Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am It goes,
"To believe there is any singular moral truth is to make morality into a joke." It's to be
"arrogant, authoritarian" and "dogmatic."
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 5:11 pm
First of all, I noted that
some insist this is the case.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am So...it's nothing that you believe is actually true, then.
As I note over and again, in regard to my own frame of mind pertaining to moral, political and spiritual value judgments:
My frame of mind revolves more around the assumption that religious beliefs are rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Including Immanuel Can's own.
And, given that there have been hundreds and hundreds of moral and spiritual narratives championed down through the centuries...paths that were clearly in the vicinity of arrogance, dogma and authoritarian certainty, how is his own any different?
Let's get this straight. Is he acknowledging that his own belief in the Christian God is just another existential leap of faith? Re say Kierkegaard, Pascal and others?
Or is he telling us that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist? That, unless others accept Jesus Christ as their savior, it won't go well for them at Judgment Day?
Again: what does he know with any degree of certainty here and what is he able to demonstrate that others can know with certainty in turn?
WITH SO MUCH AT STAKE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE GRAVE
Let him note for us what he construes to be the soundest proof that it is his God and not one of these...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am 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.
Exactly!!! That's the whole point about being "fractured and fragmented" given the arguments I make 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
...regarding individual value judgements at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am Happy with that? Is that all you meant? Then I'm fine with receiving that, too: I have no problem that, from where you sit, all kinds of things may seem so to you.
Sure, if what you believe about the Christian God makes you happy, if it comforts and consoles you, if it soothes your soul, you can stop right there. Millions upon millions do. But this is a philosophy venue. We're expected to dig down deeper regarding what we believe.
Which, in my view, is precisely what you and others of your objectivist ilk don't do. You can't demonstrate that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven so you concoct your intellectual and spiritual contraptions in a "world of words". Then all you need do is to believe that the words are true "in your head".
Only that is precisely what all of these folks....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
...are doing in regard their own Gods and their own spiritual paths. You're all the same in that you insist that your own chosen path is the One True Path to immortality and salvation.
But none of you will stop and think, "gee, there are hundreds and hundreds of paths out there to choose from. What
are the odds that it's mine?!"
And you won't because, in my view, you have too much invested mentally and emotionally and psychologically in it
being your path for sure. Again, I was once a devout Christian myself!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:47 am Which way do you want to be? Do you want to dogmatic or impotent? Because those are the choices you've given yourself.
I'm not dogmatic because I am the first to admit that my own points here are no less rooted subjectively, existentially in dasein. Given the fact that,
like you, "I" am but an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the vastness of "all there is". So, really, what are the odds that I, going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself, am even remotely close to a precise understanding of the "human condition" here on planet Earth.
In fact, it's only when I have noted this to all of the moral and political and spiritual objectivists [like you] that I've encountered down through the years that the "huffing and puffing" often commences. The last thing they want to believe is that their own One True Path may well be just an existential fabrication rooted in dasein.
Right?
And I am impotent only to the extent that what I believe "here and now" is true. After all, what can I possible do to change it? On the other hand, what I do believe "here and now" may not be true at all. How could I possibly know that for sure?
Then the other point of mine you skipped:
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.
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.
How about IC? Does he agree?
And if that is true why wouldn't one be absolutely adamant in preaching Christianity? Isn't that precisely the basis for proselytizing, for becoming Christian missionaries? Souls themselves are at stake!!
But other religious denominations, while basically agreeing with that, insist that it is their own One True Path that will save your soul.
Why his path and not their path? Let him give us what he construes to be the best argument and evidence there is to bring the infidels around. And let him really go deeply introspective here, okay?