Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am
Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:52 am You REALLY DO BELIEVE that 'you', "immanuel can", are SO SUPERIOR....EXTREMELY CONDESCENDING.
Not at all.

I'm trying to be kind to you, and you're declining that. And you're free to do so.
Let us PLAY like this. And, I have ACTUALLY be kind to you, and you are declining it. You are also free to do so.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am Consider this: most people won't take the time to help you map out a way to have better conversational and personal success in dealing with other people.
LOL
LOL
LOL

You STILL do NOT GET 'it'.

I do NOT want to have better conversational NOR personal success in dealing with 'you', human beings, here in this forum.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am Why won't they?
You are BEYOND A JOKE "immanuel can".

You WROTE that you could so easily prove my replies wrong, and so easily contest what I write.

So, how about INSTEAD of just continual DISTRACTION you DO what you SAID and CLAIMED you could do?

The MORE time you spend CONDESCENDING, and NOT proving my replies wrong and contest what I write, the MORE STUPID and FOOLISH you are REALLY LOOKING.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am Maybe they're too polite to try. Maybe they don't know what to say. But maybe a lot of them do, but don't think you're important enough for them to bother.
Maybe 'I' am the LEAST IMPORTANT 'thing' that EVER existed. But WHO CARES?

I CERTAINLY DO NOT.

Why will you NOT do what you CLAIMED you could do?

Maybe you REALLY can NOT. Maybe you do NOT know how to. But maybe a lot of what you claim you could NOT substantiate ANYWAY, but we prefer you keep NOT backing up and supporting YOUR CLAIMS because this is just MORE EVIDENCE of how 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was written, really would say things BEFORE they put ANY actual REAL thought into them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am I do. Take the compliment.
Which CONTRADICTS ALL of those times when you wrote: "I'm not bothering".
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:59 am But as for the advice, nobody can make you take that. You'll be happier and more successful if you do, but it's up to you.
And you would be FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL if you took the advice that you had been given, but NO one can make you take that advice.

Do NOT FORGET that it is up to you.
Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm what I am able to understand of what you are trying to establish and where you'd like to receive affirmation (as I assume you seek?)
Suggesting and describing how/why there is more than what you are talking about or considering is simply a suggestion for further consideration. You seem to need/want that to be defined or established in a certain way. It's a little bit like (for example), as if you were intently and singularly focusing on the ground as someone suggested noticing the sky -- they have different characteristics and ways of being described and understood. You may have no interest or use for anything other than your methodology and what you've been focusing on and 'establishing'. You may indicate that you want to explore the truth of it further, but that's only within your established parameters. Mr. Can does not step/explore beyond his established parameters either.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm So a) if stories that you can refer to are made up then b) they must all be made up.
That's not my reasoning at all. I simply see the vast potential that is available to all and each of us, and we choose what to make of it...
How come you can see the 'vast potential', which is available to all and each of us, but you can NOT YET see past or beyond 'this'?
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm as is evidenced by the endless diversity and perspectives throughout humankind's history and by people, themselves. One man's claim that he is somehow uniquely aligned with some kind of greater truth is his limited story that will die with him. There can be as many of these stories as there are people or perspectives. What does that tell us?
What that tells us is that 'you', "lacewing", will die with your OWN 'limited story', which you OBVIOUSLY also have and BELIEVE is 'somehow uniquely aligned with some kind of greater truth', as well.

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm I would have to suppose that you can refer to nothing certain about *this life*, about your existence in it, and for you (again based on what you write and the function of what you write, if it can be condensed out) there is only stories that are made up.
I am certain of there always being greater potential than specific limited notions or rules we might believe in. :)
So, if you ARE CERTAIN of 'this', then are you also CERTAIN that 'the specific limited notion'; "One person's claim that he is somehow uniquely aligned with some kind of greater truth is his limited story that will die with him", there will always be greater potential of?

Or, do your OWN 'specific limited notions' "lacewing" NOT fall under your other 'specific limited notion' that there will 'always be greater potential' of?
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm I am certain that there are many paths from every position.
WHY are you CERTAIN of this? And, WHERE did this CERTAINTY come from, EXACTLY?

