Age and ''irrefutable''

[Walker]

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

You do exist.

Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.

[Walker]

In light of your “Eastern Thought” considerations, Peter Kropotkin, we can say that enslaving oneself to another is only done out of need … even if that need is that of the bodhisattva to compassionately work off the karma of another to ease their suffering. Keyname: Neem Karoli Baba*.

The distinction between the slave and the boddhisattva is that the boddhisattva knows he is enslaved by compassion, and other slaves without that broad view are simply bound to others.


* A manifestation of bhakti, which is subject to analysis but is not analysis.

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

You do exist.

Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.

K: and now we are in the land of Descartes.... and all that entails...
or as the man says:

''cogito, ergo sum'' I think, therefor I am.....

are you sure you want to go here and follow Mr. Descartes down the
rabbit hole?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

He confuses the mind with God, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause while God is the creator. Mind is needed for change so God cannot create without the mind.

K: so, is this idea of ''god being the creator'' irrefutable?
please lay out the argument that god/the creator is ''irrefutable"
if, if that is your argument....

Kropotkin

Here please find my recent argument for the existence of God.

K: I am not impressed by your arguments for god... they are verbal tricks,
not connected to anything tangible... connecting space/time to god?
or the different ages of matter to god? you may as well said,
look there is a comet and thus god is proven....
instead of seeking god in some far off land, how about connecting
god to us, here and now... I know god is here because of....
using your arguments, my answer would be space/time...
and different ages of matter...it is a weak argument, at best...
connect god to human beings in a direct and powerful manner..
not indirectly as you have done... but one might say, but
Kropotkin, I can't connect god to human beings directly,
I can only connect them to god indirectly....
see the problem?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

Was this argument irrefutable?

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

Wow, direct to insult.

It wasn't a word game. You are concerned, it seemed, that Age is presenting his position as irrefutable. Fine.
I am pointing out that it seemed like you considered your own argument and position on arguments as irrefutable. I say 'seemed' since it seemed that way, but it might not be. So, I asked if this was the case. Do you also consider it possible that your position on arguments in the OP might not be correct?

And then in my other post, the first one, I asked about your use of the term necessary.

There is what can be rhetorical trick, where one presents one's own position as objective, rather than subjective. This might or might not be going on in the OP. You present the existence God or belief in God as not necessary, period. In objective speak.
But needs, like wants, are related to individuals. Individuals have different needs.

Hence, I asked a question about this. Necessary to whom?

So, while insulting me and my posts is always an option, you could have answered the questions.

If I remember correctly your goal is to be a great philosopher. It seems to me a great philosopher would find questions to be opportunities to learn and communicate.

But I could be wrong about that.

K: but your response was a word game instead of some analysis of what I said...
At no point in my argument did I say, imply or suggest that my argument
was in fact, ''irrefutable'' and to say as much is a word game...
and if you consider that an insult, well that is your problem, not mine...

my point is that we human beings seek out certainty...
we seek out ''irrefutable'' arguments because it makes us feel
better about ourselves as human beings.. in seeking out certainty,
we seek out some solid place in which we can call home..
god loves us.... that is something ''irrefutable'', certainty...
in the afterlife, we can be immortal... again, seeking out
something ''irrefutable'' or certainty....

we spend our lives seeking out something that makes us ''whole''
because we feel disconnected, or alienated from ourselves and/or
others.... this argument about something being ''irrefutable'' is just
another search for something that can make us ''whole''....

we have to understand the path of human beings is a journey...
from going from animal to animal/human to becoming fully human...
most people today are animal/human... we are still tied to our
animal past... we still operate by instinct in many ways...
and to journey is to overcome our instinctual nature and react
to things without the need to instincts... fight or flight is instinct..
to be human is to overcome that need....and come up with a third
choice or to react by reason which may indeed suggest flight is an
excellent path to take... but we have done so by reason, and logic,
not instinct and that makes all the difference in the world.....

to hang onto god or other ''irrefutable'' facts holds us to one place
in that journey.. to create certainty is to stop on the road
to becoming fully human... for me, the argument for god negates
the real journey which is to become fully human...

