Verbal abuse and cyber-bullying on Philosophy Now forums

[Arising_uk]

A perfect example of

How you prefer to blow kisses and not slap the truth upon anyone. Still waiting here nick_a.

The secular progressive mind is cult like. It is possessed by its god the Great Beast and attacks all that questions its supremacy. ...

And yet I'm not am I? All I'm doing is asking you a question but you seem to be the perfect dogmatic theist who finds such things as answering questions a terrifying threat.

This is why it must oppose opening to the big picture. ...

And this big picture is pray tell?

And people worship it. Scary stuff.

Not as scary as theists with an agenda.

[Arising_uk]

First of all, the question of the value of human education as opposed to progressive secular education couldn't be discussed here. ...

Well it could but you appear very loathe to say what this 'human education' would entail, why is that?

By-the-by please stop using the word 'progressive' as it's not a good idea to spread more Yanklish about the world. Keep it for your own sorry country as 'multiculturalism' was a bad enough export.

But at the same time, there must be members who are not so indoctrinated so can be open to the first question of philosophy: who am I followed by what is my objective purpose. ...

I am a thinking primate and my objective purpose is to reproduce the species, after that it's up to me what I choose to do.

Is Man truly insignificant lacking any potential objective purpose?

You only think this because of your Christian theist indoctrination that tells you that you are flawed and insignificant.

Such questions cannot be discussed in the presence of verbal abuse and cyber bullying and retain the big picture. ...

So far this abuse and bullying is all in your head and we can't discuss your big picture because you won't say what it is. I think you should find a christian cult forum where you can hear what you want to hear.

When someone wants to give it a shot, I'll help but why support the callous attacks against kids enduring the process of spirit killing? I don't see the value in it.

Until you say what you think this 'spirit killing' involves and what you'll put in it's place you are just a kissing liar.

[Nick_A]

What if I argued both of you are right at the same time in different respects? Would that solve this "issue"?

It wouldn't solve anything but I'd like to read how you would defend the use of verbal abuse and cyber bullying not just in philosophy but in regards spirit killing of the young. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Nick_A]

...

So you'll continue accusing people here of things associated with your beliefs... on a forum that you claim is NOT THE PLACE for the discussion... while you deny that your purpose here is to feed your self-glorification and unleash your hateful fury.

You are apparently an advocate of a secular agenda which by definition believes solving the problems of the human condition will come through secular efforts and beliefs while condemning all that opposes this belief..This is why topics like a human education cannot be discussed where cyber bullying and verbal abuse is openly supported. Human education threatens secular progressive education so must be condemned. Why not show a little respect for what kids are suffering by this condemnation?

I believe that the human condition is as Plato described in his cave analogy.
we live and react in blind obedience to imagination. This is an observation. You will call it an accusation and an insult to modern Man. Accusation and observation are two different words with different meanings and emotional connotations.

[Nick_A]

A_uk

Is Man truly insignificant lacking any potential objective purpose?

You only think this because of your Christian theist indoctrination that tells you that you are flawed and insignificant.

Such questions cannot be discussed in the presence of verbal abuse and cyber bullying and retain the big picture. ...

So far this abuse and bullying is all in your head and we can't discuss your big picture because you won't say what it is. I think you should find a christian cult forum where you can hear what you want to hear.

No, you've been conditioned to be satisfied with superficial answers. That is why you are not open to the big picture. You prefer to argue small details.


Yet there are those who would be open to discussing the question of cosmic significance rather than condemning it. Consider this article for example. It could be meaningful but it requires mutual respect. Are you capable of it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340547/

Abstract

The universe that surrounds us is vast, and we are so very small. When we reflect on the vastness of the universe, our humdrum cosmic location, and the inevitable future demise of humanity, our lives can seem utterly insignificant. Many philosophers assume that such worries about our significance reflect a banal metaethical confusion. They dismiss the very idea of cosmic significance. This, I argue, is a mistake. Worries about cosmic insignificance do not express metaethical worries about objectivity or nihilism, and we can make good sense of the idea of cosmic significance and its absence. It is also possible to explain why the vastness of the universe can make us feel insignificant. This impression does turn out to be mistaken, but not for the reasons typically assumed. In fact, we might be of immense cosmic significance—though we cannot, at this point, tell whether this is the case.

