Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

If Morocco can beat Spain anything is possible here. Don't give up on yourselves! 😂
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pm Note that, as is typical of Harry, his energy flags. Understandable.
Sadly, this is true. I'm glad it's understood. I continue, in the meantime, to read and consider.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by seeds »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm Race is real and, to all intents and purposes, everywhere and among all people, race is relevant and sometimes highly so. You can propose an idealism, you can try to get people to see it that way, but my personal opinion is that you will fail. I will suggest, politely, that your non-racialist view is abnormal and not morally right. But I'd have to explain more for you, at least, to understand what I mean by that.
You can explain to me the merits of yours and Bowden's white nationalist philosophy until the cows come home.

However, to suggest that my non-racialist view is "...not morally right...", makes me think that I'm back in the same "bizzarro world" I stumbled into in my exchange with Gary Childress in this post - viewtopic.php?p=612236#p612236.

I mean, for you to assert that it's "immoral" of me to propose that we should see all humans as being absolute equals due to the sameness of our eternal souls, and thus not partition ourselves off from each other based on the superficial reality of our temporary outer facades,...

...is simply you "politely" demonstrating to me the depth and degree of your somnambulism.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm And if you hold your particular ideal as a moral imperative, and the moral high ground, and present your view as the more elevated one, you will simultaneously say to those other people who (honestly) think and see differently, that there is something wrong with them. That they are immoral and, finally, 'evil'.
That is a misinterpretation of my stance. Did you not see this post - viewtopic.php?p=610267#p610267 - where I clearly stated that all "evil" is, or ever was, is "low consciousness" and the actions resulting from it.

So, no, I'm not saying to those "other people" that they are inherently evil. I am merely suggesting that they are functioning at a level of consciousness that prevents them from realizing that their actions can be construed as being evil when viewed from a slightly higher level of consciousness.

I've even created some illustrations to drive that point home; illustrations that represent my own version of the "Great Chain of Being" that we discussed earlier.

They are illustrations that not only suggest that there are vast differences in degrees of consciousness and capabilities between the varying rungs of what I call the "ascending ladder of consciousness" in this universe,...

Image

...but that there are also varying degrees of consciousness on the human rung itself....

Image

And my question is, where do you imagine that you, Alexis, are positioned within my fanciful rendition of the human rung?

If I were to offer my own assessment of that question,...

...I would say that setting aside the fact that you are an eloquent wordsmith who believes that you can back up your white nationalist philosophy with, as you say "...solid reasonings, that *race is real and race matters*...",...

...you nevertheless seem to be hovering closer to the basement area of the illustration, as opposed to the ceiling area, which, in turn, informs your views in dark and detrimental ways.

Now, naturally, you're going to scoff at such an unflattering suggestion. However, that's because, in an alternate version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are simply not conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand where I'm coming from.

And before you reply with something equally scathing about me, keep in mind that you are the one who is promoting the same general philosophy as the boneheaded (dunce-capped) humans whom I have standing in the basement area of the illustration.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm So -- and this is really just a starting statement -- while I accept, on some levels, that there is some truth in some of what you propose, I also think your position can be critiqued morally....
Sure, and so can yours.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm ...Though you see your views as truly of borne of some divine dispensation I am afraid that I see your views as having defective elements....
Again, the same applies to your views.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm Will you accept what I am saying? I doubt that....
Yes, I can accept what you are saying, but only if you can accept the possibility that what you are saying could be completely wrong and is a product of not being able to fully apprehend the implications of the following statement I made to you earlier,...

seeds wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:36 pm I suggest that your so-called "elevated" vantage point is nothing more than a mist-shrouded outcrop on a mountain that extends so far above you that it disappears into the clouds.
...which is not only an allusion to where we are positioned on the ascending ladder of consciousness in this universe, but also to humanity's utter foolishness in thinking that we occupy the top rung of the ladder.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm ...Because idealists like you, and mega-ultra idealists like you act in this world like you are God's righteous children. You know the score. You are carrying *humanity* forward, often against its own inclinations, to the New Dawn that you will preside over in one way or another.
I have no desire to "preside" over anything, for I'll be long dead before any of my "new paradigm" hopes for the world will be (if ever) achieved. Especially when there are people like you who, even though you obviously have a good heart and good intentions, are nonetheless hellbent on making sure that humanity stays forever divided by reason of race and national ideologies.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm But the world simply does not want to go along and it has numerous decent reasons why.
Yes, with metaphysical ignorance - resulting from low consciousness - being the primary source of those allegedly "decent" reasons.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm It does not surprise me of course that your views concord with those of Harry -- another extreme idealist. You could be said to be, in some senses, birds of a feather or people cut from the same cloth.
I take that as a compliment and, hopefully, so does Harry.

