Secular Intolerance

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:02 am
Nick_A wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 12:59 amGreta wrote this about me on the second page of this topic:
Yes. "Monomania" is an excellent word in context. In philosophy forums, as with any forums (I'm also a member of a music forum) everyone has "their thing". The ones who annoy are those who keep harping about the same thing, starting numerous threads on more or less the same thing, often with some whining - bumping their agendas at the expense of more open minds.

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.
Obviously all this is untrue. Have you suffered any feral attacks or harassed by my agenda whatever that is? Is there anything against the rules to discuss Plato and others F4 called a "cast of characters?" I there anything wrong with including their ideas in the perspective of modern problems? No it isn’t against the rules but it does provoke secular intolerance against what it believes is right. This is intolerable and this annoyance must be eliminated. This doesn’t bother me but when you consider the harm done by this mentality in secular progressive education it truly is a crime against the young.

... politically correct snowflakes.
Oh, are you still going on about this? *yawwwn*

I have no reason to lie. If you weren't being over-the-top I wouldn't have banned you. As I said before, I find some of your musings of more interest than some so I would have preferred not to have banned you.

However, you were extremely insulting towards my fellow moderator. Repeatedly. At first we let it go but you pushed and pushed. You were given warnings and you ignored them. You gave us no choice. After your misrepresentations of us here I feel better about the banning now. Thank you.

The final three words of your post, highlighted above, summarise how tolerant you are, ie. even less tolerant of others than others have been of you.
I wrote: " If the young are spiritually killed in the schools, what can be better for the worship of the Great Beast than their indoctrination into the land of snowflakes where the Great Beast defines what the love of truth means to politically correct snowflakes."

Yes they are being turned into mindless politically correct snowflakes without independent minds. You may think it lovely but for me it is a horror.

Greta, you are doing what is natural for a secular intolerant. Do you have any idea how many times F4 has claimed his superiority and disapproval of not accepting his secular interpretations of Plato. These are just nasty expressions of secular intolerance. Find me one example of any time I was nasty towards you. It can't be done simply because it doesn't exist. All I've witnessed coming out of you and F4 is emotional secular intolerance. Nothing good, especially in philosophy, can come from such self justifying emotion.

You react emotionally against whatever questions your secular beliefs. There is no logic in anything you've written about me. I just represent the support for the essence of religion you find condescending and intolerable. If it were only you, it wouldn't be a problem But people expressing secular intolerance have infested progressive education and find satisfaction in spirit killing. They believe it to be a noble cause.

You will support the spirit killers and I will support those capable of opening the minds and hearts of the young so that they can begin to feel that they are capable of conscious participation in service to objective universal needs and not just an indoctrinated creature blindly serving the whims of the Great Beast in its secular domain Plato described as if in a cave.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:44 amI wrote: ... politically correct snowflakes.
Noted. Again.
Nick_A wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:44 amGreta, you are doing what is natural for a secular intolerant. Do you have any idea how many times F4 has claimed his superiority and disapproval of not accepting his secular interpretations of Plato.
Alas, the forum rules allow for disagreement - even if one is disagreeing with a saint-in-waiting.
Nick_A wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:44 am These are just nasty expressions of secular intolerance. Find me one example of any time I was nasty towards you.
I have wasted enough time on your put-downs. I know I'm trustworthy, and don't much care about your smear campaigns because you are so obviously biased.
Nick_A wrote:You react emotionally against whatever questions your secular beliefs ... [raving and ranting about something or other]
Just more
.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote:
But if Plato’s “Good” doesn’t exist, what is the reason for working for good, truth, and beauty? What is wrong with survival of the fittest which governs animal life? Plato wrote that justice is the norm for the soul. We must be abnormal
The fittest is that which most harmonises with the prevailing environment. Humans evolved as cooperators, reasoners and learners. To be all we can be we need to cultivate learning and reasoning so that our cooperative tendencies don't become morbid; what I have in mind particularly is Greta's description of how "colonial " we men are so that we congregate in urban colonies with their attendant bad hygiene.

When you say that Plato's "Good" is the reason etc. you are presuming that universals exist. Where are you going to stop? Does the universal egg exist? The universal horse ? The universal human being? The Forms are universals, as I think you must be aware.