[-1-]

The vastness of the universe is a conundrum. It is a fallacy to compare finite things in space to the infinite space and declare the finite insignificant. That is so, because no matter how large a finite object you pick (man, the Moon, the Solar system, the Milky way galaxi, anything) or how small, it has the same insignificance in size compared to infinite space as any other finite thing.

You must only compare finite size to finite size. Comparing anything finite to the infinite results in insignificance of the finite, no matter how small or big the finite is.

So its a matter of relativity. Not a matter of absolutes. Anything significant can be insignificant and significant, and the other way around, in the finite world if you only consider size.

[Eodnhoj7]

...

So you'll continue accusing people here of things associated with your beliefs... on a forum that you claim is NOT THE PLACE for the discussion... while you deny that your purpose here is to feed your self-glorification and unleash your hateful fury.

You are apparently an advocate of a secular agenda which by definition believes solving the problems of the human condition will come through secular efforts and beliefs while condemning all that opposes this belief..This is why topics like a human education cannot be discussed where cyber bullying and verbal abuse is openly supported.


Human education threatens secular progressive education so must be condemned. Why not show a little respect for what kids are suffering by this condemnation?

It should be condemned, I never claimed it shouldn't...hence I argue you and lacewing are correct in seperate respects. However the problem occurs that you offer no solution. What would be the ideal approach to solve such a problem? Is the modern world condemnable? It should burn in all frankness, but considering it already is starting too I have little worry about its end.

However a solution should be presented as a strict method of negation does not work on its own terms.

I believe that the human condition is as Plato described in his cave analogy.
we live and react in blind obedience to imagination. This is an observation. You will call it an accusation and an insult to modern Man. Accusation and observation are two different words with different meanings and emotional connotations.

[Nick_A]

Eodnhoj7

It should be condemned, I never claimed it shouldn't...hence I argue you and lacewing are correct in seperate respects. However the problem occurs that you offer no solution. What would be the ideal approach to solve such a problem? Is the modern world condemnable? It should burn in all frankness, but considering it already is starting too I have little worry about its end.

However a solution should be presented as a strict method of negation does not work on its own terms.

The problem is that offering solutions for a group dedicated to the support of secular progressive education only opens the concept as a target for every form of nasty assault which really only serves the purpose of metaphysical repression. Why would I want to provide the means to hurt kids? The secular progressive agenda is not tolerant of anything opposing its imagined supremacy. Believe me if there were those willing to discuss the human purpose of eductation as opposed to furthering secular idolatry it would be appreciated. I cannot see it happening. The topic is too volatile. This description of metaphysical repression is a classic example. Why would I want to further such self conscious fears and to deny personal questions of the heart in favor of being normal? From a discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker:

http://www.conversations.org/story.php?sid=1

JN:................... I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you're speaking of. That is what Plato called eros—a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.
Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity.
I did learn to play that game, and then to avoid it.
My students at SF State were very hungry for what most of us, down deeply, really want from philosophy. When we honor those unanswerable questions and open them and deepen them, students are very happy about it, very interested in a deep quiet way.

RW: It is really very hard to find that, I believe.

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art......................

[Arising_uk]

A_uk

Is Man truly insignificant lacking any potential objective purpose?

You only think this because of your Christian theist indoctrination that tells you that you are flawed and insignificant.

Such questions cannot be discussed in the presence of verbal abuse and cyber bullying and retain the big picture. ...

Are you claiming I'm abusing and bullying you here? I'm not, I'm pointing out that your question is already assuming what it is asking.

Are you saying you are not a christian theist who thinks that this 'potential objective purpose' is a 'God'?

So far this abuse and bullying is all in your head and we can't discuss your big picture because you won't say what it is. I think you should find a christian cult forum where you can hear what you want to hear.

No, you've been conditioned to be satisfied with superficial answers. That is why you are not open to the big picture. You prefer to argue small details. ...

Still not hearing what this big picture is? Because I've studied Philosophy I think I'm more accustomed than most to big pictures and have also learnt the devil is in the detail.