So, thank you, Alexis, for pointing that out.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm Again these are preliminary statements. None of this is simple, none of this is resolved without moving through a good deal of complexity. That takes time, energy and as always good-will.
Yes, we must always try to maintain "good will," even in the heat of contentious disagreements.
_______
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:37 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:46 pm the legacy news media have so blatantly reversed themselves.
'Legacy news media' in comparison to what great representation of truth?
Their own.
So, they were telling the truth before, and now they're not?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:37 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:17 pm 'Legacy news media' in comparison to what great representation of truth?
Their own.
So, they were telling the truth before, and now they're not?
Or vice versa.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
Why did the universe come into being? What brought the universe into existence? There must have been a transcendent cause which brought the universe into being – a cause outside the universe itself.
Again, let's think about this. Here is the author...just like the rest of us. An infinitesimally tiny speck of existence so utterly, utterly minute in the simply immense vastness of all there is...asserting that the universe must have a transcendent cause.

Then those among us who take it up from there. That this transcendent cause must be -- is -- a God, the God, my God.

And then at best the "evidence" they have revolves around philosophical/theological/intellectual contraptions like these: https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more ... stence.htm

Or, here, Immanual Can's "proof" that the Christian God must exist because it says so in the Bible and the Bible must be true because it is the Word of God. Well, and the videos, of course.
We can summarize this argument thus far as follows:

1. The universe began to exist.

2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.

3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
And thus philosophically God is deduced into existence. Immanuel Can merely takes this "logic" further by deducing the Christian God into existence. In other words, not your God if you are not a Christian.

And then even further up into the "intellectual contraption" stratosphere:
By the very nature of the case, that cause of the physical universe must be an immaterial (i.e., non-physical) being. Now there are only two types of things that could possibly fit that description: either an abstract object like a number, or an unembodied mind/consciousness. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations to physical things. The number 7, for example, has no effect on anything. Therefore the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind. Thus again we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.
I figured mathematics would come to factor into this somehow.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

seeds wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:59 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm Will you accept what I am saying? I doubt that....
Yes, I can accept what you are saying, but only if you can accept the possibility that what you are saying could be completely wrong and is a product of not being able to fully apprehend the implications of the following statement I made to you earlier...
It is here that I recommend *lingering*. That is, hovering over an issue, examining it from different angles, as well as understanding that different people have different ideas and everyone who builds a case for their ideas generally speaking has a sound set of reasons. I can of course only speak from my own position. What is that? It is the position I have gained by resolving to examine, in detail, a range of positions (political, spiritual, religious, social, cultural) that I'd not been familiar with and indeed rejected because they did not sound right or seemed 'immoral'. Having spent more than 10 years doing just that I now have perspectives that I would not have had. I am glad that I can see things from perspectives I'd have considered radical or even lunatic at other times (I do not necessarily see them as lunatic now but I might still see them as radical) but it does not help me to have conclusive opinions or positions from which I can construct an activist's platform.

So with that said I will say that you make a basic mistake and I'd call it 'knee-jerk'. But in order to talk about what is *knee-jerk* about your reaction to what I have said, or might say, or what Bowden says, I have to linger over a core fact about our present: we live in a time in which a great deal of common attitudes, about a great many different topics, have come about through processes of 'cultural and social engineering'. To put it in a nutshell I can point out that generally speaking people are conservative in their social outlook but, as it happens, factions go to work on their attitudes by employing a range of tools that are central to the public relations industry. Social psychology of course, psychological manipulation, studied PR campaigns designed by men who seek intentionally to modify people's attitudes through the wielding of morally manipulative argument. I use the term 'manipulate' only in the sense of 'to mold with the hands'.