When I say "so that our cooperative tendencies don't become morbid" I refer not only to lives lived physically close to others in cities, but also to men's proclivity to gather together into aggressively hostile colonies. Societies, or "colonies" are not all The Great Beast but on the contrary some societies are better than others according to the criterion of harmonious life for all. Isis is a bad society with its fascist culture of death and destruction. The American Constitution sketches a good society. Souls are important and education can nurture souls. It is entirely possible for state education to nurture souls which in their turn prevent the society becoming a "Great Beast".

If you like, I can outline for you the practicalities of the important difference between indoctrination and education.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 10:24 am Nick_A wrote:
But if Plato’s “Good” doesn’t exist, what is the reason for working for good, truth, and beauty? What is wrong with survival of the fittest which governs animal life? Plato wrote that justice is the norm for the soul. We must be abnormal
The fittest is that which most harmonises with the prevailing environment. Humans evolved as cooperators, reasoners and learners. To be all we can be we need to cultivate learning and reasoning so that our cooperative tendencies don't become morbid; what I have in mind particularly is Greta's description of how "colonial " we men are so that we congregate in urban colonies with their attendant bad hygiene.

When you say that Plato's "Good" is the reason etc. you are presuming that universals exist. Where are you going to stop? Does the universal egg exist? The universal horse ? The universal human being? The Forms are universals, as I think you must be aware.

When I say "so that our cooperative tendencies don't become morbid" I refer not only to lives lived physically close to others in cities, but also to men's proclivity to gather together into aggressively hostile colonies. Societies, or "colonies" are not all The Great Beast but on the contrary some societies are better than others according to the criterion of harmonious life for all. Isis is a bad society with its fascist culture of death and destruction. The American Constitution sketches a good society. Souls are important and education can nurture souls. It is entirely possible for state education to nurture souls which in their turn prevent the society becoming a "Great Beast".

If you like, I can outline for you the practicalities of the important difference between indoctrination and education.
If Plato was right and the collective human organism consists of higher and lower parts, the value of cooperation as a higher value will always be opposed by the lower need for supremacy seen as prestige. Access to the higher experience of the world of forms can only come through the higher parts. The lower parts will support prestige. We cooperate when it seems advantageous to do so and just as easily kill when it is egoistically advantageous.

Do you think it would be possible to share on Plato's concept of the world of forms on a thread? Do you think it is worth a shot or is it better just to let sleeping dogs lie in the modern secular world. Could this link be discussed on a philosophy forum? I honestly don't know anymore

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm

I. The Problems the theory was meant to solve:

1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?

2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?

The general structure of the solution: Plato splits up existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Humans have access to the realm of forms through the mind, through reason, given Plato's theory of the subdivisions of the human soul. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. By detaching ourselves from the material world and our bodies and developing our ability to concern ourselves with the forms, we find a value which is not open to change or disintegration. This solves the first, ethical, problem.

Splitting existence up into two realms also solves the problem of permanence and change. We perceive a different world, with different objects, through our mind than we do through the senses. It is the material world, perceived through the senses, that is changing. It is the realm of forms, perceived through the mind, that is permanent and immutable. It is this world that is more real; the world of change is merely an imperfect image of this world.

We have a meaningful disagreement about whether opinions can lead to knowledge through argument or if the conscious experience of knowledge of forms can bring awareness to the limitations of opinions and the incentive to transcend opinions. Is there a way we could build on it?

Indoctrination vs Education: The struggle for the Being of the young. It really is worth a thread of its own and I would appreciate how you distinguish between the two.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A commented on Plato:
1. The Ethical Problem: How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?

2. The Problem of Permanence and Change: How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways?

The general structure of the solution: Plato splits up existence into two realms: the material realm and the transcendent realm of forms.

Humans have access to the realm of forms through the mind, through reason, given Plato's theory of the subdivisions of the human soul. This gives them access to an unchanging world, invulnerable to the pains and changes of the material world. By detaching ourselves from the material world and our bodies and developing our ability to concern ourselves with the forms, we find a value which is not open to change or disintegration. This solves the first, ethical, problem.