I am arguing for what it means to be human.... and that being
human is not about finding certainty or ''irrefutable'' facts....
those actually stand in the way of us becoming fully human...

existence, to steal a bit from Nietzsche, is to walk the tightrope...
for we can be upended at any time, by chance, randomness,
or chaos... and this randomness isn't by any means certainty
or god or a place where we can rest and be fulfilled...
and it isn't irrefutable... I have chosen this place to mark
out what it means to be human...and certainty and ''irrefutable''
isn't what it means to be human....for they give us a false
sense of security or of salvation...a refuge from being human...

we tend to run away from what it means to be human....
and we seek out certainty and ''irrefutable'' arguments as
paths to escape being human.... to be human is to walk
that tightrope... our emotions ought to be fear and wonder
and of us being off balance....for that is what it means to
be human... the path to becoming fully human is scary
and possible failure.. and thus my argument against
such certainties as ''irrefutable arguments""

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

to continue this thought...
the one thing that seems to me to be human is change....
we change every single day of our lives...as we
have grown from baby to child to teenager and then young
adult to middle age to old age (where I am) to really old, (not yet)
to finally death...the human path is one of change....

but to hang onto such things as certainty and ''irrefutable idea's"
and god, is to try to end the one thing that is certain in life,
change... (to those who will say, is this irrefutable Kropotkin,
is simply playing games instead of looking at the idea)
the path of being human is the path of change and we can
either control that change or we can be victims of that change...
personally, I would rather control, have some choice in the changes
that will happen in any case... to hold onto god or ''irrefutable''
ideas or certainty, is to abandon controlling the coming changes...
certainty and god and ''irrefutable'' ideas are the enemy of change..
for we must embrace what is to come, and that is change....
to walk the tightrope as it were...

look at children... they aren't afraid of taking chances, of risking their life
and limbs for a daring deed...I too was once a child and I have plenty
of scars to show for it.... and the taking of chances is what makes
one alive to the possibilities... now today, at 64, my idea of taking
chances are quite different than they were at age 6 or even at 15...
I am an old man... and my body can't take the punishment that I was
easily able to take at 6 or at 15...so, my idea of risk becomes
different than it was when I was younger.... it is not a physical
risk, but it is an intellectual and emotional risk I take these days....
the status quo has no interest for me... so, I can take chances
on ideas like rejecting capitalism and accepting something in its place,
I just haven't decided on what we need to replace capitalism with...
more socialism or even communism, perhaps? or perhaps even something else?
what political and/or economic system can help us get to the next step of
human existence, which is becoming human, fully human....
what path will lead us to becoming something more than just
animal or animal/human? that is my engagement these days...

Kropotkin

[Walker]

...

I simply took the time and energy to give you the irrefutable argument you requested. Furnish it as you will.

You're welcome.

[Peter Kropotkin]

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

You do exist.

Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.

K: and now we are in the land of Descartes.... and all that entails...
or as the man says:

''cogito, ergo sum'' I think, therefore I am.....

are you sure you want to go here and follow Mr. Descartes down the
rabbit hole?

Kropotkin

[Walker]

Oh, you want someone else to furnish it for you, Peter Kropotkin.
That's not how it works in reality.
Others can point and provide words both east and west, but you must realize what is to be realized.

Keyspeech: The Truth Is A Pathless Land.
(The speech is probably somewhere on the internet)

[Iwannaplato]

K: but your response was a word game instead of some analysis of what I said...

I wrote two posts with questions. The one about irrefutable was the second one. Yes, I did not present an analysis of your posts. I asked you questions. I have now explained what I was after in my questions, and you still tell me they are word games. You realize, I hope, there are a lot of things that are not analysis, but are also not word games.

At no point in my argument did I say, imply or suggest that my argument
was in fact, ''irrefutable'' and to say as much is a word game...

Which is why I asked the question. You seemed very certain, but I didn't assume. I asked

and if you consider that an insult, well that is your problem, not mine...

