Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by uwot » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:59 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
uwot
No sir, it's just stuff you don't like to hear. The point being that if there is a good example of a "person seeking self justification or self importance", you're it.
You offer a classic example for the hatred of ideas concerning the reality of the fallen human condition. This was demonstrated in the classic Secular Intolerance thread. The idea is so offensive that those who speak it must be attacked.
Yup. The "reality of the fallen human condition" is a disgusting idea, and half wits who blithely assert it should expect to be taken to task by decent human beings.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
It is believed that the only reason for opening to the reality of the human condition is to seek self importance and or self justification.
The problem is that you express your opinion as "reality". You have lost sight of the fact that it is only your opinion and therefore have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees is deliberately not "opening to the reality".
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
The attraction to impartial truth and the recognition of a Source greater than oneself along with recognition of the corrupt nature of our being is considered preposterous.
What is preposterous is that you present your personal opinion as "impartial truth".
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
The sooner any seeker of truth learns not to take all this huffing and puffing seriously the sooner one is no longer affected by it and can profit through free speech.
You are kidding yourself that you are seeking truth. I've no idea what your motives are; "self importance and or self justification" may be part of it, but you are clearly seeking confirmation of your rotten ideas.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:09 pm

Walker wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:08 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:02 pm
You write of what not to do and I am writing what is essential to do. At some point they are not different. Can you see why?
Samsara and nirvana exist as the only two possible aspects of one coin, minted of the same metal. As the precursor to wisdom, equanimity ventures more into the direct, non-dual nature of existence that perceives situations rather than problems, and situations always exist. If too dependent on the false identities of “to be,” if unable to abandon the myriad identities perpetually cited and subconsciously believed by the mind which hears and interprets literally, if unable to abandon “to be” now rather than in the inevitable future, then cultivating all knowledge and perception of equanimity within situations, equanimity now pointed-to as the precursor to wisdom, can’t really hurt more than any other change of life.
St Paul in Romans 7 describes the attraction of Christianity for me. Our collective soul lives in perpetual opposition between our corrupted lower nature and our higher striving. Through equanimity we can deny it by refusing to experience its impressions but all this can do is change the results of samsara. Once a person becomes aware of the Law, the power of sin increases. A person has the need “to be” but cannot It is one thing to speak of equanimity but quite another to be able to consciously experience the results of sin as they appear in us without falling victim to sin as Paul describes.

The struggle between our higher and lower natures is the struggle “”to be” It is the struggle for the seed of a conscious soul to mature so as to consciously reconcile our dual nature rather than to achieve equanimity by denying and suppressing the struggle.

Paul writes in Romans 7:
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
As we are, we seem to have the choice between slavery to sin and slavery to the Christ. We are unable “to be.” We are unable to reconcile this struggle through our own efforts other than by escapism by imagination. Drugs for example allow a person to escape from reality but at what cost? We can become slaves to imagination or adopt a quality of slavery which enables us to open to help from above through the energy of the Spirit beginning the path of “to be”. To be or not to be really is an essential question.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:59 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
uwot
No sir, it's just stuff you don't like to hear. The point being that if there is a good example of a "person seeking self justification or self importance", you're it.
You offer a classic example for the hatred of ideas concerning the reality of the fallen human condition. This was demonstrated in the classic Secular Intolerance thread. The idea is so offensive that those who speak it must be attacked.
Yup. The "reality of the fallen human condition" is a disgusting idea, and half wits who blithely assert it should expect to be taken to task by decent human beings.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
It is believed that the only reason for opening to the reality of the human condition is to seek self importance and or self justification.
The problem is that you express your opinion as "reality". You have lost sight of the fact that it is only your opinion and therefore have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees is deliberately not "opening to the reality".
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
The attraction to impartial truth and the recognition of a Source greater than oneself along with recognition of the corrupt nature of our being is considered preposterous.
What is preposterous is that you present your personal opinion as "impartial truth".
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:48 pm
The sooner any seeker of truth learns not to take all this huffing and puffing seriously the sooner one is no longer affected by it and can profit through free speech.
You are kidding yourself that you are seeking truth. I've no idea what your motives are; "self importance and or self justification" may be part of it, but you are clearly seeking confirmation of your rotten ideas.
I appreciate your honesty. The ancient hypothesis which attracts me is disgusting for advocates of secularism like yourself. What could be more disgusting than the idea of universal meaning and purpose and the idea of the wretched man unable to cooperate with it. Yes this is intolerable and must be destroyed. Doubting the Great Beast as the real god cannot go unpunished. It is time to light the torches and pick up the pitchforks to oppose this slander. All the weapons of free speech must be used in the war against common sense which introduces humility in front of what is greater than ourselves as a human virtue.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:28 pm

Uwot
Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:48 pm
The attraction to impartial truth and the recognition of a Source greater than oneself along with recognition of the corrupt nature of our being is considered preposterous.