Splitting existence up into two realms also solves the problem of permanence and change. We perceive a different world, with different objects, through our mind than we do through the senses. It is the material world, perceived through the senses, that is changing. It is the realm of forms, perceived through the mind, that is permanent and immutable. It is this world that is more real; the world of change is merely an imperfect image of this world.

We have a meaningful disagreement about whether opinions can lead to knowledge through argument or if the conscious experience of knowledge of forms can bring awareness to the limitations of opinions and the incentive to transcend opinions. Is there a way we could build on it?
1.With blood, sweat, tears, humour, the arts, ordinary decencies of kindness and so on. There is no guarantee that I, you, or the entire human species won't lose what we are attached to. The cloud capped towers the gorgeous palaces are stuff that dreams are made of (inexact quote from The Tempest, Prospero)

2. Re Permanence and change. Nothing is permanent except possibly laws of nature , symmetries, as revealed by physics.

However we are talking about ethics not physics. How can we know anything of permanent ethics-----I don't think that we can. Even when our ethics are based upon what we take to be human nature this so-called human nature is based upon our knowledge which never transcends this relative world.
I am very fond of Spinoza's great metaphysical system which Spinoza founded upon pure deductive reason, the whole amounting to a theory of ethics which accords very well with liberal ethics, as anybody can use reason, although its uncertain if Spinoza endorsed inductive reason.

Spinoza's theory is founded upon axioms . Rationalist theories are all founded upon axioms. A problem I see with Plato's Philosopher Kings is that they are so elite and elitist. It seems to be something other than reason deductive or inductive which allows the philosopher king to be elite.



But I cannot explain Plato. I'd appreciate very much a discussion of Plato's Forms. Their place in the history of ideas, with special reference to Christianity and its Greek influences. The social/ethical uses of the Forms. Rationalism.
As I understand it, the difference between Spinoza's reasoning and Plato's reasoning . although both were rationalists, is that of the two only Plato thingified universals: Spinoza thingified nature. By "thingified " I mean made permanent in the sense of cause of itself, not contingent.
Indoctrination vs Education: The struggle for the Being of the young. It really is worth a thread of its own and I would appreciate how you distinguish between the two.
Very much worthy of a thread of its own. There are people more qualified about teaching strategies than I to talk about the difference between indoctrination and education. The very basic difference between them is as I see it that educators' message to children is that knowledge and ethical theories are open-ended but indoctrinators maintain strict boundaries on knowledge and ethics.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda

Maybe we can inspire some deeper conversation
2. Re Permanence and change. Nothing is permanent except possibly laws of nature , symmetries, as revealed by physics.

However we are talking about ethics not physics. How can we know anything of permanent ethics-----I don't think that we can. Even when our ethics are based upon what we take to be human nature this so-called human nature is based upon our knowledge which never transcends this relative world.
I am very fond of Spinoza's great metaphysical system which Spinoza founded upon pure deductive reason, the whole amounting to a theory of ethics which accords very well with liberal ethics, as anybody can use reason, although its uncertain if Spinoza endorsed inductive reason.

Spinoza's theory is founded upon axioms . Rationalist theories are all founded upon axioms. A problem I see with Plato's Philosopher Kings is that they are so elite and elitist. It seems to be something other than reason deductive or inductive which allows the philosopher king to be elite.



But I cannot explain Plato. I'd appreciate very much a discussion of Plato's Forms. Their place in the history of ideas, with special reference to Christianity and its Greek influences. The social/ethical uses of the Forms. Rationalism.
As I understand it, the difference between Spinoza's reasoning and Plato's reasoning . although both were rationalists, is that of the two only Plato thingified universals: Spinoza thingified nature. By "thingified " I mean made permanent in the sense of cause of itself, not contingent.