Notice that you are leaving out significant portions of what your wrote and which I quoted:

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

If I am asking questions, I am not thinking, it seems you think. And you are not surprised, you say, which is saying that you expect this lack of thinking from me.
It seems you understand that what you left out was insulting or why leave it out in your blaming me for thinking what is obviously insulting is, well, insulting.

my point is that we human beings seek out certainty...
we seek out ''irrefutable'' arguments because it makes us feel
better about ourselves as human beings.. in seeking out certainty,
we seek out some solid place in which we can call home..
god loves us.... that is something ''irrefutable'', certainty...
in the afterlife, we can be immortal... again, seeking out
something ''irrefutable'' or certainty....

Sure we do that. For good and for ill.

we spend our lives seeking out something that makes us ''whole''
because we feel disconnected, or alienated from ourselves and/or
others.... this argument about something being ''irrefutable'' is just
another search for something that can make us ''whole''....

Well, I think it's good to search for things that make us feel whole, though not for things, I would guess, that make us feel "whole".

But these things can be pretty much anything, even disbeliefs and distinguishing ourselves from others.

we have to understand the path of human beings is a journey...
from going from animal to animal/human to becoming fully human...

To be fully human is to be animal, that animal we are. I have no problem with being a mammal, for example.

most people today are animal/human... we are still tied to our
animal past... we still operate by instinct in many ways...
and to journey is to overcome our instinctual nature and react
to things without the need to instincts... fight or flight is instinct..

For a social mammal empathy, love, social yearning, teamwork are all instinctual also. For the social mammals that is, and we are social mammals. These can be overridden by propaganda, for example, and other forms of communication that are decidedly the province of only human animals.

to be human is to overcome that need....and come up with a third
choice or to react by reason which may indeed suggest flight is an
excellent path to take... but we have done so by reason, and logic,
not instinct and that makes all the difference in the world.....

I see no problem with fight or flight (or freeze) in their places. I don't want to reason about a tractor trailer hurtling towards me. I want my brain stem and limbic system to get my ass moving. I want my emotions and intuition to inform me also when situations with words actual conceal real threats to life and limb.

Of course I want all the skills and options the human mind and body offer, but I don't see any need to leave my animal nature behind. I like the complicated animals we are.

to hang onto god or other ''irrefutable'' facts holds us to one place
in that journey.. to create certainty is to stop on the road
to becoming fully human... for me, the argument for god negates
the real journey which is to become fully human...

Maybe others need and prefer and enjoy something else.

I am arguing for what it means to be human.... and that being
human is not about finding certainty or ''irrefutable'' facts....
those actually stand in the way of us becoming fully human...

WEll, you sound very certain about what everyone needs. Yes, you don't use the adjective 'irrefutable'.

existence, to steal a bit from Nietzsche, is to walk the tightrope...
for we can be upended at any time, by chance, randomness,
or chaos... and this randomness isn't by any means certainty
or god or a place where we can rest and be fulfilled...
and it isn't irrefutable... I have chosen this place to mark
out what it means to be human...and certainty and ''irrefutable''
isn't what it means to be human....for they give us a false
sense of security or of salvation...a refuge from being human...

Again, you sound extremely certain about this and you universalize this. It's not just what you want. You speak about we.

we tend to run away from what it means to be human....
and we seek out certainty and ''irrefutable'' arguments as
paths to escape being human.... to be human is to walk
that tightrope... our emotions ought to be fear and wonder
and of us being off balance....for that is what it means to
be human... the path to becoming fully human is scary
and possible failure.. and thus my argument against
such certainties as ''irrefutable arguments""

OK.

Of course, you could have just answered my questions, in the two posts I wrote, instead of insulting me. And when this was pointed out you could have admitted that it was a rather uncharitable response to questions that could easily, it seems, have been answered.

It seems to me you had a fight and flight response to those two posts.

[Walker]

(continued)

The jnani

Does God exist? | J. Krishnamurti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYjYL448-yY

[Age]

so, what argument can we claim that is irrefutable?

You do exist.

Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.

K: and now we are in the land of Descartes.... and all that entails...
or as the man says:

''cogito, ergo sum'' I think, therefor I am.....

are you sure you want to go here and follow Mr. Descartes down the
rabbit hole?

