Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:44 am
Dubious wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:14 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:44 pm

So if a person strives for what makes them happy then to succeed defines meaning. Suppose a person wants to be rich so strives to make money so as to be happy. Happiness is acquired in life but what of those who strive to feel meaning rather than being happy. Suppose a person spends their life for the purpose of being happy then one day wonders why am I doing this? I am happy but lack meaning or the feeling of the purpose of my being. They ask: What am I doing?

Meno's paradox offers an alternative. What we experience in life can make us happy or sad. But when one remembers (anamnesis) what offers meaning from a higher perspective they can experience human purpose. How does one remember? They remember human meaning rather than struggling for personal earthly happiness. Christianity offers the potential to remember what has been forgotten.



This is real philosophy. How many knows what it means and able to ponder the depths of the idea to feel its meaning?
Well then! It looks like you have it made; you've discovered meaning and whatever that meaning means to you. In that sense, everyone has to preach to himself to customize meaning and purpose to their lives. If Christianity does it for you don't assume it also applies to others. They may have their own reference points.
You are referring to imaginary meaning or self justification. I am referring to objective meaning and purpose for Man which can be remembered as always existing.
In the deterministic sense mankind has always existed.In the deterministic sense every event including mankind is a necessary event. God is a deterministic idea.

The enlightened application of the Free Will theory of mankind is mankind, unlike other living creatures, breaks free of genetic evolution and evolves mainly through culture. Cultures of belief can be evaluated using several criteria. Nick has not justified his criterion for his belief and therefore is not a fundamentalist. The usual justifications for God belief are miraculous intervention in history by God; or revelation by a prophet such as Jesus; or both.

Christians justify God belief both by miracles and by the life and work of the historical Jesus.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:40 am In the deterministic sense mankind has always existed.
Verifiably false. The mathematics of infinite regress prove that's impossible. And Evolutionism denies that's the case. And the expansion of the universe proves it's empirically impossible. So mathematically, theoretically and empirically, that's known not to be true.
In the deterministic sense every event including mankind is a necessary event.

That's true, but is merely definition for "Determinism." We have no evidence for Determinism.
God is a deterministic idea.
False again. Only some versions of "god" are Deterministic. The Calvinist version is. Other versions, which include most Theistic versions, are decidedly not.
The enlightened application of the Free Will theory of mankind is mankind, unlike other living creatures, breaks free of genetic evolution and evolves mainly through culture.

Free will has nothing to do with culture, and nothing to do with genetics, and nothing to do with evolution. You've mixed your concepts and simply clouded the issue here.
Nick has not justified his criterion for his belief and therefore is not a fundamentalist.
.
No, Nick is a Catholic Mystic, of a somewhat Gnostic bent. And the definition of "fundamentalist" is not " one who does not justify his criterion for belief." It's closer to, "one who believes in the literal truth of a particular religious text." That is neither Gnostic nor Catholic.
The usual justifications for God belief are miraculous intervention in history by God; or revelation by a prophet such as Jesus; or both.
Those are only two of the justifications. There are a lot more. But you've done nothing to suggest those aren't great "justifications" in themselves; if they are real, and Jesus Christ existed and did the miracles attributed to Him, then that is surely adequate justification for faith.

Just have to set the record straight, there, B.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:32 pmNo, Nick is a Catholic Mystic, of a somewhat Gnostic bent. And the definition of "fundamentalist" is not " one who does not justify his criterion for belief." It's closer to, "one who believes in the literal truth of a particular religious text." That is neither Gnostic nor Catholic.

Just have to set the record straight, there.
A small but significant correction. Nick (I gather) comes out of the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition. I am uncertain the degree to which he participates in the rites of that church but he is not Catholic. EO is significantly different from the Roman Catholic.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:22 amI read thru your post several times, lookin' for a way in.

I failed.

As usual, you masterfully critiqued and C'dYA in one neat unit.
What does C'dYA mean?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:17 pm Regardless of "many different shades of meaning" most poetry is bunk serving no useful purpose by way of insight or anything else. Jung himself, was much more interested in the significance established in prose than in poetry...with very few exceptions. Most poetry is bunk...including mine!
Hoo boy! You make some bold statements. I am just now leaving on a bike-packing trip but there are a few noteworthy things that could be said here. Perhaps when I get back I'll remember to bring it up.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:04 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:22 amI read thru your post several times, lookin' for a way in.

I failed.

As usual, you masterfully critiqued and C'dYA in one neat unit.
What does C'dYA mean?
Cover'd Your Ass
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:32 pmNo, Nick is a Catholic Mystic, of a somewhat Gnostic bent. And the definition of "fundamentalist" is not " one who does not justify his criterion for belief." It's closer to, "one who believes in the literal truth of a particular religious text." That is neither Gnostic nor Catholic.