Indoctrination vs Education: The struggle for the Being of the young. It really is worth a thread of its own and I would appreciate how you distinguish between the two.
Very much worthy of a thread of its own. There are people more qualified about teaching strategies than I to talk about the difference between indoctrination and education. The very basic difference between them is as I see it that educators' message to children is that knowledge and ethical theories are open-ended but indoctrinators maintain strict boundaries on knowledge and ethics.
We can begin threads and perhaps some will join us to seriously contribute. Would you prefer beginning with Plato’s forms or Spinoza’ ethics? Both are extremely important and stimulating. Philosophically. We could follow this link on spinoza’s ethics. Does it resonate with our thinking. For example what is nature according to Spinoza?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

We could use the same idea as they relate to Plato's forms by following the link I previously posted.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm.
II. The Forms:*
A form is an abstract property or quality. Take any property of an object; separate it from that object and consider it by itself, and you are contemplating a form. For example, if you separate the roundness of a basketball from its color, its weight, etc. and consider just roundness by itself, you are thinking of the from of roundness. Plato held that this property existed apart from the basketball, in a different mode of existence than the basketball. The form is not just the idea of roundness you have in your mind. It exists independently of the basketball and independently of whether someone thinks of it. All round objects, not just this basketball, participate or copy this same form of roundness.
In order to see exactly what a form is and how it differs from a material object, we need to look at the first two of the properties that characterize the forms. The forms are transcendent. This means that they do not exist in space and time. A material object, a basketball, exists at a particular place at a particular time. A form, roundness, does not exist at any place or time. The forms exist, or subsist, in a different way. This is especially important because it explains why the forms are unchanging. A form such as roundness will never change; it does not even exist in time. It is the same at all times or places in which it might be instantiated. A form does not exist in space in that it can be instantiated in many places at once and need not be instantiated anywhere in order for the form to exist. The form of roundness can be found in many particular spatial locations, and even if all round objects were destroyed, the property of roundness would still exist.
The forms are also pure. This means that they are pure properties separated from all other properties. A material object, such as a basketball, has many properties: roundness, ballness, orangeness, elasticity, etc. These are all put together to make up this individual basketball. A form is just one of these properties, existing by itself apart from space and time. Roundness is just pure roundness, without any other properties mixed in. The forms differ from material objects, then, in that they are transcendent and pure, while material objects are complex conglomerations of properties located in space and time…………………….
If you are interested in exploring Spinoza’s ethics and or Plato’s forms, let me know. Maybe we can experience what the love of wisdom actually is as we explore the ideas of these two giants in philosophy.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

I may be a *ptui!* secularist but I think that Plato's theory of forms is a beautiful and pertinent idea. People often think this in manner naturally in everyday ways, eg. visualising a task before doing it. I personally "see" the concept as repeating fractals through various domains of reality - as above, so below, connective threads of ideas running through, and linking, those domains.

Whatever, I have seen many beautiful ideas fall on stony ground on forums (including a few of my own), but if the crowd doesn't like it, well, them's the breaks. It's disappointing when ideas that excite us don't resonate with others, but most of us get used to it.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Greta,Nick, regarding the diagram of the Forms in the short link that Nick posted? I studied it, and I find that my objection that I phrased as " what of a universal egg, a universal horse. etc.?" is not true to that diagram or its elucidation in the following text.

Eggs, horses, etc. are among the objects of sense which fade into the regions of the 'lower' objects of sense .The 'higher' Forms include what we have little difficulty in assigning to universals such as redness, smallness, and especially the Forms of Justice, and at the 'top' the form of The Good.
I agree that the theory of The Forms is mighty and attractive, forgive or correct me if seem to put words in your mouth Greta.

I copy what Stanford says in the much lengthier Spinoza entry, regarding 'pantheism'.
Spinoza does not believe that worshipful awe or religious reverence is an appropriate attitude to take before God or Nature. There is nothing holy or sacred about Nature, and it is certainly not the object of a religious experience. Instead, one should strive to understand God or Nature, with the kind of adequate or clear and distinct intellectual knowledge that reveals Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes. The key to discovering and experiencing God, for Spinoza, is philosophy and science, not religious awe and worshipful submission. The latter give rise only to superstitious behavior and subservience to ecclesiastic authorities; the former leads to enlightenment, freedom and true blessedness (i.e., peace of mind)
I do think that we ought to apply Spinoza's unemotional reasoning to any idea, including the idea of The Forms . The Forms is indeed attractive . The great disadvantage of The Forms is that its attraction seduces towards emotionalism(" religious awe or worshipful submission ")Only reason such as scientists aim for, free from subjective and emotional bias, can bring that peace of mind which is the benefice of reality.