Kropotkin

Are you here proposing or suggesting that you do not or might not exist?

[Age]

K: once again, playing word games instead of thinking...
no surprise there...

and Niners won... on to the super bowl...

Kropotkin

Wow, direct to insult.

It wasn't a word game. You are concerned, it seemed, that Age is presenting his position as irrefutable. Fine.
I am pointing out that it seemed like you considered your own argument and position on arguments as irrefutable. I say 'seemed' since it seemed that way, but it might not be. So, I asked if this was the case. Do you also consider it possible that your position on arguments in the OP might not be correct?

And then in my other post, the first one, I asked about your use of the term necessary.

There is what can be rhetorical trick, where one presents one's own position as objective, rather than subjective. This might or might not be going on in the OP. You present the existence God or belief in God as not necessary, period. In objective speak.
But needs, like wants, are related to individuals. Individuals have different needs.

Hence, I asked a question about this. Necessary to whom?

So, while insulting me and my posts is always an option, you could have answered the questions.

If I remember correctly your goal is to be a great philosopher. It seems to me a great philosopher would find questions to be opportunities to learn and communicate.

But I could be wrong about that.

K: but your response was a word game instead of some analysis of what I said...
At no point in my argument did I say, imply or suggest that my argument
was in fact, ''irrefutable'' and to say as much is a word game...
and if you consider that an insult, well that is your problem, not mine...

my point is that we human beings seek out certainty...
we seek out ''irrefutable'' arguments because it makes us feel
better about ourselves as human beings.. in seeking out certainty,
we seek out some solid place in which we can call home..
god loves us.... that is something ''irrefutable'', certainty...
in the afterlife, we can be immortal... again, seeking out
something ''irrefutable'' or certainty....

we spend our lives seeking out something that makes us ''whole''
because we feel disconnected, or alienated from ourselves and/or
others.... this argument about something being ''irrefutable'' is just
another search for something that can make us ''whole''....

So this so-called 'argument' of yours here is just another search of yours for something that can, supposedly, make you so-called 'whole'.

However, if I was you I would not search for anything being irrefutable, because of the way you can be so easily and so simply misled astray.

we have to understand the path of human beings is a journey...
from going from animal to animal/human to becoming fully human...

But why stop "yourself"at just being 'human', only.

This seems like having a Truly very short-sighted view of things here.

most people today are animal/human... we are still tied to our
animal past... we still operate by instinct in many ways...
and to journey is to overcome our instinctual nature and react
to things without the need to instincts... fight or flight is instinct..
to be human is to overcome that need....and come up with a third
choice or to react by reason which may indeed suggest flight is an
excellent path to take... but we have done so by reason, and logic,
not instinct and that makes all the difference in the world.....

So, you are still trying to become a so-called 'full human', which is just animal with instincts, emotions, and feelings, but now you are suggesting that you try and overcome the natural 'things' of being 'full human' actually are.

Which, obviously, does not follow actual reason nor logic at all.

to hang onto god or other ''irrefutable'' facts holds us to one place
in that journey.. to create certainty is to stop on the road
to becoming fully human... for me, the argument for god negates
the real journey which is to become fully human...

Which, let us not forget, this is all refutable.

I am arguing for what it means to be human.... and that being
human is not about finding certainty or ''irrefutable'' facts....
those actually stand in the way of us becoming fully human...

But, remember, this again is absolutely all refutable, right?

existence, to steal a bit from Nietzsche, is to walk the tightrope...
for we can be upended at any time, by chance, randomness,
or chaos... and this randomness isn't by any means certainty
or god or a place where we can rest and be fulfilled...
and it isn't irrefutable... I have chosen this place to mark
out what it means to be human...and certainty and ''irrefutable''
isn't what it means to be human....for they give us a false
sense of security or of salvation...a refuge from being human...

Maybe you will also learn and discover that being 'full human' is refutable. And, to just seek out and reach 'fully humanness', only, prevents and stops that one from reaching the full potential.

But, these very short and narrowed sighted views and goals, are just examples of those human beings, back then, and their very CLOSED perspectives.

we tend to run away from what it means to be human....
and we seek out certainty and ''irrefutable'' arguments as
paths to escape being human....