What is preposterous is that you present your personal opinion as "impartial truth".
The distinction between knowledge and opinion is not my idea. It is a hypothesis used by Plato. Of course I am invited to either verify or reject it

The ideal of free speech would be a universal languge which we can see is impossible. The emotional struggle between opinions as the highest for form of intellectual expression assures it will never be accepted. It presumes objective knowledge described by Plato is possible. Knowledge transcends opinions. But opinions is the life blood of Plato's cave. So to even consider that a universal language that reconciles and transcends opinions is possible is intolerable.

I will post this as a reference maybe to be used later. Here is an excerpt

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm
Salvation from Egoism by Higher Knowledge

Now let's try to put the pieces together. To begin, we are probably on solid ground to suggest that the Divided Line is principally concerned with moral epistemology: how do we know what to do (i.e., what is best for us), both in general and at any given moment? Upon the answer to this eminently practical question all our well-being depends. It is true that Plato includes mathematical examples in the Divided Line. But this doesn't mean he's spliced in an investigation of mathematical or scientific epistemology amidst his great work on personal ethics. It's more plausible to see these as examples drawn from a fairly explicit domain (mathematics) to illustrate corresponding aspects of a less clear one (moral experience).
If we accept this view then what Plato seems to be saying in the Divided Line is that there is a special form of knowledge, noesis, which is a much better basis for guiding our thoughts and actions than other, lesser forms of knowledge. It takes little sophistication to recognize that noesis is better than the more degenerate kinds of 'knowing' — i.e., the eikasia and pistis displayed by prisoners of the Cave. What is far more subtle and interesting, and what is therefore perhaps more important for Plato here, is the contrast between dianoia, ordinary discursive ratiocination, and noesis.

This distinction is vital. While dianoia thinking certainly has benefits, we have a distinct tendency to over-rely on it and to forget its limitations. The weakness of dianoia is that it must begin by taking as true unproven assumptions. We are, in effect, presupposing a model of reality before we begin our deliberations. But any model, be it logical, geometrical, or moral, is only imperfect. Its conclusions may be, and frequently are, wrong. Our selection of assumptions, moreover, is bound to be influenced by our passions and prejudices. Our dianoia thinking tends to reflect the values and prejudices of whatever subpersonality is currently activated. We then see reality partly — through a glass darkly. Moreover, the principle of cognitive dissonance may cause us to ignore, distort, or rationalize away any data which do not fit our preconceived model.

In contrast, noesis presupposes a soul that has turned away from specific selfish concerns to seek the Good itself. With this change in mental orientation — this Pauline metanoia or Plotinian epistrophe — we may then begin to see things more truly, and in their proper relation to one another. We may better think, judge — and therefore act — according to natural law and right reason. We will consequently be more harmonized with the external world as well as within ourselves.

Noesis (Peters, 1967, 121ff.) is the mental power or faculty associated with an immediate apprehension of first principles (Forms) of mathematics, logic, morals, religion, and perhaps other things. So understood, noesis, when concerned with moral Forms, is very close to, if not the same thing as what is traditionally called Conscience. By Conscience we mean not a Freudian super-ego formed by the internalization of arbitrary social conventions, but an innate sense, something divine, and something perhaps closely associated with consciousness itself (let us not forget that in some languages, such as French, the same word denotes both consciousness and Conscience.) We need not commit ourselves to a particular religious creed to say that this moral noetic sense is a phenomenological reality — a clarifying, integrating, joyful, loving faculty of human consciousness.
The characteristic human flaw of turning away from the Good — and instead relying on our own fallible substitutes for divine Wisdom — is hubris, the fundamental sin against which Greek philosophy and literature so forcefully and persistently warns us. This great concern of Homer, Hesiod, and the tragic poets is also Plato's.
Of course accepting the premise of higher knowledge is an intolerable insult to secularism. Nothing can be higher than Man's collected opinions. Noesis is meaningless. Free speech is now used to glorify opinions by giving the illusion of knowledge. The idea of a universal language based on objective knowledge is seen as not just impossible but an intolerable hypothesis.