Just have to set the record straight, there.
A small but significant correction. Nick (I gather) comes out of the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition. I am uncertain the degree to which he participates in the rites of that church but he is not Catholic. EO is significantly different from the Roman Catholic.
Interesting. I haven't heard him say that. If you have, you must be speaking of some conversation to which I was not privy.

What I do know is that he's a devout worshipper of Simone Weil, who was Catholic. Almost anytime he tries to make a point he regards as important, he cites her. The Orthodox, while similar to Catholics in their forms, clergy and procedures, have a somewhat different theology, and don't tend to admire Catholicism, especially the papacy and the Catholic theology of spirit. So it seems he's in some in-between space.

His views are certainly mystical and quasi-Gnostic. He often uses a vaguely Christian vocabulary, but interprets it through a very Gnostic dictionary. That's pretty plain from earlier discussions we've had.

Maybe he'll clarify.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:07 pm
Dubious wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:17 pm Regardless of "many different shades of meaning" most poetry is bunk serving no useful purpose by way of insight or anything else. Jung himself, was much more interested in the significance established in prose than in poetry...with very few exceptions. Most poetry is bunk...including mine!
Hoo boy! You make some bold statements. I am just now leaving on a bike-packing trip but there are a few noteworthy things that could be said here. Perhaps when I get back I'll remember to bring it up.
I'd forget about it. There's not much you can say about something being useless except that it's useless.

Enjoy your bike trip!
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Nick_A »

Dubious wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:47 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:44 am
Dubious wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 10:14 pm

Well then! It looks like you have it made; you've discovered meaning and whatever that meaning means to you. In that sense, everyone has to preach to himself to customize meaning and purpose to their lives. If Christianity does it for you don't assume it also applies to others. They may have their own reference points.
You are referring to imaginary meaning or self justification. I am referring to objective meaning and purpose for Man which can be remembered as always existing.
Objective meaning is a myth. Who or what would have placed it there? Wisdom wouldn't be required if there were such a thing as meaning and purpose which always existed. You would only need to discover it not strive for it. Wisdom should also have inspired you to know the universe is not required to be wise but function according to its laws. The rest is your job.
If the universe is constructed on laws then it is a machine beyond the limits of time and space but serves the purpose of its conscious ineffable creator.

Those having studied Plato's Divided Line analogy are aware that opinion exists below the line while human meaning and purpose can only become clear through knowledge obtained above the senses. A person discovers meaning not by striving for it but by remembering what always was.

Plato refers to four cognitive states. pistis and elkasia refer to opinion created by the senses below the line. Dianoia and Noesis refer to cognitive states above the line and referred to as knowledge. The idea here is that Man is normally limited to opinions but sometimes can experience objective knowledge through noesis.

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought) intellectual realm


pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture) visible realm


You seem to believe that there is no knowledge above the line and beyond our senses. Plato suggests that knowledge can only be experienced by higher intellect above the line. It must be remembered

The visible realm leads to opinion while the intellectual realm above the divided line leads to knowledge.

You are closed to the distinction so must demand visible proofs Without them, Humanity has no objective meaning and purpose. Naturally I see it differently. My own experiences have proven to me that knowledge of human meaning and purpose is only remembered through a personal experience above the divided line
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:29 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:04 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:22 amI read thru your post several times, lookin' for a way in.

I failed.

As usual, you masterfully critiqued and C'dYA in one neat unit.
What does C'dYA mean?
Cover'd Your Ass
Not everyone owns an ass Henry, are you sure Alexis does? He seems to prefer bicycles.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:34 pm The visible realm leads to opinion while the intellectual realm above the divided line leads to knowledge.
On another topic:

Nick, AJ and I have different impressions as to what you call yourself. AJ thinks you're some variation of Eastern Orthodox. I think you're more into a Gnostic / mystical Catholicism, like Weil.

Is either of us right? How do you self-identify?

We were discussing that, and I think it's only fair we let you weigh in.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by promethean75 »

Try something new and be a Giordano Brunoist, Nick.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:34 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:47 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:44 am

You are referring to imaginary meaning or self justification. I am referring to objective meaning and purpose for Man which can be remembered as always existing.
Objective meaning is a myth. Who or what would have placed it there? Wisdom wouldn't be required if there were such a thing as meaning and purpose which always existed. You would only need to discover it not strive for it. Wisdom should also have inspired you to know the universe is not required to be wise but function according to its laws. The rest is your job.
If the universe is constructed on laws then it is a machine beyond the limits of time and space but serves the purpose of its conscious ineffable creator.