So, this one here is saying what it does, but also what it 'should' not be doing.

Which was a very common thing, with the 'hypocritical human', which lived long ago, back when this was being written.

to be human is to walk
that tightrope... our emotions ought to be fear and wonder
and of us being off balance....for that is what it means to
be human... the path to becoming fully human is scary
and possible failure.. and thus my argument against
such certainties as ''irrefutable arguments""

Kropotkin

But why even look for what are 'irrefutable arguments'?

Why not just look at, and see, what exists, then what is 'irrefutable' and 'irrefutably exists' can just be seen, and understood, for 'what' it Truly IS, exactly.

[Age]

to continue this thought...
the one thing that seems to me to be human is change....
we change every single day of our lives...as we
have grown from baby to child to teenager and then young
adult to middle age to old age (where I am) to really old, (not yet)
to finally death...the human path is one of change....

Name one thing that does not change, besides of course the Universe, Itself, never changing from Its always constantly-changing state and maybe 'views', 'beliefs', et cetera.

but to hang onto such things as certainty and ''irrefutable idea's"

Are you under some sort of delusion that if a claim is 'irrefutable', then it could somehow become 'refutable'?

If you are, then obviously you have yet to come across an actual irrefutable claim.

and god, is to try to end the one thing that is certain in life,
change...

Some of these part sentences, separated by three dots for some reason, exactly like this one here do not many any actual sense at all.

What does, 'and god, is to try to end the one thing that is certain in life, change ...', even actually meant to mean, exactly?

Are you able to learn how to communicate better, or more succinctly, so that your words makes actual sense?

I do not want to start assuming what you are trying to mean, for the reasons that I have already provided, just so I can start to fully understand 'you', "peter kropotkin".

(to those who will say, is this irrefutable Kropotkin,

Why imagine/presume absolutely anyone would say this?

Also, what is the 'this' word, in your part sentence, even referring to exactly?

is simply playing games instead of looking at the idea)

Look "peter kropotkin", 'we' are in a philosophy forum here, so if you want to come here and make claims, then be forewarned that you are going to be questioned and/or challenged over your claims. Doing this is a very large part of philosophy and philosophizing.

So, what this means is if you are going to come here and claim, 'nothing is irrefutable', for example, then expect the rather obvious return of, 'Is this claim of yours irrefutable'?

Asking this for clarity is not playing games at all. Just like if someone claims, for example, 'God created everything', and a response they get is, 'Then who created God?' This is certainly not so-called 'simply playing games' at all. That person who asks a clarifying question like this, usually a child, is just showing how OPEN they are, and how Truly Intelligent they are. Now, for the ones who want to make claims as though they know what is true and right in Life, and express those claims as though they are true and right, then, and again be forewarned, expect to be questioned and/or challenged over your claims. Now, if you do not yet have the actual proof for your claim, and thus are not yet able to back up and support your claim, then I will again suggest that you do not make your claim public.

Now, your claim that the other is 'simply playing games instead of looking at the idea', is just you trying to deflect away from the fact that you cannot back up and support your own personal idea here, which on first glance looks very, very hypocritical and contradictory from an outsider's perspective.

Even your claim here that the other is not looking at your idea is ludicrous, as asking the question, 'Is your own personal idea here refutable?' came, exactly, from looking at your idea, and looking from an open perspective I will add.

And the fact that you will not just answer that Truly very simple and very straight forward question, and trying to blame the other of 'playing games' and Falsely accusing them of not looking at your idea, are all tactics to try to deflect and take the 'spot light' away from you.

So, either 'stay strong' and fight your belief and/or claim here, and so back it up, or just admit that your claim here is, obviously, a 'self-refuting' and 'self-contradictory' claim itself.

the path of being human is the path of change and we can
either control that change or we can be victims of that change...

Not that 'this' has absolutely anything to do with if with things are 'irrefutable' or not, but there is no actual path to 'being human' and all of you 'human beings' were born and/or conceived 'being human'.

personally, I would rather control, have some choice in the changes
that will happen in any case...