Yet there are those who would be open to discussing the question of cosmic significance rather than condemning it. Consider this article for example. It could be meaningful but it requires mutual respect. Are you capable of it? ...

More than you probably.

Abstract

The universe that surrounds us is vast, and we are so very small. When we reflect on the vastness of the universe, our humdrum cosmic location, and the inevitable future demise of humanity, our lives can seem utterly insignificant. Many philosophers assume that such worries about our significance reflect a banal metaethical confusion. They dismiss the very idea of cosmic significance. This, I argue, is a mistake. Worries about cosmic insignificance do not express metaethical worries about objectivity or nihilism, and we can make good sense of the idea of cosmic significance and its absence. It is also possible to explain why the vastness of the universe can make us feel insignificant. This impression does turn out to be mistaken, but not for the reasons typically assumed. In fact, we might be of immense cosmic significance—though we cannot, at this point, tell whether this is the case.

Ok, read it and not much I disagree with so what do you think it says and do you agree with his idea that if a 'God' exists that would truly mean that we are cosmically insignificant or to put it his way a 'God' would have to not exist for us to be cosmically significant.
p.s.
Or did you just Google it and post the abstract because it seemed to fit your filters?

[Arising_uk]

...
JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

JN: It's what I call metaphysical repression. It's in our culture and It's much worse than sexual repression. It represses eros and I think that maybe that's where art can be of help sometimes. Some art......................

I'd bet my last shilling that these kids had been raised with a religious theist background and as such most of these questions would have been answered 'Because of 'God' ' before they could truly reason and the repression expressed was because of the fear of 'God' being put into them about asking such questions and not blindly accepting the 'God' answer.

As an aside, if all you are claiming nick_a is that Philosophy should be taught at an early age I'd agree. I support the teaching of Philosophy in our schools and over here we are more and more teaching it in our primary education.

Still not hearing from you Nick_A what it is you wish to teach our kids over and above Philosophy and a Liberal Arts, Humanities and Science education?

[Nick_A]

Arising_uk

The question of cosmic significance opens the mind. Fighting idolatry closes the mind and invites all sorts of verbal abuse and cyber bullying. You seem to be a person dedicated to fighting idolatry..

As an aside, if all you are claiming nick_a is that Philosophy should be taught at an early age I'd agree. I support the teaching of Philosophy in our schools and over here we are more and more teaching it in our primary education.

Still not hearing from you Nick_A what it is you wish to teach our kids over and above Philosophy and a Liberal Arts, Humanities and Science education?

If you knew the first step in teaching philosophy then you would appreciate the value of a human education. As a dedicated secularist you are too concerned with opposing idolatry and content to support spirit killing if it serves your purpose.

“What is God” by Jacob Needleman is an excellent book for all who are open to the question. Those who are closed get satisfaction by denying the breath to the young by their attitudes. It is called progress.

“To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.

I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God–that may or may not come later.

I say: to think about God.” ~Jacob Needleman in What Is God? p. 3

[Arising_uk]

Arising_uk

The question of cosmic significance opens the mind. Fighting idolatry closes the mind and invites all sorts of verbal abuse and cyber bullying. You seem to be a person dedicated to fighting idolatry..

Nick_A, it's becoming abundantly clear that you are a kissing liar who fears the slap of truth with a vengeance. It's also clear that you didn't actually read the paper you linked me to as you'd understand that I agreed with what it said about the idea of 'cosmic significance' but since you have no idea what it said you decide instead to kiss me once more with nonsense about idolatry. You are a philosophy interweeble of the worst sort and I know this because like the rest of your ilk you are unable to answer sentences ending with question marks.

Here's a few from our recent interactions;
Still not hearing from you Nick_A what it is you wish to teach our kids over and above Philosophy and a Liberal Arts, Humanities and Science education?

Are you saying you are not a christian theist who thinks that this 'potential objective purpose' is a 'God'?

Do you agree with his idea that if a 'God' exists that would truly mean that we are cosmically insignificant or to put it his way a 'God' would have to not exist for us to be cosmically significant?

And this big picture is pray tell?

What do you mean by a 'human education'?

