading you wrong but you seem to imply that there is enough understanding for you to think there is an ultimate outcome and rules to the game.
In a way, yes. We are in a process which we can see have some rules and form and seems to be progressing. Whether the final outcome has any meaning or ultimate purpose is another thing but the fact is we are in it and have no way of extricating ourselves from it. We have to participate whether we like it or not.
-
In a way, yes. We are in a process which we can see have some rules and form and seems to be progressing. Whether the final outcome has any meaning or ultimate purpose is another thing but the fact is we are in it and have no way of extricating ourselves from it. We have to participate whether we like it or not.
thank you for the clarification, I don't think I disagree with that at all.
-
What it all comes down to is, are we wearing enough hats?
-
What it all comes down to is, are we wearing enough hats?
I am, but then I have about 20, if we include bunnets.
-
How's the samphire doing there, wiggi? There used to be bushes of it one and a half feet tall in my childhood there (there was a monster growth of 5 feet reported after the floods of 1953). Down here by the Bristol Channel, it hardly grows to six inches.
Ahem - back to the topic in question....
Lookie here, three gentlemen, Messrs Pants, Taylor and Inhall who think the 'big' questions are probably hobby horses shite, filling the thread with trivia.
I'm reminded of that Jerome K. Jerome classic ''Three men on a derail''.
-
Pretty good, Dicky. Yes, over a foot high. We go to Snettisham, where there are tons of it. I once met an ancient guy who used to pick it for a living, but I suppose it's farmed nowadays, very yuppy food. Waitrose sell it!
They do indeed! And it costs an arm and a leg - but well-sussed old buffers like myself know where it's likely to be got for free. (For literary buffs, this is not Shakespeare's samphire - mentioned in Lear, I think - that's Rock Samphire, which used to be used a lot for pickling in days of yore). I think it smells quite unpleasant. However, your actual Marsh Samphire, or Glasswort is very nice.
What was the subject of this thread, btw?
-
Lookie here, three gentlemen, Messrs Pants, Taylor and Inhall who think the 'big' questions are probably hobby horses shite, filling the thread with trivia.
I'm reminded of that Jerome K. Jerome classic ''Three men on a derail''.
I'm prepared to discuss the philosophy of Schopenhauer with you if you like. Or indeed the spurious nature of the Pastoral Epistles in the NT - which I've contributed to in another thread. Not sure you'd be up to it, though. You'd insist on rabbiting on about methodological materialism for the Nth fucking time - a habit of yours which has, no doubt, made quite a few posters lose the will to live.
-
We are fragmentary beings, who construct collages of bits and bobs, which don't add together coherently. Life is a bricolage! This is a posh word for a mess.
In fact, I've heard it argued that Nietzsche abandoned one of his later works (supposedly called "The Will to Power") precisely because he felt he was committing himself to a definitive Weltanschaung, and this had never been his approach previously. He certainly made copious notes for such a definitive work, but then consigned them to the wastepaper basket. The irony is that his anti-Semite sister insisting on rummaging through that wastepaper basket and retrieving numerous rejected items, collating them, and then publishing them as "The Will to Power".
-
In a way, yes. We are in a process which we can see have some rules and form and seems to be progressing. Whether the final outcome has any meaning or ultimate purpose is another thing but the fact is we are in it and have no way of extricating ourselves from it. We have to participate whether we like it or not.
That's a pretty good summing-up. "Seems to be progressing" I would quibble with, though. Changing, certainly. But the phrase implies complexification, and that is perhaps a naïve perception, which is still imbued with humanity's well-known bias for considering itself "superior".
-
They do indeed! And it costs an arm and a leg - but well-sussed old buffers like myself know where it's likely to be got for free. (For literary buffs, this is not Shakespeare's samphire - mentioned in Lear, I think - that's Rock Samphire, which used to be used a lot for pickling in days of yore). I think it smells quite unpleasant. However, your actual Marsh Samphire, or Glasswort is very nice.
What was the subject of this thread, btw?
The food of life.
-
In fact, I've heard it argued that Nietzsche abandoned one of his later works (supposedly called "The Will to Power") precisely because he felt he was committing himself to a definitive Weltanschaung, and this had never been his approach previously. He certainly made copious notes for such a definitive work, but then consigned them to the wastepaper basket. The irony is that his anti-Semite sister insisting on rummaging through that wastepaper basket and retrieving numerous rejected items, collating them, and then publishing them as "The Will to Power".