Those having studied Plato's Divided Line analogy are aware that opinion exists below the line while human meaning and purpose can only become clear through knowledge obtained above the senses. A person discovers meaning not by striving for it but by remembering what always was.

Plato refers to four cognitive states. pistis and elkasia refer to opinion created by the senses below the line. Dianoia and Noesis refer to cognitive states above the line and referred to as knowledge. The idea here is that Man is normally limited to opinions but sometimes can experience objective knowledge through noesis.

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought) intellectual realm


pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture) visible realm


You seem to believe that there is no knowledge above the line and beyond our senses. Plato suggests that knowledge can only be experienced by higher intellect above the line. It must be remembered

The visible realm leads to opinion while the intellectual realm above the divided line leads to knowledge.

You are closed to the distinction so must demand visible proofs Without them, Humanity has no objective meaning and purpose. Naturally I see it differently. My own experiences have proven to me that knowledge of human meaning and purpose is only remembered through a personal experience above the divided line
Got news for you! It's not anything Plato had to say that means anything regarding the universe. It's physics and all the sciences which are in charge and not ancient bullshit theories that barely had a clue how anything works.

If we or when we begin the process of exterminating ourselves through a thermonuclear war, (one time unthinkable, now not so distantly impossible) your "ineffable creator" would be as useless and disinterested in stopping it as if WE or IT never existed. Nevertheless, that won't stop all the planet's idiots from pleading to be saved.

There are over 100 billion planets in the Milky Way alone and one to two hundred billion galaxies in just the observable universe. There ain't no "ineffable creator" ineffable enough to even conceive of such dimensions, but even it were true what would be the source of its ineffability! Without an explanation of THAT, all you're saying is "the buck stops there"; some kind of "I Am that I Am / All-in-All" entity is the IT which has its eye simultaneously on every star and planet in the cosmos.

Not least, if the universe were constructed on laws beyond the limits of time and space, which is your statement, not anything any physicist would believe, it could never have come into being. But, no problem! The paradox is easily resolved by providing for an ineffable creator and there you have it. It's always been the default position - because it takes no effort of the imagination to merely insert a conclusion beyond which there is no surpassing!

All this god and wisdom bullshit - referring to the kind you espouse - to me is equivalent to burying the living mind in a coffin!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

promethean75 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 3:01 am Try something new and be a Giordano Brunoist, Nick.
Wow, he was very clever for the time period, hence deserved to be burned alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:32 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:40 am In the deterministic sense mankind has always existed.
Verifiably false. The mathematics of infinite regress prove that's impossible. And Evolutionism denies that's the case. And the expansion of the universe proves it's empirically impossible. So mathematically, theoretically and empirically, that's known not to be true.
In the deterministic sense every event including mankind is a necessary event.

That's true, but is merely definition for "Determinism." We have no evidence for Determinism.
God is a deterministic idea.
False again. Only some versions of "god" are Deterministic. The Calvinist version is. Other versions, which include most Theistic versions, are decidedly not.
The enlightened application of the Free Will theory of mankind is mankind, unlike other living creatures, breaks free of genetic evolution and evolves mainly through culture.

Free will has nothing to do with culture, and nothing to do with genetics, and nothing to do with evolution. You've mixed your concepts and simply clouded the issue here.
Nick has not justified his criterion for his belief and therefore is not a fundamentalist.
.
No, Nick is a Catholic Mystic, of a somewhat Gnostic bent. And the definition of "fundamentalist" is not " one who does not justify his criterion for belief." It's closer to, "one who believes in the literal truth of a particular religious text." That is neither Gnostic nor Catholic.
The usual justifications for God belief are miraculous intervention in history by God; or revelation by a prophet such as Jesus; or both.
Those are only two of the justifications. There are a lot more. But you've done nothing to suggest those aren't great "justifications" in themselves; if they are real, and Jesus Christ existed and did the miracles attributed to Him, then that is surely adequate justification for faith.

Just have to set the record straight, there, B.
It's a pity but you don't understand how strong determinism leads inevitably to eternally necessary truths. Despite prophets and other wise men such as Jesus we have no access to eternal truths as we can't be omniscient.

Calvinism includes predestination which is an immoral distortion of strong determinism.

Strong determinism completely rules out Free Will. However it includes degrees of human freedom based upon reason.

I struggle to understand Nick. Perhaps you understand him better than I do. Maybe it would be helpful if you were to paraphrase Nick's theory of whatever it is.
Post Reply