Secular Intolerance

[Walker]

Well, the principle is intolerance. Secular has its particulars. Doesn't Christian also? The intolerance, if any, would likely be evident if one lives on the buckle of the bible belt. Without bricks and mortar, has the buckle gotten bigger or smaller?

Do Christian web forums attack and distract from the content of atheist topics?

[Nick_A]

Getting to the point, if you had the power of absolute censorship would it go to your head and change that view?

No.

I don't see the heavy negatives in Nick, but my relevant knowledge is limited to everything I see on this forum.
He's amicable and reasonable enough based on that.

Maybe the topics are just tender and sensitive spots?

If so, that's scarcely a valid reason to distract from content where the content is appropriate.

And, an appropriate situation is presumably a philosophy forum without censorship,
such as you explicitly condone as a personal preference,
even though defining religion as a non-philosophical topic,
and therefore inappropriate for a philosophy site,
is in fact de facto, implicit censorship.

The trouble with this is that such a site requires maturity on the part of its members which normally people are incapable of. There will be a struggle for power which will destroy the philosophic intent. I never thought I would say this but I can see why rules are essential for freedom including the freedom for meaningful philosophy.

[marjoram_blues]

If there are to be accusations of intolerance addressed to any individual or group, then you must first know what it is to be tolerant. And if it is necessarily a virtue.
If interested in Philosophy and the concept of 'Tolerance', then a useful source might be the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( IEP ). Tolerance - part 4 moral toleration - the paradox.
If interested in knowing about the Philosophy of Religion, then another useful resource is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( SEP).

I'd like to ask you a question regarding attitudes that further the intent of philosophy.

Plato (428BC-348BC) The term philosophy comes from two Greek words, philos, which means friend or lover, and sophia, which means wisdom. So philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom.

If this is true, can the exclusive rather than inclusive nature of secular intolerance ever further the love of wisdom from your perspective?

How is the love of anything furthered ? First, what is it that is loved? Wisdom? What kind of 'wisdom' ?
How is the perceived wisdom gained?

Personally, I am more inclined towards practical wisdom, roughly what can I learn/experience which will improve awareness or understanding of self, others and how we relate in the real world.
This includes trying to listen carefully to what is being expressed and how. Then reflecting on initial impressions and if I am able to practise the Principle of Charity.
This involves a certain degree of patience and tolerance; time and energy.

I still have no clear idea of 'Secular Intolerance'.
So far it seems to be used as an abstract concept, with a dual nature - exclusive/inclusive. Employed in a certain way to critique the PN forum and its contributors.

The impression is that it doesn't warrant further exploration - but would that be 'wise' ?

[Nick_A]

Well, the principle is intolerance. Secular has its particulars. Doesn't Christian also? The intolerance, if any, would likely be evident if one lives on the buckle of the bible belt. Without bricks and mortar, has the buckle gotten bigger or smaller?

Do Christian web forums attack and distract from the content of atheist topics?

Of course they do. The problem here is that a Christian by definition is one who follows in the precept of Christ. Obviously there are very few Christians. So what is a Christian web forum? It is just some people for some reason claiming to be Christian. These sites are just expressions of Christendom or man made Christianity which is also secular.

[Harbal]

Do Christian web forums attack and distract from the content of atheist topics?

I don't know because I'm not interested in what Christians talk about so I don't go on Christian forums. If Nick_A doesn't like what happens here why doesn't he take the same approach.

[Walker]

The philosophy of a philosophy forum is like humankind's relationship to the climate.

Better to mitigate and adapt in order to reveal relevant principles,
rather than to funnel $15 trillion to some whacko Progressive,

who is intent on manipulating the total situation of all societies for the purpose of power, control, and personal gain.

[Harbal]

The philosophy of a philosophy forum is like humankind's relationship to the climate.

Better to mitigate and adapt in order to reveal relevant principles,
rather than to funnel $15 trillion to some whacko Progressive,

who is intent on manipulating the total situation of all societies for the purpose of power, control, and personal gain.

What on earth are you garbling on about, Walker?

[Nick_A]

If there are to be accusations of intolerance addressed to any individual or group, then you must first know what it is to be tolerant. And if it is necessarily a virtue.
If interested in Philosophy and the concept of 'Tolerance', then a useful source might be the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( IEP ). Tolerance - part 4 moral toleration - the paradox.
If interested in knowing about the Philosophy of Religion, then another useful resource is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( SEP).

I'd like to ask you a question regarding attitudes that further the intent of philosophy.

Plato (428BC-348BC) The term philosophy comes from two Greek words, philos, which means friend or lover, and sophia, which means wisdom. So philosophy is the love of wisdom and, more importantly, the philosopher is the friend or, better, lover of wisdom.

If this is true, can the exclusive rather than inclusive nature of secular intolerance ever further the love of wisdom from your perspective?

How is the love of anything furthered ? First, what is it that is loved? Wisdom? What kind of 'wisdom' ?
How is the perceived wisdom gained?

Personally, I am more inclined towards practical wisdom, roughly what can I learn/experience which will improve awareness or understanding of self, others and how we relate in the real world.
This includes trying to listen carefully to what is being expressed and how. Then reflecting on initial impressions and if I am able to practise the Principle of Charity.
This involves a certain degree of patience and tolerance; time and energy.

I still have no clear idea of 'Secular Intolerance'.
So far it seems to be used as an abstract concept, with a dual nature - exclusive/inclusive. Employed in a certain way to critique the PN forum and its contributors.

