Philosophy Now Forum

I told you the particulars of Tonglen. I went one better. Having never heard of it before, I went and looked it up. It's not Christian, nor is it compatible with it. It's Buddhist, empty-minded, quietistic, devoid of God, devoid of any understanding of human "compassion" or sin, pantheist...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 5:18 pm The bolded section seems like Pete's point doesn't it?

...no, actually.

But it is very much like you to miss the point, so go back and reread my original exchange with Peter, and see if you can catch up.

You're wrong. No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many, many of them; but for a start, the whole worldview required in order to practice tonglen is a denial of the entire Christian worldview. So yeah, they're in direct conflict, and at the most basic sorts of l...

You already allowed that "We all know people can make up stuff. That's their "practice." So what?" . I didn't "allow" it. I pointed it out. I no more "allowed" it than I "allowed" slavery or rape by mentioning them. Track the "so what"? So...

Fork-in-the-road territory. Always stimulating. Tonglen practice is beneficial and does not conflict with Christianity. No, sorry...it sure does "conflict." They have nothing in common, actually. You're wrong. No, I'm right. I don't need to go into all the details, because there are many,...

You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial. Show me where I "allowed" that and "decided" that, Kathy Newman. I never did. Why do you feel the need to make things up, if you have good arguments? Erm.... We all know people can make up s...

So I guess that from here, you can choose one of those two roads. And which one you choose will determine what kind of life you will live, going forward. Fork-in-the-road territory. Always stimulating. Tonglen practice is beneficial and does not conflict with Christianity. No, sorry...it sure does ...

Seems to me: all we need is a means of binding arbitration. Yeah, that's tough, though. Who gets to "bind" is the problem. At least with democracy, the selfishness of others is counterbalanced by votes from the other side, which, if nothing else, etiolates the powers of authority until th...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:43 pmNo, it's on track.

Do you feel you are making progress?

Doing fine. Thanks for asking.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:59 pm You already allowed that we can make stuff up and you decided that wasn't controversial.

Show me where I "allowed" that and "decided" that, Kathy Newman.

I never did.

Why do you feel the need to make things up, if you have good arguments?

The Buddha seems like he was wise in many respects, however, apparently he was wrong. History is full of charismatic figures who seem to have gotten it wrong about God and other things. That is true. But it's not particularly informative of anything. There were many wrong guesses about all kinds of...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 3:27 pm Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it?

Whenever I try to talk to you, I feel like I'm in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA

I'll let you figure out which role is yours. "So you're saying...."

Well that just puts us back to here then doesn't it? Pete and I are moral antirealists, we say there is no such thing as a grand ultimate moral truth. Peter says there are moral premises. What does he mean by "are"? Does he mean only that idiots say unreal things ? Trivial. Or does he mea...

Pete is only saying that we have the practice of making moral assertions and of rationalising with moral premises. If that's all he were saying, then he would be saying nothing of any importance at all, nothing anybody could doubt, would bother to doubt, or would bother to defend. We all know peopl...

The existence and evolution of morality is explicable naturalistically. It's not, actually. We can explain-away morality by simply insisting that it's a product of the past plus evolution. But that's just instinct. And as I have pointed out above, instinct is a mixed bag of moral and immoral things...