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by uwot » Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:44 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
I appreciate your honesty. The ancient hypothesis which attracts me is disgusting for advocates of secularism like yourself. What could be more disgusting than the idea of universal meaning and purpose...
That's not the disgusting bit.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
...and the idea of the wretched man unable to cooperate with it.
Ah, there ya go. What have you done that makes you so wretched?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
Yes this is intolerable and must be destroyed.
Not really, if it pleases you to think so little of yourself, go for it. It only needs to be destroyed when theocracies and bigots coerce others into accepting their view.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
Doubting the Great Beast as the real god cannot go unpunished.
Dunno what you mean.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
It is time to light the torches and pick up the pitchforks to oppose this slander. All the weapons of free speech must be used in the war against common sense which introduces humility in front of what is greater than ourselves as a human virtue.
I'm all for humility; it's the wretchedness you foist on others that's a problem. Have some fucking respect for yourself and others.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:19 pm

uwot wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:44 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
I appreciate your honesty. The ancient hypothesis which attracts me is disgusting for advocates of secularism like yourself. What could be more disgusting than the idea of universal meaning and purpose...
That's not the disgusting bit.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
...and the idea of the wretched man unable to cooperate with it.
Ah, there ya go. What have you done that makes you so wretched?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
Yes this is intolerable and must be destroyed.
Not really, if it pleases you to think so little of yourself, go for it. It only needs to be destroyed when theocracies and bigots coerce others into accepting their view.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
Doubting the Great Beast as the real god cannot go unpunished.
Dunno what you mean.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:24 pm
It is time to light the torches and pick up the pitchforks to oppose this slander. All the weapons of free speech must be used in the war against common sense which introduces humility in front of what is greater than ourselves as a human virtue.
I'm all for humility; it's the wretchedness you foist on others that's a problem. Have some fucking respect for yourself and others.
Ah, there ya go. What have you done that makes you so wretched?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:24 pm
Yes this is intolerable and must be destroyed.

Not really, if it pleases you to think so little of yourself, go for it. It only needs to be destroyed when theocracies and bigots coerce others into accepting their view.
This is the misunderstanding natural for Christendom which just denies the meaning of the wretched man in Christianity. The wretched man is not a moral declaration of what we DO but rather an intellectual realization of what we ARE. the wretched man isn't BAD, but rather unfortunate. He is caught between two worlds. Paul describes the wretched man in Romans 7.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.
We lack inner unity so are helpless in front of the struggle between our higher and lower natures. This puts us in a wretched position. To call this bad as is often done in Christendom just takes advantage of the fallen human condition for earthly political gain. This is the result of the devolution of Christianity in the world from a religion of slaves open to the help of the Spirit into a religion of power and of self importance believing they are serving God's will..

Promoting the Great Beast into a God simply denies the reality of the human condition making false pride in imagined inner unity into the ultimate expression of human consciousness.

I've learned that the conscious impartial recognition of the human condition free of moral judgement is only possible for a rare few. Judgement leads to earthly power but destroys the human capacity for understanding universal meaning and purpose as well as human conscious potential within it. Earthly power appreciated as prestige is the dominant motive in societal life so only a few will admit the human condition as it exists within them and open to the help of the Spirit to reconcile this most basic of human struggles and acquire a human perspective which transcends the man made labels of good and bad.

Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Dachshund » Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:32 pm

Nick,


In the US there are News Networks like CNN, MSNBC and ABC who broad news about National politics that is heavily biased against Trump. I have even watched they LYING about the facts of political events. Lots of Americans get their news from these networks when they come home from work at the end of the day. They don't have time to go and research to see if what they are being told is true.

The Constitutional right to freedom of speech means that CNN and the other Democratic Party lackeys can lie, obfuscate, deceive, misrepresent, "spin" the news they deliver as much as they like against Trump.

Take Adam Schiff , for example who read out a "doctored" version of Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President that was reported by all of the National news media. In other words he read out an fraudulent document that he had created, in order to smear Trump.He did it in Congress so that he would be immune from any criminal charges. When he was caught red-handed, the liberal mass media covered up the scandal.

Then we have CNN, MSNBC and ABC lying to the public about Joe Biden corruption and the scandal of his son Hunter Biden being paid millions of dollars in dirty money by a Ukraine Energy company, and another 1.5 billion from China. I saw a CNN segment on this matter which opened with the news anchor saying that the allegations of corruption against Biden were FALSE and then interviewing Democrats who basically said the same thing. BUT THIS IS BULLSHIT because Biden is guilty as hell.

I think that for mass media news broadcasters there should be limits placed on how freely they are allowed speak. When they lie, many members of the public believe the lies; many members of the public trust them to be reporting the unbiased, honest objective truth about national political events. This can potentially have catastrophic ramifications for the nation. Therefore, I think, that when they lie, obfuscate or deliberately seek to deceive networks like CNN and their ilk, should face criminal charges.

