https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 65811.ch45
https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... minem.htmlYou are fundamentally devious and dishonest.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 65811.ch45
https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... minem.htmlYou are fundamentally devious and dishonest.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 1:54 amPro, and others like him, in-forum, think we're all just animals, that morality is a joke, and that people like you, Mannie, me, Walker, etc., are fools.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:44 amJust for the record, we are all animals. And morality only becomes a joke, some insist, when you are actually able to convince yourself that of all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of moral narratives that have been configured into arrogant, authoritarian dogmas down through the centuries, only yours really is the One True Path...
Do they ever really sit down and, introspectively, think that through?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 amWell, let's do that. Let's "sit down" and "introspectively think through" that claim.
First of all, I noted that some insist this is the case. My own frame of mind revolves more around the assumption that religious beliefs are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Including Immanuel Can's own.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 amIt goes, "To believe there is any singular moral truth is to make morality into a joke." It's to be "arrogant, authoritarian" and "dogmatic."
Okay, let him note a context [like abortion] and apply this to himself.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 amSo...to believe this requires that we first believe a prior premise. That premise is, that believing one's morals are right is wrong. Absolutely wrong.
I don't get it. Many Christians will tell us that God's Commandments and His Word in the Bible are the basis for objective morality on this side of the grave. And, in turn, they tell us that unless we obey them we might burn for all of eternity in Hell on the other side.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 amAnd it's absolutely, objectively, indisputably wrong to be "arrogant, authoritarian and dogmatic," as well. We have to believe that, too.
Let's bring this down to Earth. A context in which conflicting moral and spiritual narratives are pervasive around the globe.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 amIf you don't believe these things, then the statement is not believable itself. It would not be any indictment of "making morality into a joke" if deciding on a single moral truth, or being "arrogant, etc." were not objectively wrong. So it has to be.
The author of such a claim believes in an objective moral precept: namely, that declaring support for a singular morality is wrong. That's his 10-Commandments-in-one, if you like: his absolute moral bedrock.
So now, let's "introspect."
Where did he get this confidence that being committed to objective morality is wrong? And is he only subjectively committed to it, or does he think it's absolute and beyond doubt?
And what we quickly see is that his veneer of inclusiveness and tolerance is something he does not practice himself. Rather, he's "dogmatic, arrogant and authoritarian" toward anybody who believes in a singular morality.
He's run afoul of his own moral absolute, in other words. He's "hoist with his own petard," to use the Shakespearean metaphor. He's failed to introspect, and unilaterally declared other people wrong, even while claiming to be open-minded.
Oh how the worm turns, when one lives and dies on his own counsel.
So...it's nothing that you believe is actually true, then.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:11 pm First of all, I noted that some insist this is the case.
But if you only assert this "subjectively" as you say, then all it means is, "It seems from where I sit that X is looks so." But it entails no obligation or even reason for anybody else to believe it or to see things the same way.My own frame of mind revolves more around the assumption that religious beliefs are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Including Immanuel Can's own.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:46 pm
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:46 pmI don't know how to make myself any clearer. My interest in the Christian God revolves around the fact that, morally, "I" am "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I make in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
Again, I am only interested in taking abstract "intellectual/spiritual contraptions" like this out into the world of actual conflicting human interactions. And with God and religion that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:12 pm We are all fractured and fragmented. This is the human condition. We are not one with inner unity. We have no I. Rather we are composed of many small i's. We are many. "I Am" is the potential for human being on earth. You have experienced the norm for our being
And given the fact that, existentially, oblivion is more or less right around the corner for me. Christians argue that an objective morality can be embodied if one accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior. And that oblivion is not the fate of "I" at all...that immortality and salvation await those who become faithful Christians.
You seem completely incapable [to me] of discussing religion other than in these abstract homilies. If I do say so myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 4:34 pmIt's irrelevant to the question of the rightness or wrongness of any particular statement he has made. And it's not relevant to the question of whether or not particular propositions he has stated are true or false.
You can heap up any petty insults you wish...and you already have. You can be as imperious and dismissive as you can manage. But nothing will make such allegations relevant to the rightness or wrongness of a proposition.
As I see things this is merely more diversionary tactic on your part. If you can latch on to an accusation of ad hominem, then you can avoid the entire group of views, ideas and perspectives that were brought out. That you do this, again in my view, reveals your core dishonesty. And your dishonesty is contemptible.Furthermore, I'm certain you now know that. You could check any definition of ad hominem fallacy, and find out, if you didn't. And if you don't, shame on you for not finding out by now. So I'm going to assume you're intelligent, but that you're simply weaseling at the moment. The alternative, that you're not bright enough to know or find out what ad hominem means, seems untenable.