Come on Nick_A, slap me with some truth for once.

If you knew the first step in teaching philosophy then you would appreciate the value of a human education. As a dedicated secularist you are too concerned with opposing idolatry and content to support spirit killing if it serves your purpose.

If you knew the first thing about Philosophy(which you don't) you'd know that the first step in teaching it depends upon the age-group one is teaching.

Here's a new question for you Nick_A, what do you mean by "idolatry"?

“What is God” by Jacob Needleman is an excellent book for all who are open to the question. Those who are closed get satisfaction by denying the breath to the young by their attitudes. It is called progress. ...

Firstly, you have no idea what I talk to the young about, secondly, I asked you what you mean or think 'God' is, not what you can cut-paste about what others might think others have said about the subject, it's called Philosophy and is the reason why you shouldn't be here.

[-1-]

A perfect example of the weakness of the progressive mind. It is so identified with its agenda that it is incapable of opening to the big picture but must reduce it to aimless attacks.

If you substitute "progressive mind" with "Jews", this stands out as a page from Mein Kampf.

I am NOT saying you are anti-semitic, Nick_A; I am not saying you are a Hitlerite. Not at all. It's just that your literary styles and methods of convincing others are so very similar. This, again, is no reflection on your views or on your politics. It is a reflection on form and style, not on content.

[Nick_A]

Arising_uk, why this obsession with attack? What is so odd about furthering the inner development of a healthy young kernel of life as opposed to leading them into a slow spiritual death?

Here's a few from our recent interactions;
Still not hearing from you Nick_A what it is you wish to teach our kids over and above Philosophy and a Liberal Arts, Humanities and Science education?

You re avoiding the initial means for introducing philosophy. You prefer to teach it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hi ... udy-wonder

I

n Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates presents the young Theaetetus with a number of difficult contradictions. This is the exchange that ensues.
S: I believe that you follow me, Theaetetus; for I suspect that you have thought of these questions before now.
T: Yes, Socrates, and I am amazed when I think of them; by the Gods I am! And I want to know what on earth they mean; and there are times when my head quite swims with the contemplation of them.
S: I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder. He was not a bad genealogist who said that Iris (the messenger of heaven) is the child of Thaumas (Wonder)…

Killing eros in the young begins with killing the natural impulse to wonder. That is why Prof. Needleman’s students were embarrassed about their basic heartfelt questions arousing wonder. They were educated into metaphysical repression. You demand to know how to teach philosophy and I am concerned with providing the environent encouraging the mind opening attribute called wonder.

Are you saying you are not a christian theist who thinks that this 'potential objective purpose' is a 'God'?

I am a pre-Christian. A law student isn’t a lawyer and a medical student is not a doctor. Why should a person with an interest in Chrstianity but yet unable to follow in the precepts of Christ be considered a Christian? So I am a pre-Christian.

God the father is too distant fo Man to receive from. That is why the Christian needs the Son at a level of reality between Man and the Father.

Do you agree with his idea that if a 'God' exists that would truly mean that we are cosmically insignificant or to put it his way a 'God' would have to not exist for us to be cosmically significant?

Yes, the Man animal on earth following the cycles of dust to dust is as insignificant as any other animal. Conscious man in contrast performs a higher conscious purpose greater than a creature of reaction. Without a conscious source, Man cannot acquire human consciousness connecting levels of reality. Without God, they cannot exist.

And this big picture is pray tell?

The big picture refers to the human ability to see the purpose and value of the forest without falling victim to arguing about trees. The life of a forest requires the death of trees? Is this unfair? Is it unfair that a minority see the big picture as to the value and purpose of Man on earth as opposed to arguing over collectives?

What do you mean by a 'human education'?

Human education as opposed to indoctrination enables a student To acquire a conscious human perspective within which facts can reside and vivify human meaning.

[Lacewing]

The big picture refers to the human ability to see the purpose and value of the forest without falling victim to arguing about trees.

Whose forest, though? The forest that you define? That's not a big picture... that's your picture. Can you see the difference? A big picture that embraces vast perspectives and awareness is a bigger picture than that which is defined/limited by only one viewpoint... don't you agree?