Some of those papers on the Will to Power had a shopping list on them, so they must have been ultra serious.
-
That's a pretty good summing-up. "Seems to be progressing" I would quibble with, though. Changing, certainly. But the phrase implies complexification, and that is perhaps a naïve perception, which is still imbued with humanity's well-known bias for considering itself "superior".
Tip top post for me. Combine the two posts and it's very hard to argue against.
-
That's a pretty good summing-up. "Seems to be progressing" I would quibble with, though. Changing, certainly. But the phrase implies complexification, and that is perhaps a naïve perception, which is still imbued with humanity's well-known bias for considering itself "superior".
Depends on the way you see consciousness. That, in my view, is becoming more complex or intricate; compared to say the way we were 100,000 or so plus years ago, judging by artefacts/art and brain size and its composition or structure. Complexity can be viewed in two ways though 1) as some 'stuff' being arranged in a more complex way but fundamentally not moving to the next 'level' or 2) to be understood as moving to a more advance 'level'.
We evolved, and split from our chimp relatives' line, from an ape like creature some 6 million years ago. You seem to be implying that we are on a par with the chimps, no more advanced or evolved? Just the same 'stuff', that makes up both, that has been arranged in a more complex way, nothing else?
I agree, it is difficult to define and assess.
-
For me, learning and experiencing life. My loved ones.
A journey of experience.
Seeing what people can achieve. ( especially when others in like circumstances would have given up).
Little acts of kindness.
Trying to make others think about things, by contributing my thoughts.
Looking up at the stars, and wondering what's really out there. ( and realising how little I know)
Experiencing something awesome like a total eclipse of the sun, being aware of the movement of planets. ( OK , Sun , moon and Earth)
Things that remind me how small and unimportant I am against the awesome universe and apparent age of things. I'm just a little flickering light of life in a huge universe, snuffed out like millions before me.
Waves beating rhythm against the shore and realising the dinosaurs probably listened to the same sound on a different shore, different time.
Looking at the beauty of flowers, pansies love the little faces. :)
Little things really.
That's before we get to the concept of God.
-
Rose: pansies love the little faces
They also speak highly of you Rose ;).
Seriously, that was a charming and encouraging post.
-
For me, learning and experiencing life. My loved ones.
A journey of experience.
Seeing what people can achieve. ( especially when others in like circumstances would have given up).
Little acts of kindness.
Trying to make others think about things, by contributing my thoughts.
Looking up at the stars, and wondering what's really out there. ( and realising how little I know)
Experiencing something awesome like a total eclipse of the sun, being aware of the movement of planets. ( OK , Sun , moon and Earth)
Things that remind me how small and unimportant I am against the awesome universe and apparent age of things. I'm just a little flickering light of life in a huge universe, snuffed out like millions before me.
Waves beating rhythm against the shore and realising the dinosaurs probably listened to the same sound on a different shore, different time.
Looking at the beauty of flowers, pansies love the little faces. :)
Little things really.
That's before we get to the concept of God.
The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, unlike the rest of the things you mention.
-
The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, unlike the rest of the things you mention.
I wasn't necessarily referring to the concept of the biblical God, Floo.
Just whether there was some intelligence or purpose behind the universe we are unaware of. It was a very wide concept of God.
:)
-
I wasn't necessarily referring to the concept of the biblical God, Floo.
Just whether there was some intelligence or purpose behind the universe we are unaware of. It was a very wide concept of God.
:)
Maybe it doesn't make sense to talk of purpose behind, or beyond, the universe. Purpose is something meaningful within a scheme of things. OK, maybe our observed universe is not the whole deal, maybe it is part of a multiverse, in which case there is arguably space to declare our universe meaningful, but that is really just shifting the goal posts. It would just become pointless to talk of the purpose of the multiverse. The fact that we like to ponder why questions is a characteristic of our species, just as we are so tuned up to see faces that we see them where they don't exist, we are also tuned up to see intentionality, and we think we see it where it doesn't exist. At some point, perhaps we should stop asking 'why' and accept that stuff just is.
-
At some point, perhaps we should stop asking 'why' and accept that stuff just is.