And, are there also MANY PATHS from your OWN positions? Or, are your positions the ONLY PATH?

See, EVERY time you 'try to' CLAIM that there is ONLY one way, like the very specific limited way that there are MANY WAYS, then you CONTRADICT what you CLAIM, and are by HYPOCRITICAL itself.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm I am certain that we are very creative. I am certain of the ability to experience unconditional love. Is that enough?
That will be enough when you can SEE that being A 'creative' species, which is continually evolving, then it IS POSSIBLE through evolution to come to UNCOVERING, FINDING, and/or SEEING what thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

Or, are you NOT YET OPEN to THAT 'potential'?
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pm But you also always say "there must be more". That the definitions that people, some people, do work with, seem to you *limiting* and you desire to expand the parameters -- but you never offer them you just refer, rather abstractly, to them.
The point/suggestion I try to make is to not get stuck, lost, blinded, or rigid by certain views.
When you say that you are CERTAIN of ..., then could you be getting stuck, lost, blinded, or rigid by those, literally, CERTAIN views?
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm It is ineffective and untrue to 'pick a side' or be extreme.
I do NOT know about being 'untrue' but it is EXTREMELY INEFFECTIVE to 'pick a side', and that is FOR SURE.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm Without the balance and truth that comes from acknowledging and considering that there is more that's possible and/or valid than one's favored position, then there is more story than truth.
BUT, HOW could there POSSIBLY be 'more' to thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth?

Also, is there 'more' to the VIEW, BELIEF, or ASSUMPTION "there is more that is possible"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But if yes, then HOW, EXACTLY?
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:01 pmit seems to me you are in a prolonged battle against specific people, people out of your part and your context who constrained you. All of this is intelligible to me.
So, you think that because I see/consider beyond singular positions, I am being rebellious? :lol: How can you NOT see beyond singular positions -- are you in a prolonged battle with your past?
You are BOTH in prolonged battles with your pasts. And what those pasts were, exactly, is VERY OBVIOUS. Well, to some of us anyway.
Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:54 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:07 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
This to me is -- permit me the honesty -- an absurdly premised statement. If something is not *true* it should not become the foundation for the structures we build.
And that is not what I was suggesting.

Here's the context of what I was talking about ...
Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:47 pm Can we operate on 'foundations' without being so tied to, or blinded by, them? .../... It is such limits that I think philosophers would be wise to question.

What if we notice and explore what is possible, rather than arguing over the nebulous notion of 'what is true'?
And that was in response to your comments about a 'Christian foundation'. Christian 'truths' are, indeed, a bit nebulous... but look at how people argue over them, and become rigid in them, instead of exploring what more could be possible? Such notions limit the idea of 'God'.I think you might hear/understand me better if it weren't for the assumptions/stories you've applied to me.
An example of this is "lacewing's" notion of God and just how limited that notion REALLY IS.

To "lacewing" there is NO 'more' to "lacewing's" notion of God.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:39 pm
Dubious wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:09 pmThe quote made by Lacewing, I believe, is perfectly true in the sense that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true. It remains an entry within an index of probabilities. Bayesian logic works on much the same principle. A lie can easily appear true if given credence century after century, tantamount to a lie creating a history for itself. What may change are its interpretations yet nevertheless remain true within its context. In effect, it's the lie which created the truth of Christianity. As a controlling millennial structure, it amounts to a historical fact established on a plethora of highly rationalized indoctrinated lies.
It does seem true "that truth remains relative to what we believe to be true" if truth is determined by our own decision, or whimsy. Yet I think that most all of us would, if pressed, actually present some pretty defined and solid notion of *the true* -- when we have made a careful analysis of what we have learned in living life.