The way in which I regard The Forms is like I regard poetic and artistic symbolism. A common poetic and artists' trope is to attribute material existence to ideas e.g. Psyche, Cupid, The Lady borne in her beauty on a scallop shell, etc. We would not have to look far in art to find graphic representations of that excellent diagram of Plato's Forms: there would be an idea such as the Nation, Justice, Beauty, The Race, God, and so on at the top with acolytes and the commoners underneath. True, Spinoza's metaphysics puts human reason in an impregnable position. However, human reason, for all its failings, is something that we undoubtedly have got.

I am not sure that I know how to copy and paste diagrams and I ask Nick if possible to oblige and post that excellent diagram of Plato's Forms.

(I am struggling to understand a little of physics from a simplified book about the Standard Model ,aimed at the layman, called " The Theory of Almost Everything". I mention this to admit that use of reason instead of wishful thinking and emotional reaction is not easy. Physics is difficult even in a book such as this one)
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Nick_A »

"Man - a being in search of meaning." – Plato

Belinda, this is where it gets interesting
Spinoza does not believe that worshipful awe or religious reverence is an appropriate attitude to take before God or Nature. There is nothing holy or sacred about Nature, and it is certainly not the object of a religious experience. Instead, one should strive to understand God or Nature, with the kind of adequate or clear and distinct intellectual knowledge that reveals Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes. The key to discovering and experiencing God, for Spinoza, is philosophy and science, not religious awe and worshipful submission. The latter give rise only to superstitious behavior and subservience to ecclesiastic authorities; the former leads to enlightenment, freedom and true blessedness (i.e., peace of mind)

I do think that we ought to apply Spinoza's unemotional reasoning to any idea, including the idea of The Forms . The Forms is indeed attractive . The great disadvantage of The Forms is that its attraction seduces towards emotionalism(" religious awe or worshipful submission ")Only reason such as scientists aim for, free from subjective and emotional bias, can bring that peace of mind which is the benefice of reality.
I got this quote and others from the following site which offers much good food for thought.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/index1.htm

"... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength." - Spinoza (TEI)
I became thoroughly convinced, that the Bible leaves reason absolutely free, that it has nothing in common with philosophy, in fact, that Revelation and Philosophy stand on different footings. ...

... the multitude - ever prone to superstition, and caring more for the shreds of antiquity than for eternal truths - pays homage to the Books of the Bible, rather than to the Word of God. I show that the Word of God has not been revealed as a certain number of books, but was displayed to the prophets as a simple idea of the Divine mind, namely, obedience to God in singleness of heart, and in the practice of justice and charity; and I further point out, that this doctrine is set forth in Scripture in accordance with the opinions and understandings of those, among whom the Apostles and Prophets preached, to the end that men might receive it willingly, and with their whole heart. ...

... Those who look upon the Bible as a message sent down by God from Heaven to men, will doubtless cry out that I have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost because I have asserted that the Word of God [The Bible] is faulty, mutilated, tampered with, and inconsistent; that we possess it only in fragments, and that the original of the covenant which God made with the Jews has been lost. However, I have no doubt that a little reflection will cause them to desist from their uproar: for not only reason but the expressed opinions of prophets and apostles openly proclaim that God's eternal Word and covenant, no less than true religion, is Divinely inscribed in human hearts, that is, in the human mind, and that this is the true original of God's covenant, stamped with His own seal, namely, the idea of Himself, as it were, with the image of His Godhood. Spinoza, TPT
I believe that Spinoza’s idea of God and nature are really the same as Plotinus. From their perspective God or the conscious souce is beyond the confines and manifests as “nous” or intelligence which is the beginning of creation. Then the above makes perfect sense. As creatures of creation, nous is our goal and objective human meaning and purpose must be associated with universal meaning and purpose. I understand it to be the union of truth (facts) with the Good (meaning.)
...I will speak on the three subjects on which you desire me to disclose my sentiments, and tell you, first, that my opinion concerning God differs widely from that which is ordinarily defended by modern Christians. For I hold that God is of all things the cause immanent, as the phrase is, not transient. I say that all things are in God and move in God, thus agreeing with Paul, and, perhaps, with all the ancient philosophers, though the phraseology may be different; I will even venture to affirm that I agree with all the ancient Hebrews, in so far as one may judge from their traditions, though these are in many ways corrupted. The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [TPT] the unity of God and Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.
This is Panentheism. St. Paul said the same:
Acts 17: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
We seem to have the same objection to the modern secularized conceptions of God. They are the result of corruption. The trick is respecting it and developing understanding.
“The mysteries of faith are degraded if they are made into an object of affirmation and negation, when in reality they should be an object of contemplation.” ~ Simone Weil
Blind belief has created secularism and secularism is destroying this attraction to eros in the young that enables the union of truth ( facts, science) and the good (objective meaning). Is it possible to break this cycle or are we doomed to hit bottom and the manifestation of its resulting horrors?
The way in which I regard The Forms is like I regard poetic and artistic symbolism. A common poetic and artists' trope is to attribute material existence to ideas e.g. Psyche, Cupid, The Lady borne in her beauty on a scallop shell, etc. We would not have to look far in art to find graphic representations of that excellent diagram of Plato's Forms: there would be an idea such as the Nation, Justice, Beauty, The Race, God, and so on at the top with acolytes and the commoners underneath. True, Spinoza's metaphysics puts human reason in an impregnable position. However, human reason, for all its failings, is something that we undoubtedly have got.
Can a perfect circle exist as a conscious potential? We cannot create a perfect circle yet it could be a conscious potential, a form. This potential can manifest as a virtual infinity of imperfect circles that comprise material creation.