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
-
The concept of the Biblical god isn't pleasing, ... .
Could you expand this comment, Floo?
-
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
But with no data to go on, that inevitably ends up being pure speculation.
-
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
Or to accept what is and to continue asking how better to relate to it.
-
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
Why?
-
Or to accept what is and to continue asking how better to relate to it.
Why would we want to accept 'what is'? Surely we want to improve things, which involves asking questions such as 'why' things aren't working as effectively /efficiently as they could.
-
But with no data to go on, that inevitably ends up being pure speculation.
Does it? I always thought that life and experience was part of the data with which society improves or investigates why improvements are needed. Isn't that what public inquiries and other such things are all about?
-
Does it? I always thought that life and experience was part of the data with which society improves or investigates why improvements are needed. Isn't that what public inquiries and other such things are all about?
We are talking at cross purposes, I think Hope. My comment, that you responded to, was about something behind, or beyond our universe. That is, by definition, unknowable.
-
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
'why' ??
-
We are talking at cross purposes, I think Hope. My comment, that you responded to, was about something behind, or beyond our universe. That is, by definition, unknowable.
I'm not sure I'm speaking at cross-purposes. Why do you think that this "something behind, or beyond our universe" (a comment that is, in itself, somewhat nonsensical because something behind something isn't necessarily beyond it) is, by definition, unknowable?
-
I'm not sure I'm speaking at cross-purposes. Why do you think that this "something behind, or beyond our universe" (a comment that is, in itself, somewhat nonsensical because something behind something isn't necessarily beyond it) is, by definition, unknowable?
That's implied in the definition of 'universe'. The universe is everything that is, as far as we can tell. If we discover something outwith the bounds of the known universe, then that just expands the definition to include it. We cannot know of anything outside the universe, by definition.
-
I think it is high time to go back to the question that propelled us to Religionethics in the first place......................What is IT......ALL about?
Of course I realise that not all may have been called to that question .........that there are gate keepers who think we should not bother with such a question and gate it.
And others who think there is no It or no all that the world is just pieces with no unification possible.
What then is people's position on the question....."what is it all about"?
It is about Truth for me... It is about loving God and not fearing in the wrong way as people teach.
A clear message from Christ is that God is love. All things really revolve about living Gods way rather than our own which hurts others.
You have to know God to live his way enter Jesus.
-
Why would we want to accept 'what is'? Surely we want to improve things, which involves asking questions such as 'why' things aren't working as effectively /efficiently as they could.
Another way of looking at it is to 'improve' yourself so that you better live in harmony with 'what is' rather than constantly seeking to change 'what is' based upon self centred judgements. A verse from the Tao Te Ching:
Man tries to improve the Earth,
He always fails.
The Earth is a natural harmony,
It cannot be improved upon.
Try to change it and you spoil it.
Try to possess it and you lose it.
Some things are fast some are slow;
At times living is easy, at times hard;
At times there is strength, at times weakness
There is a time to flourish, and a time for decline.
Therefore the Wise do not impose upon the Earth,
They avoid extremes, extravagance and self indulgence.
-
A further thought about world-views and suchlike, that I don't choose these things in myself. In other words, the way I see the world is not determined by me. I suppose I can change it in various ways, e.g. by doing yoga or something, but then did I create the wish to change?
-
Hope,
Or we ought to stop simply accepting that 'stuff just is' and begin asking the 'why' question more.
No, because that would be just another of the various fallacies on which you rely for your premises - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question. A "why" question entails purpose - "for what reason did X do Y?" The question is null though until and unless you can demonstrate an "X" in the first place to care about and to determine that purpose.
And of course we don't "simply accept that stuff "just is"" in any case. That's why we have something called science in order to work out how phenomena occur and to develop new and useful technologies that harness that knowledge.
-
Hope,
No, because that would be just another of the various fallacies on which you rely for your premises - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question. A "why" question entails purpose - "for what reason did X do Y?" The question is null though until and unless you can demonstrate an "X" in the first place to care about and to determine that purpose.
This is mere assertion.
I think also your stock of acceptable questions will include why questions.
A question like why something and not nothing does not suggest an 'X'. That is just IMHO religious paranoia and theophobia on your part.
I realise this thread has been dormant but such naked expressions of intellectual Dalekism ''Your question is null...your question is null'' needs to be exposed.