The impression is that it doesn't warrant further exploration - but would that be 'wise' ?

Practical wisdom as I understand it is striving to adjust to life in Plato's cave. There is nothing wrong with this. However there is a minority who are called to the experience of "meaning" that is beyond anything the cave can offer. Real philosophy encourages this search for meaning. Practical wisdom is knowledge of adjusting to cave life. Socrates' conception begins with the realization that the person knows nothing. Try convincing a secular expert practiced in the skills of secular intolerance that they know nothing. This is a basic philosophic question. a person can either tolerate it, condemn it, or ignore it. Philosophic discussion for me requires people capable of going beyond tolerance and welcome the contradictions in pursuit of the experience of the conscious human perspective within which differences are related.

[Walker]

The philosophy of a philosophy forum is like humankind's relationship to the climate.

Better to mitigate and adapt in order to reveal relevant principles,
rather than to funnel $15 trillion to some whacko Progressive,

who is intent on manipulating the total situation of all societies for the purpose of power, control, and personal gain.

What on earth are you garbling on about, Walker?

It’s quite relevant to the point that you should ask that. What I’m simply saying is that the proper philosophy of philosophy forum in principle, is to always say yes even when saying no and to always tell the truth, rather than perpetually destroying and then attempting to rebuild entire civilizations when conditions that block the sun permit only entropy.

[Nick_A]

Do Christian web forums attack and distract from the content of atheist topics?

I don't know because I'm not interested in what Christians talk about so I don't go on Christian forums. If Nick_A doesn't like what happens here why doesn't he take the same approach.

I am trying to learn why it happens. What is this great attraction to secular intolerance? How can egoistic human ignorance and all the harm it creates for human consciousness be so justified as "education?" Why has philosophy been reduced to glorified argument through the attraction of secularism which glorifies Plato's Beast?

[Nick_A]

The philosophy of a philosophy forum is like humankind's relationship to the climate.

Better to mitigate and adapt in order to reveal relevant principles,
rather than to funnel $15 trillion to some whacko Progressive,

who is intent on manipulating the total situation of all societies for the purpose of power, control, and personal gain.

What on earth are you garbling on about, Walker?

It’s quite relevant to the point that you should ask that. What I’m simply saying is that the proper philosophy of philosophy forum in principle, is to always say yes even when saying no and to always tell the truth, rather than perpetually destroying and then attempting to rebuild entire civilizations when conditions that block the sun permit only entropy.

What is the purpose of philosophy and should a philosophy site further this purpose or inhibit it for the sake of self justification?

[Harbal]

What is this great attraction to secular intolerance?

I'm not sure anyone will be able to tell you as you seem to be the only person who knows what it is.

How can egoistic human ignorance and all the harm it creates for human consciousness be so justified as "education?"

This is not a place of education, people just come here and do what they do. If you don't like what they do then go somewhere else you've not been banned from.

Why has philosophy been reduced to glorified argument through the attraction of secularism which glorifies Plato's Beast?

If you want proper philosophy go and find a professor to talk to.

[Walker]

What is the purpose of philosophy and should a philosophy site further this purpose or inhibit it for the sake of self justification?

The only rule should be relevance to the thread topic.

A response to any apparent thread topic irrelevancies can be made without violating the rule, since silence is a response.

However, repeated violations can distract attention from the thread topic.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote concerning me:

However, the forum's "failure", ie. his banning, was due to him going a bit feral with the abusiveness and contemptuousness, persistently ignoring warnings. It was the fourth and final strike before which he'd gifted the forum with 107 of his topics, many about Plato's save, Simone's ideas and/or The Great Beast. So he had a good run before finally becoming too annoying to other members and mods who were/are just trying to talk about stuff without too much drama.

This is a perfect description of secular intolerance. First is the idea that I am feral. Apparently I'm beastly and lacking cultivation. So maybe i smacked a woman on the butt during sex. Well, you only live once. Abusiveness and contemptuousness is defined by these advocates of secular intolerance anything which opposes the superiority of secularism.

So Greta and F4 have won. But what have they won? When I first read this passage from Jacob Needleman's book: "The American Soul" I shuddered because I knew it was true but still a shock to read it:

Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art,literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.

For people to remain free, it requires the impartial contemplation of the deeper ideas within philosophy that create its importance for the human psyche by opening us to something greater than ourselves. Secular intolerance condemns this quality of thought in favor of a shallow egoism which only intensifies the acceptance of increased materialism and commercialism as compensation for the loss of "meaning." As a result freedom must give way to tyranny to keep the "peace." Greta and F4 have won a step in the decline of freedom into slavery by closing the mind and hearts of the young. That is something to be proud of.

Why this attitude is accepted as politically correct is beyond me. But apparently it is. Probably the most revealing proof of secular intolerance is how the young are fooled into believing experts in secular intolerance. Advocates of secular intolerance have come to dominate so many universities creating zombie like "snowflakes" who through no fault of their own have been psychologically killed and have become slaves to the whims of their imagined secular superiors. It never dawns on these kids that these experts are empty shells preaching slavery to the restrictions of Plato's cave

[Nick_A]

What is the purpose of philosophy and should a philosophy site further this purpose or inhibit it for the sake of self justification?

The only rule should be relevance to the thread topic.

A response to any apparent thread topic irrelevancies can be made without violating the rule, since silence is a response.

However, repeated violations can distract attention from the thread topic.

Suppose a reply offends secular intolerance and looked down upon as an "annoyance", should it be permitted?