I don’t have the means to post that diagram. However it illustrates how objective quality becomes an aspect of levels of reality. The higher the level, the more rapid its material vibration and the finer its material density. That is why the source exists within creation and creation exists within the source much like how a water saturated log exists in a pond as the pond water exists in the log..

Perhaps religious awe and wonder is natural but is easily perverted. Secularism does its best to destroy its influence to preserve its own imagined self importance regardless of what it calls itself
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 8:00 amGreta,Nick, regarding the diagram of the Forms in the short link that Nick posted? I studied it, and I find that my objection that I phrased as " what of a universal egg, a universal horse. etc.?" is not true to that diagram or its elucidation in the following text.

Eggs, horses, etc. are among the objects of sense which fade into the regions of the 'lower' objects of sense .The 'higher' Forms include what we have little difficulty in assigning to universals such as redness, smallness, and especially the Forms of Justice, and at the 'top' the form of The Good.
I agree that the theory of The Forms is mighty and attractive, forgive or correct me if seem to put words in your mouth Greta.
Hi Belinda, I think this ↓ is the image referred to earlier.

Image

If I was to think about a "universal egg" I would consider what an egg is in essence. It's basically an extension of seeds, "germs" - initial states whose properties can shape and limit subsequent growth of entities growing from them. Seeds, eggs, templates, plans, the asteroid that eventually aggregated into the Earth, and whatever banged 13.8b years ago - they each do, or have done, the same thing - they provide a starting point. Also, on a more prosaic level, the universe is full of spheres and ovoids.

As for horses, they are a complex mix of basic forms. It would be an interesting meditation - what is the horse form, ie. which basic qualities constitute horse-ness, as opposed to other large herbivorous terrestrial flight animals like deer, antelopes, giraffes, etc? Yet the idea of an "ideal" horse form only makes sense if we consider "ideal" and meaning "perfectly adapted to its particular environment".
Belinda quoting Spinoza wrote:Spinoza does not believe that worshipful awe or religious reverence is an appropriate attitude to take before God or Nature. There is nothing holy or sacred about Nature, and it is certainly not the object of a religious experience. Instead, one should strive to understand God or Nature, with the kind of adequate or clear and distinct intellectual knowledge that reveals Nature’s most important truths and shows how everything depends essentially and existentially on higher natural causes. The key to discovering and experiencing God, for Spinoza, is philosophy and science, not religious awe and worshipful submission. The latter give rise only to superstitious behavior and subservience to ecclesiastic authorities; the former leads to enlightenment, freedom and true blessedness (i.e., peace of mind)
This reminds me of Buddhist teachings where they refer to different paths to enlightenment or wisdom - the path of the emotion (devotional), of the intellect or of the spirit (meditation). Spinoza, (and us two) seem to find the intellect's path most resonant at this time of life.