As I have clearly explained, and necessarily so, your religious fanaticism, the understructure to the views that you present, needs to be examined as such. A free and open enquiry is needed in order to see this, and explain this, while also including any specific assertion you make. My view is that there is no way around this. However, I do make it clear that we must do this fairly and maturely. My view is that as it pertains to the Culture Wars, and to the conflicts that are going on around us, and the conflicts and differences that we encounter in these conversations, that we have to include a wide range of things and not merely and not only the precise enunciated positions. And to this end I have been discussing factors and elements that pertain precisely to what I assert is important.Ad Hominem (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
Actually everything that I have recently written (and I admire the attempt to assign the terms imperious and dismissive!) all functions together as a whole. It must be taken as such. It is one thing merely to shout some name-accusation (devious, dishonest) and quite another to show, with examples, where and how that dishonesty operates.You can be as imperious and dismissive as you can manage. But nothing will make such allegations relevant to the rightness or wrongness of a proposition.
Well I find this interesting. It is worthy of exploration. I definitely see that accusation of *weasel!*, with no back-up explanation, with no references to weaselness, as irrelevant and tactically distracting. So I agree with you. But if you found some argument that I made to be weaselly, and you explained why, I do not think I would have a problem with that term. It is fair game.But even if you were, by way of character, world's worst weasel, that would not tell me whether your particular claims were right or wrong. At least I know that. Funny that you don't.
Nobody cares. This objection is merely ad hominem.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:37 pm As I see things this is merely more diversionary tactic on your part.
Talking about the ideas is mature. Talking about the speaker is ad hominem.So talking in this way about the sorts of ideas we have, and why we have them, is productive, necessary and as I say mature.
Did you understand the word "if"?Well I find this interesting. It is worthy of exploration. I definitely see that accusation of *weasel!*,But even if you were, by way of character, world's worst weasel, that would not tell me whether your particular claims were right or wrong. At least I know that. Funny that you don't.
Understood. My view? Dear IC established the present line to avoid responding and interacting with 3 recent posts. I’ll link to them later. Sun’s shining. The bicycle is getting anxious!henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:55 pm Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.
The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.
Me too.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:55 pm Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.
The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.
A religion initiating with a conscious source needs a foundation to build upon to return home. For Christianity we are slaves to sin. You may consider it an abstract homily but a seeker of truth verifies it through efforts to impartially and consciously know thyself, to have the experience of oneself. Once we have verified what we are, the question becomes what the path to freedom is.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:59 pmiambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:46 pm
1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual pathiambiguous wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:46 pmI don't know how to make myself any clearer. My interest in the Christian God revolves around the fact that, morally, "I" am "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I make in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296Again, I am only interested in taking abstract "intellectual/spiritual contraptions" like this out into the world of actual conflicting human interactions. And with God and religion that revolves around connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:12 pm We are all fractured and fragmented. This is the human condition. We are not one with inner unity. We have no I. Rather we are composed of many small i's. We are many. "I Am" is the potential for human being on earth. You have experienced the norm for our being
And to suggest that human identity as I understand it myself in being a moral nihilist in a No God world is as much "the norm" as the Self/Soul that religious adherents embrace is nothing short of mind-boggling to me.
Again, choose a particular set of circumstances most here will be familiar with and let's compare and contrast our thinking.
Or, again, move on to others here more inclined to explore your own assumptions about religion.
And given the fact that, existentially, oblivion is more or less right around the corner for me. Christians argue that an objective morality can be embodied if one accepts Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior. And that oblivion is not the fate of "I" at all...that immortality and salvation await those who become faithful Christians.You seem completely incapable [to me] of discussing religion other than in these abstract homilies. If I do say so myself.
Over and out.
Christianity, certainly in our present, can only be understood when examined through a broadened approach.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:55 pm Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.
The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.
Funny.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 10:08 pm Christianity, certainly in our present, can only be understood when examined through a broadened approach.
Humanity lives in imagination arguing opinions. But what if there is a small minority not governed by imagination but have become conscious so as to experience human meaning and purpose? They would know what Christianity is as a perennial reality and live according to its precepts as common sense. Is conscious humanity fiction or a reality? Is there a transcendent kingdom or level of reality as Simone describes? My gut feeling is that there is. I'm humble enough to know it doesn't include me.I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.
But apart from what millions of individuals believe, say ,and do, does Christianity exist? I mean if you can imagine a world with no people in it, would Christianity exist?henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:55 pm Tell you what: when the conversation makes its way back to Christianity, somebody drop me a line.
The current back & forth is borin' the piss outta me.