My sense of it, when Lacewing speaks of there always being something more beyond any specific concretization of values or principles, is that she does not elucidate some actionable content, but proposes a somewhat abstract idea, as a challenge to those who work within defined systems. So when she says (or if you were to say) that we should explore the possible and put aside trying to define what is true, I did not take it that she is not interested in what is true, but simply desires to have more open possibilities before her.
I am not dismissing the value of truth -- I am challenging us to consider more truth... 'broader' truth.
WHEN are you going to GET that when one arrives at a Truth, which is ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE, that 'that' is an ACTUAL Truth, of which there is NOTHING 'more' NOR 'broader'.

And, to DISTINGUISH between what is just classed as "truth", of which there IS 'more' and/or a 'broader perspective', from what IS the FINAL ULTIMATE, or NO 'more', then 'THAT' is denoted as 'Truth'.

If you can NOT separate NOR notice thee DIFFERENCE, then I do NOT YET KNOW ANY other BETTER way to SHOW you.

The word 'truth' just refers to what 'you', human beings, take as being 'true', but which could ACTUALLY BE False.

The word 'Truth' just refers to 'that' what is IRREFUTABLY 'True', and could NEVER be False.

So, OF COURSE there could ALWAYS be 'more' to 'your', human being, 'truth'. But, just AS OBVIOUS is the Fact that what can NOT be REFUTED IS 'Truth'.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm A singular truth only goes so far.
But, there can be SOME singular 'truths' that can NOT be REFUTED, and so they become and ARE an IRREFUTABLE Truth. Which, literally, MEANS that they are A singular Truth. And, although this singular Truth can only go so far, it can only go to WHERE it lay. And, that is to A FINAL and ULTIMATE destination, of where there is NO 'more', NOR ANY 'broader'.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm And we humans tend to use 'singular truths' to build fantastic structures that deny all other truths.
OF COURSE 'you', human beings, DO.

And, 'you', "lacewing", have being DOING the EXACT SAME thing here.
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 4:53 pm So how truthful is that... and isn't that important?
ALL of 'you' who say things like; God is NOT true, or God is true, are ALL just expressing what you call 'singular truths'.

And, how Truthful are those 'truths' will NEVER be UNCOVERED when you just keep EXPRESSING your OWN made-up 'singular truths', and NOT start LOOKING AT what thee One and ONLY ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

If that is important or not, depends on 'you', ALONE.
Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm "Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." –Rumi

One of the ugliest most violent threads I ever participated in was "The Limitations of Reason." It seems that there is no greater conflict then the one between blind denial and blind belief. Something in the depth of the inner man senses a the deep truth of Christianity. Yet something within the shallowness of the egoistic personality rebels against it taking either the form of blind belief or blind denial.
AND, for this very 'reason' I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing'.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm Anyone capable of going beyond blind belief or blind denial is presented with the problem "how to begin."
I just start 'in, and at, the beginning'.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm What is square one for the seeker of truth essential to experience what the soul needs to experience "meaning?"
For the above, square one, our first step, is; 'Honesty'. Full stop.

Step two, is; taking responsibility - for ALL of the Wrong we, each personally, do.

Step three, is; accepting responsibility - by doing ALL we can to CHANGE, for the better.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm and who has the need and the courage to face it?
Those who want to CHANGE, for the better, for the absolute BEST for "others", have the 'need'.

And, those who SERIOUSLY want to be Truly Honest, in order to CHANGE for the better, for "others", will, literally, have NO fear AT ALL to do what it takes to CHANGE, literally, "them" 'self', and so will ALSO have the 'courage' as well as the 'need'.

What is essential for the seeker of Truth is just speaking Truth. ALONE. That is; thee Truth, thee WHOLE Truth, and NOTHING but thee Truth.

First, by being Truly Honest about ALL the Wrong one does.

Two, by being Truly OPEN one, automatically, becomes Truly OPEN.

Three, by seeking to CHANGE, for the better, while being Truly OPEN and Honest, then ALL 'meaning', AND understanding, itself, are found.

To experience what the 'soul' needs to experience 'meaning' is to NOT be a 'seeker of truth', but just be a 'speaker of Truth', instead. Truth-speakers ONLY find 'meaning', unintentionally by the way.

Thee absolute Truth is NOT found by LOOKING for 'It', NOR by seeking Truth, but by just being COMPLETELY OPEN and just speaking thee Truth ONLY.

As ALREADY PROVED True.
Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:33 pmAnd I would not refrain again from bringing up the question of Truth with a capital 't'. And the reason is because a) when I examine those words given to Macbeth I recognize statements about fundamentally true things. Things that were true then and things that are still true now. These are fundamental and enduring truths that transcend mutable circumstance. If this is so, I would assert, what is being spoken of are metaphysical truths.
But what are these? Where do they reside? Are they part of *the world* in the sense of Nature? I do not think so. No, they arise in an invisible yet determining territory that is outside of time & space, outside of the manifest world. They *enter* the world though and they have their effect.
What is a "metaphysical truth" except those you describe as such.
Great clarifying question.

We now wait the answer.
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm Is there such a thing, and why should any truth be qualified as metaphysical?
ANOTHER GREAT, and very simple, CLARIFYING QUESTION.

We look forward to the answer.
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm Truth is what it is; it doesn't need any qualifying additions.
But HOW, EXACTLY, does one DISTINGUISH 'that' what is IRREFUTABLY True from 'that' what is just thought of or BELIEVED as being true?
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm It's also debatable if metaphysics still actively exists or archived as an old discipline worthy of academic study only. Of what value is metaphysics to life except as thought cathedrals populated by the like-minded, not unlike the virtual reality world of a computer game.
The word 'metaphysics' conjures up MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to MANY DIFFERENT 'peoples'.
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:46 pmThere is another, a deeper, way to see the play of Othello. It has to do with the notion of 'sacred marriage'. You know, Christ as the bridegroom and the body of the Church as the bride.
I doubt Shakespeare thought of it in that way. From what I read, he was a very practical kind of guy who wasn't in the least concerned if his plays were lost to posterity! I see your situation as one desperately trying to make connections that don't exist in order to rinse some kind of customized meaning out of it. You obviously can if you want to, but the meaning you derive from it is all your own.
If one LOOKS AT a 'play' or 'movie' from ANY particular viewpoint, like one of "christianity", then this CLEARLY SHOWS just HOW MUCH that one has been LED ALONG in Life, and just HOW NARROWED their field of vision REALLY IS.
Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pm As is very common on philosophy forums, you seek to create mystery which aspires to some surface profundity in the belief that meaning will follow. Maybe I'm wrong but so far, that's how it looks to me.
Age
Posts: 11018
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:42 am This is because you do NOT like to ACCEPT the Facts that I SHOW and PROVIDE here.

what facts?
THE Fact that you CLAIM a person is 'self-possessed' BUT 'you' can STILL SHOOT people DEAD when you so CHOOSE TO.

Which, as I keep SHOWING, is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION, and a VERY HYPOCRITICAL, CLAIM to make. This, of course, is ANOTHER Fact that I have offered up.

But, which you ALSO will NOT delve into and DISCUSS with ME. WHICH, AGAIN, is ANOTHER Fact that HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED True by your continual COWARDLINESS and HIDING behind DISTRACTIONS.

ANOTHER Fact is 'the style of my writing' is atrocious, to you. Or, are you now going to CLAIM that this is NOT a fact?
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:42 am you offer no facts

never have: never will
Here is ANOTHER Fact. This one here is SO BLINDED by its very OWN BELIEFS, that it ACTUALLY BELIEVES, without EVER READING EVERY thing that I have written here that I have NEVER offered a fact ANYWHERE.

And this one is SO BLINDED, again by its OWN BELIEFS, that it BELIEVES I will NEVER offer A fact ANYWHERE.

This PROVES, the Fact, that when someone BELIEVES some 'thing' is true, then they CLEARLY can NOT SEE CLEARLY.

ANOTHER Fact here is you just made ANOTHER CLAIM, without absolutely NO PROOF AT ALL of, and which you BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLE, and of which could NEVER be PROVED True anyway. Your CLAIM, however, could be PROVED False. Which I have JUST DONE, by the way. So, here is ANOTHER fact.

Therefore, I have, ONCE AGAIN, OFFERED up facts, and now even MORE facts. So, what you have SAID and CLAIMED here IS, and always WAS, just False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. Which is NOT uncommon at all with you.

But, this could ALL well be depended upon, like I am continually asking; 'What does the word 'facts' actually mean or refer to, to you?'

Oh, and by the way, My CLAIM that;This is because you do NOT like to ACCEPT the Facts that I SHOW and PROVIDE here.

You have just PROVED absolutely and IRREFUTABLY True, and thus you have created ANOTHER, proved, fact, by you writing thee ACTUAL words; you offer no facts

never have: never will


So, a LOT of what I write you end up, completely unconsciously and unintentionally, PROVING to be IRREFUTABLE True Fact.
uwot
Posts: 5835
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Christianity

Post by uwot »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:48 pmYou could allow that there might be some in a culture who retain the intellectual capacity to perceive, understand and see the older metaphysical truths, but who for perfectly rational and intellectually rigorous reasons reject them. Again, it is a schoolboy error to assume that those who think differently think less.
Except that it is my experience, not as you say that those who oppose some of the *truths* I attempt to highlight are thinking less, but often through a rejection of that or those truths for other reasons. The interesting question, in my case, is in trying to define fairly why this is.
Let me save you the bother: it's aesthetics.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pmI fully admit that there are some highly intelligent people who succeed in cobbling together their reasonings (of the sort that may be employed to undermine or discredit the sense of meaning I refer to) and do influence others. In this we can refer to influential elites and intellectual leaders. I fully admit that these people exist and I fully acknowledge their influential power.

What I am interested in is discerning my way through their assertions, their declarations.
They will either please you or they won't. Take a simple proposition such as 'Jesus Christ is an historical figure'. If you find such an idea appealing and wish for verification, the various gospels and few passing mentions by historians, who of necessity had to rely on hearsay, will persuade you. Should you accept a premise you can then discern your way through any complimentary assertions and declarations: his mother was a virgin, he fed 5000 people with a fish sandwich for example, which again will either please you or not. Any reasoning that supports such assertions is post hoc; you don't arrive at 'Mary was a virgin' through logic. What those scoundrels in their ivory towers can do is scrutinise whatever story is cobbled together from a given list of premises, and tell you whether it is coherent. They cannot prove that any of the assertions are untrue.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pmI think that it is fair to say, my dear Willy, that you make clear what your relationship is to this entire issue of metaphysics -- you are totally contemptuous of those who hold to these understandings.
I'll say it again:
uwot wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:29 pmNo Gus; what you presume is poverty is actually richness. I do not think that all stories are unreal; on the contrary I know full well that any one of many might be real.
I like stories and have no axe to grind with anyone who believes them.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pmAll that you say drips with your scathing contempt.
That I reserve for those who insist that their aesthetic choices have practical implications for others.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:11 pmNow, what I say is that you, in the sense of your mood, the activism in your proposals, can be and should be examined. You are a clever person and no one could say differently, but you also show signs of being something of a dolt (if you will permit this term) -- in relation to the subtle meanings that I focus on.
And for those who attribute my lack of agreement to gross reckoning.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 15281
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 5:36 am Let us PLAY like this.
Let's not.

I've said what I've said. You can listen or not, as you please. Nobody can make you.
Dontaskme
Posts: 12762
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:02 am I neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing'.
Image
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 13445
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

THE Fact that you CLAIM a person is 'self-possessed' BUT 'you' can STILL SHOOT people DEAD when you so CHOOSE TO.

there's no contradiction here: theft (of a car or a life) is takin' that which is not your own

if you kill me without just cause, you steal from me (literally, you steal me)

ownership implies the possibility of theft

no contradiction (and no facts, still, from you)
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:14 pmWhat is a "metaphysical truth" except those you describe as such. Is there such a thing, and why should any truth be qualified as metaphysical? Truth is what it is; it doesn't need any qualifying additions. It's also debatable if metaphysics still actively exists or archived as an old discipline worthy of academic study only. Of what value is metaphysics to life except as thought cathedrals populated by the like-minded, not unlike the virtual reality world of a computer game.
Good question, and that is beyond doubt. The simplest way that I have found to broach the topic is to refer to *meaning*. It seems to me that the apperception of 'higher meaning' of the sort that informs everything that pertains to higher culture and to higher values, can be understood as having a metaphysical origin. And I think that one very good way to approach the topic is to consider how it is that meaning is conveyed through works of art, but especially of the calibre of Shakespeare. But here is an interesting aspect of this and I say this tentatively and with a certain caution: when you read Shakespeare you could only receive the 'meaning' that is essential or fundamental to his work by 'translating' it into lower-level and rather mundane interpretations. Your description of the 'meaning' of the play as a treatise on the green-eyed monster jealousy and the practical teaching that a captain like Othello should not have been so short-sighted and non-circumspect, is a reduction to very low levels of meaning. But there is it seems to me a reason why the play resonates so profoundly in so many who encounter it, and that reason (I suggest with a degree of humility) does not appear on your radar. It takes place on a frequency which your 'mechanics' cannot perceive.

Something extraordinary is presented as being lost in that play. The loss is devastating. And I am sure that you catch my drift.

Now my larger point has very very little to do with you. It has to do with my developing understanding about what happens to *us* when we disconnect, and I do mean this literally, from a connection to the Divine. So I would then have to point out that there are various ways-and-means by which one does make that connection. There are very basic levels and there are higher levels. The Saints, for example, demonstrate connection at a high level. Their methods and what they say about what they do, what they receive, and what it means, can be studied and it can also be imitated. That is, one can apply the method to one's own life and, resulting from that, establish or strengthen that *connection*. Yet I fully acknowledge many very 'low' methods of connection, some of them very unappealing to me personally. But the topic, in my mind, is the connection and that as a 'first principle'.

So what I have been working with, and for some time now, is my perception (which I believe to be accurate and also fair) has to do with examining and trying to understand what happens to people, and a given person, who relinquishes what I refer to as spiritual connection with real entity and real power (God is the term we all use) that is metaphysical to ourselves. What I notice, speaking generally, is not positive result but more often than not negative result. But remember that I am speaking of real and bona fide connection (through prayer, through a meditative mental orientation, through conduct and orientation) to God as a real thing, which is different from, let's say, the God that is unreal for you (and some other here). You see? Your description of God is to make God not-God. And doing this you separate yourself from the 'possibility' of God. Yes, you do this ultra-rationally -- philosophically as you-plural often say -- but my own sense is your method of philosophy is in the larger part a 'sham' or self-deceptive. But this of course is my opinion and I cannot see how it could have much weight in your eyes.

I have tried to make it clear that my larger endeavor has to do with my sense that when an entire civilization, effectively, disconnects from the metaphysical glue that brought it into existence, that the dissolution of that civilization is a necessary result. Obviously, I am interested here in something rather hard to put a label on. It could be described as an underlying connecting principle or purpose. I am certainly not the first one to notice what happens when cultural and social binding comes undone. But isn't that a topic that needs to be broached? And that is the reason why the topic is being broached -- but not necessarily among people with your mind-set. You seem to set your objective on undermining the *possibility of belief*, the possibility of receiving from and connecting with 'higher metaphysical entity'. This is your chief objective! You work to establish block to that because those blocks have been established -- constructed -- in you.