Regards

Dachshund

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by uwot » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:15 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:19 pm
This is the misunderstanding natural for Christendom which just denies the meaning of the wretched man in Christianity. The wretched man is not a moral declaration of what we DO but rather an intellectual realization of what we ARE. the wretched man isn't BAD, but rather unfortunate.
By your own admission, you find this sort of self pity attractive. You are wretched, precisely because you choose to be. For some mad reason, you think it is your duty to make everyone else as miserable as you. Do you not understand why people tell you to go fuck yourself?

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:15 am
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:19 pm
This is the misunderstanding natural for Christendom which just denies the meaning of the wretched man in Christianity. The wretched man is not a moral declaration of what we DO but rather an intellectual realization of what we ARE. the wretched man isn't BAD, but rather unfortunate.
By your own admission, you find this sort of self pity attractive. You are wretched, precisely because you choose to be. For some mad reason, you think it is your duty to make everyone else as miserable as you. Do you not understand why people tell you to go fuck yourself?
It isn't just me. Anyone who supports self knowledge with the intent of impartially experiencing the reality of our being will be cursed out in the world and online. It is intolerable for anyone defending secularism and its goal of prestige. Jesus said the world must hate him and for good reason. The conscious wake up call he provides is not wanted in a world held captive by imagination. The saving grace is that there is a minority willing to experience the reality of themselves. I support the efforts of those helping others who have understood in the past and still do in the present.

Of course it is hated as was proven in the Secular Intolerance thread. But if philosophy is to have any objective value it must rise above the emotional satisfactions of pettiness. It becomes increasingly difficult to do in these times.

I am not miserable. I just know that suffering exists in the world and that Simone was right when she wrote:
“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.”

A person can be on the path to reconciling the problem of our dual nature. Of course it doesn't feel good and doesn't pacify our acquired negative emotions but for the seeker of truth, the benefits are worth the effort.
Last edited by Nick_A on Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:24 am

Dachshund wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:32 pm
Nick,


In the US there are News Networks like CNN, MSNBC and ABC who broad news about National politics that is heavily biased against Trump. I have even watched they LYING about the facts of political events. Lots of Americans get their news from these networks when they come home from work at the end of the day. They don't have time to go and research to see if what they are being told is true.

The Constitutional right to freedom of speech means that CNN and the other Democratic Party lackeys can lie, obfuscate, deceive, misrepresent, "spin" the news they deliver as much as they like against Trump.

Take Adam Schiff , for example who read out a "doctored" version of Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President that was reported by all of the National news media. In other words he read out an fraudulent document that he had created, in order to smear Trump.He did it in Congress so that he would be immune from any criminal charges. When he was caught red-handed, the liberal mass media covered up the scandal.

Then we have CNN, MSNBC and ABC lying to the public about Joe Biden corruption and the scandal of his son Hunter Biden being paid millions of dollars in dirty money by a Ukraine Energy company, and another 1.5 billion from China. I saw a CNN segment on this matter which opened with the news anchor saying that the allegations of corruption against Biden were FALSE and then interviewing Democrats who basically said the same thing. BUT THIS IS BULLSHIT because Biden is guilty as hell.

I think that for mass media news broadcasters there should be limits placed on how freely they are allowed speak. When they lie, many members of the public believe the lies; many members of the public trust them to be reporting the unbiased, honest objective truth about national political events. This can potentially have catastrophic ramifications for the nation. Therefore, I think, that when they lie, obfuscate or deliberately seek to deceive networks like CNN and their ilk, should face criminal charges.

Regards

Dachshund
I've learned that the more important an attribute for the sake of preserving liberty, the more it will be abused for pragmatic aims at the expense of liberty. Consider ethics in journalism. the ideals of journalism are for the past when people understood the value of freedom. Those days are over. These ideas are only laughed at.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

People want statist slavery in the belief that somehow it will make their lives better. But as Ben Franklin asserts it just means that such people don't deserve the benefits of freedom:
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
He was right. Free speech is both essential to protect and preserve freedom and also the means to corrupt freedom into slavery. Free speech is like a gun. It is a tool and its results are either good or bad depending upon the person using it.

So I ask you: who determines what free speech should be censored? I think you will agree that there would be a violent and nasty struggle to determine who and what speech should be censored.

I agree with Frankiln. as soon as we let government decide what should be said, the value of free speech will devolve into the struggle for censorship.