Ideals - mental models of desired outcomes - are a useful tool but I actually don't see how the existence of what are essentially idealised metaphysical templates on which reality as we know it is built would inspire awe. Sure, everything emerges from some kind of germ, seed, template etc and builds in fractal layers. I am at least as awestruck by the scale of the realities in which us little things reside as I am at the fascination of the continual fractal layering of reality.

[quote="Belinda]The great disadvantage of The Forms is that its attraction seduces towards emotionalism(" religious awe or worshipful submission ") Only reason such as scientists aim for, free from subjective and emotional bias, can bring that peace of mind which is the benefice of reality.[/quote]
I am missing something again :D

Why can't forms be dispassionately studied and considered, with the ancient metaphysical baggage removed?
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Greta »

I was thinking about ideal forms in terms of constructing a solo in music. Each bar of music that passes would perhaps have an ideal solo phrases, tones, mood etc. Yet, if the solo during each bar was a perfect response to what the other musicians played the solo as a whole may be less effective than if the soloist holds back at first, allowing space for climax, drama and interplay with the other musicians.

It seems that big systems need to be constituted of limited and relatively incomplete entities or the constituents won't act en masse. One could say that it's in the interest of big systems to keep their constituents limited.
Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Melchior »

Religion is ca-ca. 'nuff said!
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Walker »

Melchior wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 3:05 am Religion is ca-ca. 'nuff said!
History poo poos such screed.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Nick, your post is all interesting but I'd say that if I answered it as fully as it deserves my answer would be too long for the purpose of this website.
The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God.

- Spinoza

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

- Jesus

Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God, and is conceived through God.

- Spinoza

The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

- Jesus
(Copied from your link).
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God.

- Spinoza

God absolutely equated God with nature: "Deus Sine Natura" and not with anything , any god, that transcends nature. This was why the Jews in Amsterdam said he was blasphemous.
________________________________________

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

- Jesus
Jesus was a Jew so he would give precedence to the transcendent God. Spinoza was an ex-Jew.
_______________________________________________________________________
Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God, and is conceived through God.

- Spinoza
Both Spinoza and Jesus believed in God.The God of Jesus transcended nature. Spinoza's God was equivalent to nature naturing itself (Natura Naturans). For Spinoza eternity was one way through which men can view nature i.e.God-or-Nature.

__________________________________________________________
The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.

- Jesus

I think we have to look to the historians of ideas to try to explain what Jesus meant. I personally interpret the saying as meaning that the Kingdom of God is akin to the authenticity and courage endorsed by existentialism. The reason I say this is that a man's soul is nurtured by sincerity in thoughts , words, and deeds. The willingness to go it alone if necessary.
______________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

BTW here is a short description of the difference between indoctrination and education within the field of religious education. (In the UK there are 'faith schools' which although religious foundations are publically financed. )

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 72454.html
Last edited by Belinda on Wed May 31, 2017 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secular Intolerance

Post by Belinda »

Greta, thanks for copying the diagram that shows the arrangement of The Forms.

The reason I think that The Forms are best reserved for poetry and art is a practical reason. People always and invariably jostle for power to some degree . It's needed for survival that we do. Here we are writing to each other perfectly cooperatively , yet we hope to learn from each other to gain power cooperatively and non-aggressively. Indeed if we had no hope of learning from each other websites like this would not exist.

The Forms are open to hi-jacking by unscrupulous people with excessive power. The ideal Form of a horse, for instance, might be dictated by a bossy ruler who herself breeds English thoroughbreds. (No I don't refer to Queen Elizabeth II ! ) The ideal Form of Good, instead of being a spiritual pillar of fire, might become the white European race, or whatever.

Greta, your remarks about musical form indicate a need for a thread about

1. how music resembles mathematics in the cases of harmonies of rhythm, counterpoint, and even melody and overall form.
Yet, if the solo during each bar was a perfect response to what the other musicians played the solo as a whole may be less effective than if the soloist holds back at first, allowing space for climax, drama and interplay with the other musicians. (Greta)
is what I mean by musical form.


2. how this resemblance may be construed to endorse The Forms.

3. how music is not alone among the arts in its imitation of eternal harmonies such as spiral shells, the Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Mean, the Golden Section, ( and I am afraid I have forgotten the word for that symmetry where the same pattern is present in smaller and smaller versions, e.g. the tree, the trunk, the branch, the twig).
Locked