Lacewing
Now answer my question: Why are you so arrogant and foolish to claim that you know what reality IS for everyone?
If people create their own reality how am I supposed to know all these creations? I will say that anyone can verify that they are the wretched man as described by St. Paul in Romans 7.
That makes no sense, and it's ALL your own drama, Nick.
Why did Jesus and Socrates have to be killed? They had to be killed because their awakening influence was intolerable for dominant secularism. Ideas of a certain awakening quality are offensive to the secular mind but when introduced by these special people capable of opening minds and hearts to the reality of the human condition and the potential for human being, they must be eliminated and even killed if necessary.
The seeker exists. Truth is relative and changeable. So why are you a follower of relative and changeable beliefs, Nick?
We live as expressions of partial truths which are relative and changeable. They result in the diversity of opinions. This appears to be the ultimate in human conscious evolution for the secular mind. However the universalist mind is open to the idea of the eternal unchanging and by definition its truth doesn’t change. The seeker of truth feels the value of transcending the domain of partial truths and opinions and move consciously closer to the domain of the eternal unchanging. Socrates raises a question that we are invited to contemplate. When we are ready the solution appears by the power of intuition.
http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_forms.htm
Plato’s theory of forms (or ideas) lies at the heart of his philosophy. It follows on directly from his allegory of the cave and understanding reality. One of the problems that philosophers tried to answer in ancient Greece was that of relating the many to the one. For example when we see a particular chair for the first time how do we know it is a chair? The particular example of the chair we are presented with might not bear any resemblance to any other chair we have seen before yet we know instinctively that it is a chair!
Socrates had insisted that we must attempt to answer the question ‘What is X?’ before we can say anything meaningful about X. To answer this question Socrates asked the question ‘What is the one thing common to all the many instances of examples of X?’ Socrates was primarily interested in the consequences of this problem for ethics (not chairs!). He was interested in questions such as ‘What is justice?’ He reasoned that in order to define what justice is all you needed to do was look at examples of justice in the world around you and note down the similarities. However, despite all his philosophical inquiry, Socrates was unable to come to any conclusion.
Plato’s Conclusion to Socrates
Following on from this, Plato sought to find out why Socrates’ reasoning was inconclusive. Going over Socrates’ philosophical method, Plato concluded that all instances and examples of X were unreliable.
Plato held that in interesting cases such as justice and goodness and beauty every instance of X will also be an instance of the opposite of X.
Plato concluded that there must be an unambiguous example of justice. This unambiguous example cannot be found in this world but only in another. He believed that as well as the transitory material world that we all experience here and now, there was also an eternal world of concepts or forms. This eternal world is more real than the world we experience through the senses, and it is the object of knowledge, not opinion.
Heraclitus wrote that change is the only certainty. “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”
How can the eternal unchanging and the certainty of change both be true? Is it because back in their time they lacked modern progressive education and critical thinking skills which would prevent such silliness? Maybe they knew what we have forgotten.
So are you saying that there is NO nonsense? And are you saying that what YOU believe to be true, is intellectual?
Of course there is nonsense. What I am saying is that your tendency for emotional rejection of anything questioning the supremacy of partial truths, prevents you from consciously opening to the third dimension of thought in which the meaningful reconciliation of partial truths becomes possible..
I think it's perfectly reasonable to see "philosophy as the love of wisdom". However, WISDOM is questionable. YOU are not the authority on wisdom, Nick. And philosophy is MORE than that too. So... exactly WHAT am I denying? And why are you so arrogant and foolish as to make up an entire absurd paragraph about what I "have created"?
Do you really believe that wisdom is achieved through more partial truths and more opinions? It seems that you do. Am I wrong? I believe that the path to wisdom and its relationship to knowledge as defined by Plato appears through the practice of conscious intuition which can reconcile partial truths. Of course this is offensive for secularism since it denies higher consciousness and a connection with a source for opinions beyond the domain of the earth which cannot exist for secularism
If your beliefs were truly profound and truthful, you wouldn’t have to misrepresent other people the way that you do.
But who have I misrepresented? That is why I quote others.
Because your platform and claims cannot exist alongside the FULL TRUTH about people and the vastness of reality and potential.
The full truth is that we suffer the results of the human condition through no fault of our own which is the cause of the hypocrisy which dominates our lives and denies the reality of the potential for human “being.” This is the basic conflict between secularism and universlism. Secularism believes in social progress defined in relation to life on earth. Human progress for the universalist is the inner conscious recognition of our potential to return to our origin.
You have to ignore/deny ALL OF THAT so that you can accuse people and beasts of crimes you delight in preaching against, yes? It appears that you want to rip out Mother Nature's heart with your fabricated "godly" teeth? Such skewed insanity and intent seems kind of evil, don’t you think? Are you aware or unaware of it?
There is no delight in recognizing the hypocrisy of the human condition. Man on earth is capable of both the greatest compassion and greatest atrocities. It isn’t a matter of ripping out the heart of mother nature but of understanding her needs so war doesn’t become a necessity