The solution of course is for people to recognize the value of free speech and use the tool of free speech accordingly. But abusing it is too much fun and too important for political gain so Franklin appears to be right: we deserve neither freedom or safety.
"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil
The force of selfish egoism making free speech a dying value only fit for abuse is becoming all too obvious

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by uwot » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:17 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am
Anyone who supports self knowledge with the intent of impartially experiencing the reality of our being will be cursed out in the world and online.
There ya go again. Your opinion about "the reality of our being" is not "impartial".
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am
It is intolerable for anyone defending secularism and its goal of prestige.
The funny thing about that is that Christianity, and more broadly religion, aims to show that in a universe that is at least many billions of light years across, the most prestigious thing one can be is a human being, with the right set of beliefs, on a tiny little mote of cosmic dust.

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:17 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am
Anyone who supports self knowledge with the intent of impartially experiencing the reality of our being will be cursed out in the world and online.
There ya go again. Your opinion about "the reality of our being" is not "impartial".
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:43 am
It is intolerable for anyone defending secularism and its goal of prestige.
The funny thing about that is that Christianity, and more broadly religion, aims to show that in a universe that is at least many billions of light years across, the most prestigious thing one can be is a human being, with the right set of beliefs, on a tiny little mote of cosmic dust.
You have it backwards. It is secularized natural man who is so enamored with self importance that it dreams of expanding out into the universe almost as a God. In contrast it is spiritual man who realizes his nothingness.
Matthew 16:26

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
A real philosopher will contemplate what is meant by this at least theoretically regardless if they believe in a soul. Natural man will be content to engage with the struggle to win the world and acquire the prestige associated with their efforts. Spiritual man has not sacrificed his remembrance of eternal values for the sake of temporal victories.

uwot
Posts: 4400
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by uwot » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
You have it backwards. It is secularized natural man who is so enamored with self importance that it dreams of expanding out into the universe almost as a God. In contrast it is spiritual man who realizes his nothingness.
Not so Nick_A. A spiritual man thinks he is in touch with everything. A "secularized natural man" (Sir, from which ripe and buxom tree do you pick these cherries?) knows most of everything is a fucking long way away.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
Matthew 16:26

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
A real philosopher will contemplate what is meant by this at least theoretically regardless if they believe in a soul.
Well look Nick_A, I have a BA Hons in Philosophy, an MSc in History and Philosophy of Science; I have had articles and books published; I have contemplated more crazy possibilities than you can shake a stick at. What more exactly, do you think I need to do to qualify as a "real philosopher"?
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
Natural man will be content to engage with the struggle to win the world and acquire the prestige associated with their efforts. Spiritual man has not sacrificed his remembrance of eternal values for the sake of temporal victories.
Seriously? You believe that shit?

Skepdick
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Skepdick » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:10 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm
What more exactly, do you think I need to do to qualify as a "real philosopher"?
Get cited 3000 years after your death?

Nick_A
Posts: 4317
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:50 am

uwot wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
You have it backwards. It is secularized natural man who is so enamored with self importance that it dreams of expanding out into the universe almost as a God. In contrast it is spiritual man who realizes his nothingness.
Not so Nick_A. A spiritual man thinks he is in touch with everything. A "secularized natural man" (Sir, from which ripe and buxom tree do you pick these cherries?) knows most of everything is a fucking long way away.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
Matthew 16:26

What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
A real philosopher will contemplate what is meant by this at least theoretically regardless if they believe in a soul.
Well look Nick_A, I have a BA Hons in Philosophy, an MSc in History and Philosophy of Science; I have had articles and books published; I have contemplated more crazy possibilities than you can shake a stick at. What more exactly, do you think I need to do to qualify as a "real philosopher"?
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:59 pm
Natural man will be content to engage with the struggle to win the world and acquire the prestige associated with their efforts. Spiritual man has not sacrificed his remembrance of eternal values for the sake of temporal victories.
Seriously? You believe that shit?

Uwot
Well look Nick_A, I have a BA Hons in Philosophy, an MSc in History and Philosophy of Science; I have had articles and books published; I have contemplated more crazy possibilities than you can shake a stick at. What more exactly, do you think I need to do to qualify as a "real philosopher"?
A real philosopher is a lover of wisdom. At the same time he or she realizes that though it exists they don’t have it so are forced to admit like Socrates did that they know nothing.

Unlike a real philosopher with a love for wisdom you are in love with selective knowledge and honors associated with it without the wisdom necessary to experience that you know nothing
Seriously? You believe that shit?
Yes, I believe it because I have experienced the difference between eternal and temporal values.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests