Secular Intolerance

[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?

[Nick_A]

Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure.

So I was right in every respect. You are back here because you annoyed everyone over there with your boring monomania until they shunned you. And you have learned nothing, all your failures are entirely the fault of others.

No, I'm here asking an annoying question. It has become obvious to me that in general the deeper ideas philosophy arouses are becoming extinct both online and in society. I believe this is primarily due to the dominance of secularism and its glorification of the state or what Plato called the "Beast." So I'm asking your opinion of secular intolerance as described in the article. Is it beneficial or harmful for human psychology?

[Harbal]

can the exclusive rather than inclusive nature of secular intolerance

I think that what you insist on calling "secular intolerance" is, in reality, merely an intolerance of Nick_A. I certainly find you hard to stomach and it's nothing to do with secularism, it is entirely due to you being a knob head.

[Nick_A]

Would you be happier if Plato's GOOD and Plotinus' ONE were banned from this site?

I wouldn't want to ban anything as long as I'm free to give my opinion on it. Would you be happier if "secular" opinions were banned from this site?

How would banning the secular mindset further the pursuit and love of wisdom? I do have a love for wisdom and I cannot see how banning secular beliefs furthers it.

It would probably be better to take the term philosophy out of philosophy sites when the evolution of secular intolerance becomes the valued norm. Philosophy Now would change to "Self Justification Now" and Philosophy Forum would change to the "Self Justification Forum." Once people can admit that the love of wisdom has evolved in society to the demand for self justification, secular intolerance will be completely justified

[Harbal]

I do have a love for wisdom

Then why not put it into practice and stop posting your petulant little complaints that no one has any sympathy for.

It would probably be better to take the term philosophy out of philosophy sites

Wouldn't it be better still to take yourself out of philosophy sites if you find them so objectionable.

[Nick_A]

can the exclusive rather than inclusive nature of secular intolerance

I think that what you insist on calling "secular intolerance" is, in reality, merely an intolerance of Nick_A. I certainly find you hard to stomach and it's nothing to do with secularism, it is entirely due to you being a knob head.

Regardles of my knobs, the article I quoted from isn't about be; it is about secular intolerance. Where does this excerpt mention me?

............Secular humanism refuses to deal with values and morals because it perceives them as being a matter of mere opinion, of personal preference. It denies the existence of a natural law, i.e., of any objective moral norm. The only thing that counts is scientific knowledge, which is precisely what Rousseau, Marx, Fichte, Nietzsche and other Fathers of secular humanism claimed they were expounding. They opened the way to the great social engineers of our century the Lenins, Hiders, Maos and Pol Pots, etc. all of whom have been acclaimed, at some point or other, by secularist intellectuals.

In short, the acid test of the true humanist is the claim not to believe, but to know, and to know scientifically. As Walter Lippman, the epitome of American secular humanism, put it in A Preface to Morals, we must live ... in the belief, that the duty of man is not to make his will conform to the will of God, but to the surest knowledge of the condition of human happiness (my emphasis). The problem, however, remains: the proposition that the scientific method is the only sure source of knowledge and that it can be applied indiscriminately to human affairs is an act of faith. It cannot itself be scientifically proven. Even the staunchest secular humanist must admit that he has given assent to a kind of dogma..............

Since the secularist claims society as the creator of values it looks down on claims that there can be any other source. Plato's GOOD must be eliminated as an archaic idea arrived at before people had the opportunity to go to Oxford. Secular intolerance is justified from this perspective.

[Harbal]

the article I quoted from isn't about be; it is about secular intolerance. Where does this excerpt mention me?

I don't know what it mentions, I haven't read it. Any comment I made about you was based entirely on past experience of you.

[Greta]

Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure.

So I was right in every respect. You are back here because you annoyed everyone over there with your boring monomania until they shunned you. And you have learned nothing, all your failures are entirely the fault of others.

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.

It's a shame. I've found Nick interesting and informative plenty of times. A smart man. Alas, the incessant preaching, whining, disparaging, misrepresentation and demonisation of others is a high price to pay.

[Nick_A]

I do have a love for wisdom

Then why not put it into practice and stop posting your petulant little complaints that no one has any sympathy for.

It would probably be better to take the term philosophy out of philosophy sites

Wouldn't it be better still to take yourself out of philosophy sites if you find them so objectionable.

In order for a philosophy site to further philosophy as opposed to self justification, it needs support against secular intolerance which opposes the love of wisdom. I think these sites offering philosophy are more private and have moved underground so to speak. I feel bad for the young who have a sincere calling to wisdom who have this human need killed in them by secular intolerance

“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

A normal kid not yet spiritually dead can feel the truth of this. The intolerant secularist will favor arguing opinions and sometimes the dialectic but condemns the potential for intuition since the knowledge it brings doesn't arise from the secular state. They call this intolerance philosophy.

[Walker]

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.

[Harbal]

I think these sites offering philosophy are more private and have moved underground

Why don't you go see if you can dig one up then?

feel bad for the young who have a sincere calling to wisdom

Me too, I could weep when I think of them.

[Nick_A]

Philosophy sites are like women. You have to experience them in order learn about them. Philosophy Forum was a failure.

So I was right in every respect. You are back here because you annoyed everyone over there with your boring monomania until they shunned you. And you have learned nothing, all your failures are entirely the fault of others.

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.

It's a shame. I've found Nick interesting and informative plenty of times. A smart man. Alas, the incessant preaching, whining, disparaging, misrepresentation and demonisation of others is a high price to pay.

If you want a text book example of secular intolerance in a position of power it is Greta. Notice how rules have no meaning for these types. That which provides alternatives to secular intolerance are annoying and that is the bottom line. Ideas of a certain type furthered by those like Plato that stimulate awakening from the attractions of Plato's cave cannot be tolerated.

They cannot attack me. Their spirit killing through secular intolerance attacks the young which I find horribly cruel. Those like Plato and his spiritual child Simone Weil provoke secular intolerance simply because they touch a nerve that no amount of intolerance can cover.

I am happy I am no longer in my teens. I probably would be dead due to a drug OD. Secular intolerance is called progress. I guess so is suicide but is it really that desirable.

[Harbal]

even though defining religion as a non-philosophical topic,
and therefore inappropriate for a philosophy site,
is in fact de facto, implicit censorship.

No more so than your implicit censorship of me.

[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.

[Harbal]

Those like Plato and his spiritual child Simone Weil provoke secular intolerance simply because they touch a nerve

They don't provoke intolerance, it's you that provokes the intolerance by not being able to talk about anything other than Plato's cave, Simone Weil and "secular intolerance". It's you that's the problem, not Plato or Simone Weil.