And this is why I suggest that you are to your audience what Iago was to Othello. Here I have extracted as it were a special and rather pointed meaning. How could I prove what I suggest? I do not think I could *prove* it in the sense that you understand proofs. Again, you are not relevant to me. What is relevant to me is what people do with ideas. Ideas have consequences. It is a simple statement with tremendously relevant levels of implication.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:46 pmThere is another, a deeper, way to see the play of Othello. It has to do with the notion of 'sacred marriage'. You know, Christ as the bridegroom and the body of the Church as the bride.
I doubt Shakespeare thought of it in that way. From what I read, he was a very practical kind of guy who wasn't in the least concerned if his plays were lost to posterity! I see your situation as one desperately trying to make connections that don't exist in order to rinse some kind of customized meaning out of it. You obviously can if you want to, but the meaning you derive from it is all your own.
Well, what I can say here is that I'd suggest looking into Shakespeare more deeply. I took the advice of Harold Bloom -- a very accomplished Shakespeare scholar -- who recommended about 15 different titles. Reading some of them I gained an understanding of the degree to which Shakespeare was steeped in 'the older metaphysics'. These have become, I came to see, largely invisible to us unless they are pointed out by those who have devoted their lives to this study. One I'd recommend is Elizabethan Psychology and Shakespeare's Plays by Ruth Leila Anderson. Another is Shakespeare in the Light of the Sacred by Martin Lings. One other and very good is The Seventeenth Century Background by Basil Willey.

At least in my own case I could not have *successfully* been able to understand what was actually being written about if I'd not been exposed to the people who really really went into it.
I see your situation as one desperately trying to make connections that don't exist in order to rinse some kind of customized meaning out of it.
And I see yours as one who in another sort of desperation seeks to remove or subtract a whole world of meaning which, for various reasons, can no longer be perceived by you. But here I am repeating the general thesis of this present post.

"Friend, look to ’t."
As is very common on philosophy forums, you seek to create mystery which aspires to some surface profundity in the belief that meaning will follow. Maybe I'm wrong but so far, that's how it looks to me.
Similarly, you have been provided with *acid* of a mental sort and it has been demonstrated to you by certain influential persons what you can do with these acids! You do not really have an substantial standing within the entire world you inhabit, but you do have a certain amount of youthful force which could also be described as 'folly'. Proud, insolent, certain, you rush forward far too quickly! and you trample so much of value without fully understanding what you do.

Now I am aware that I am not only speaking to you (how can I really know what you are about?) but I am speaking very generally to trends and 'moods' that seem very operative today. So take it for what it is worth.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pm "Fool's gold exists because there is real gold." –Rumi
Might Christianity be 'fool's gold'?
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmSomething in the depth of the inner man senses a the deep truth of Christianity.
Are you trying to apply this as a Universe truth about the 'inner man' of everyone? That would be false.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmYet something within the shallowness of the egoistic personality
Such as what you demonstrate with your false pronouncements? :wink:
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmAnyone capable of going beyond blind belief or blind denial is presented with the problem "how to begin."
What beginning do you suggest, and what do you imagine we will see beyond this blindness you refer to?
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmWhat is square one for the seeker of truth
Do you imagine you know?
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmessential to experience what the soul needs to experience "meaning"
How do you know there's a soul and that it needs something? Perhaps there is one creative force that is simply exploring potential.
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:51 pmand who has the need and the courage to face it?
Are you imagining the way you have faced the story you believe in?

It seems that you are compelled to imagine your story as an epic battle that involves everyone. Perhaps this reflects quite clearly (thank you) the drive of Christianity. The greatest story ever told: an epic battle over a man's 'soul'.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi to Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:19 pm my developing understanding about what happens to *us* when we disconnect, and I do mean this literally, from a connection to the Divine.
How do you know what the 'divine' is or should be for everyone, such that you know they are disconnected from it?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi to Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:19 pm I have tried to make it clear that my larger endeavor has to do with my sense that when an entire civilization, effectively, disconnects from the metaphysical glue that brought it into existence, that the dissolution of that civilization is a necessary result.
Is it preferable to live a lie than risk dying?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 5278
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Alexis Jacobi to Dubious wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:19 pm What is relevant to me is what people do with ideas. Ideas have consequences. It is a simple statement with tremendously relevant levels of implication.
All of this is true... but the implications vary widely (of course!) based on perspective. Your assessments appear to be skewed by your beliefs of what is true and right and should be. What are the consequences and implications of that?
Post Reply