Okay, but besides 'you', who really cares here?

to hold onto god or ''irrefutable''
ideas or certainty, is to abandon controlling the coming changes...

Why do you continually relate the 'god' word with the 'irrefutable' word here as though those two words are interchangeable?

Obviously they are no, so why do it?

certainty and god and ''irrefutable'' ideas are the enemy of change..

Yes here you are 'certain' of 'your view' or 'belief' here, and so not being able to change 'your view' nor 'belief' here at all.

But, maybe you are just, subconsciously, wanting to provide a perfect example of just how much when one is 'certain' of 'their own view/belief', then they are not able to change, at all.

for we must embrace what is to come, and that is change....
to walk the tightrope as it were...

These two part sentences do not even logically follow.

look at children... they aren't afraid of taking chances, of risking their life
and limbs for a daring deed...I too was once a child and I have plenty
of scars to show for it.... and the taking of chances is what makes
one alive to the possibilities... now today, at 64, my idea of taking
chances are quite different than they were at age 6 or even at 15...

We can see this very, very clearly here. you come across so fixed and rigid, it would be surprising if' 'you' changed, and/or moved at all here.

I am an old man... and my body can't take the punishment that I was
easily able to take at 6 or at 15...so, my idea of risk becomes
different than it was when I was younger....

This is a philosophy forum, thinking is the only thing important here, so 'risk' here is absolutely no different at all.

it is not a physical
risk, but it is an intellectual and emotional risk I take these days....

The only one you are fooling and deceiving here now is "yourself" "peter kropotkin".

you have and hold the 'personal view' and 'belief' that there is absolutely nothing that is irrefutable. And, even when one asked a Truly simple clarifying question regarding this view and belief of yours here, you did not dare take absolutely any 'risk' at all regarding this, you instead just accused 'the other' of the totally absurd and ridiculous, 'playing word games' and of 'not looking at the idea'.

you are so 'rigid in your stance' that you dare not 'move/change' one single thing here.

the status quo has no interest for me... so, I can take chances
on ideas like rejecting capitalism and accepting something in its place,

But you, obviously, have not yet learned how to reject your own personal views and belief and accept something else in their place.

But, maybe you will 'change' and learn how to do this. Or, maybe you need to learn how 'to change', first, before you can and will change?

I just haven't decided on what we need to replace capitalism with...

Who cares?

We are meant to be following 'your' thoughts alone here.

If you want to start by claiming that there is absolutely nothing irrefutable, and want 'us' to look at 'this idea', then let us deal with 'this idea' first, before you go wandering off about 'capitalism', nor anything else.

It is like you want to believe, absolutely, that there is absolutely nothing that is irrefutable and you want, and expect, everyone to just look at this idea, agree with it, and accept it, and then for 'you' to tell 'us' 'your next idea', and probably also wanting, and expecting, to just not question nor challenge you on 'your next idea', and for 'us' to just agree with and accept 'that idea' of 'yours' as well.

more socialism or even communism, perhaps? or perhaps even something else?
what political and/or economic system can help us get to the next step of
human existence, which is becoming human, fully human....
what path will lead us to becoming something more than just
animal or animal/human? that is my engagement these days...

Kropotkin

Again, why just stop at 'human' or so-called 'full human'? Obviously, evolution, itself, which brought 'you' human beings into Creation, is not just going to stop with 'you' things alone.

For some of 'us' 'we' have already moved out of and passed the 'human' or so-called 'fully human' being stage and level of Life, Itself.

[puto]

This argument is in the form of folk psychology. To denote the word, Irrefutable: That which cannot be destroyed. In the true sense, reality should not be confused with whether the idea of God exists. The rational universe,

“… With all the blue eternal sky And spangled heavens, a shining frame Their great original proclaim …”

Joseph Addison. Your use of logic is confusing to me, as I understand it. Abstract objects to the physical to mental is the Mind-Body Problem, and that is a mystery, you are trying to solve, using folk psychology. You then attempt a definition of concrete objects, using the scientific theory of explanation. Using, it out of context that of the word theory. You then apply your conscience should apply to all.