So here I will need to insert an example, an illustration, and the illustration I will present is that of the manipulation of sexual attitudes and, specifically, the 'normalization of homosexuality' and other forms of sexual expression which, as these have progressed and been *sold* result in evermore radical manifestations of deviance.
deviance: he condition of being abnormal: aberrance, aberrancy, aberration, abnormality, anomaly, deviancy, deviation, irregularity, preternaturalness, unnaturalness.
So as I often say, if we are to understand where we are, what we have become, where we are situated within a social philosophy, and what general attitudes we now have, and if we are to carry on like philosophers not as activists (of specific positions) we have to willing to examine causation: the causal chains. And therefore it is valid to examine 'social engineering' of all sorts and this in respect to a 'present that has been (significantly) engineered 'by men we never see'. So here I refer to Bernays who wrote in Propaganda (1928):
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Are you with me here? I am not making statements about what is right or wrong or about what is good or bad, and I skirt the issue of social activism, and I am simply setting the stage so that the reality of social manipulation and engineering can be examined philosophically. I may have opinions and biases (I do not conceal that I do) but I can at least broach a topic from a more or less neutral position, as should be done, to then be able to examine it more carefully.

So, in regard to the manipulation of social attitudes in respect to homosexuality allow me to mention a critical work undertaken by Marshall Kirk (neuropsychiatrist) and Hunter Madison (advertising and public relations) titled After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Here is the outline article from which the book emerged.

You may not catch that the pseudonym of that article is "Erastes Pill" contains a reference to an erastes:
In Dover's strict dichotomy, the erastês (ἐραστής, plural erastai) is the older sexual actor, seen as the active or dominant participant, with the suffix -tês (-τής) denoting agency. Erastês should be distinguished from Greek paiderastês, which meant "lover of boys" usually with a negative connotation. The Greek word paiderastia (παιδεραστία) is an abstract noun. It is formed from paiderastês, which in turn is a compound of pais ("child", plural paides) and erastês (see below). Although the word pais can refer to a child of either sex, paiderastia is defined by Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon as "the love of boys", and the verb paiderasteuein as "to be a lover of boys". The erastês himself might only be in his early twenties, and thus the age difference between the two males who engage in sexual activity might be negligible.
So what is it that I am trying to draw to your attention here? Let me speak fairly but also truthfully and directly. We are dealing with a literal cultural movement the purpose of which was to normalize what is considered, or had been considered, to be sexual deviancy. What is the core method or technique? The transvaluation of values. To go to work on an established social value presented as a *good* ("homosexuality is not desired or welcome and is bad") and to use PR techniques and psychological manipulation techniques proper to public relations and propaganda to *engineer* the view that it is the deviancy which is, in fact, the good, and the one who opposes it in fact that bad.

You will have to at least gloss the article I posted to grasp the set of techniques.

Here is someone's description of what followed (from the e social engineering project):
The spectacular success of the homosexual movement stands as one of the most fascinating phenomena of our time. In less than two decades, homosexuality has moved from "the love that dares not speak its name," to the center of America's public life. The homosexual agenda has advanced even more quickly than its most ardent proponents had expected, and social change of this magnitude demands some explanation.

A partial explanation of the homosexual movement's success can be traced to the 1989 publication of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Published with little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was.
It is one thing, obviously, to work to alter social attitudes toward homosexuality or, let's say, to make life easier for those who are homosexual and simply want to *carry on*. But it is really quite another thing when the sexual field becomes the object of tremendous and sustained engineering efforts for a range of different purposes. What are we to say of where things have evolved from 30-odd years ago? Do I have to point out *the causal chain* I mentioned earlier?

Now I have no idea where you with your psychedelic Star-Trek vision of human and planetary destiny stand in relation to these questions of sexuality and it is not so much of importance to me in respect to the case I am presenting. I am not making any specific statement as to whether this is good or bad, desired or not desired, productive or non-productive and potentially destructive. I am only painting a picture by presenting activism, an activist's doctrine, and the tools of social engineering, public relations and propaganda as they pertain to the engineering of attitudes in our present.

What I want to point out to you, through a reference to this specific example, is that whether you accept it or not, whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, and whether you have an argument for it or against it or not, there are people who are very concerned about their world and about what is going on in that world and what is being done to their children. What is being done to their children today, now. And they look for defensive tools. And what I mean is in respect to an effect that is a result of things set in motion -- causally -- at another moment in history. And, importantly, as a project that was said to be 'good' and even 'righteous' and certainly necessary. That is, that culture had to *evolve*. And those who held on to outdated social attitudes had to be retrained to accept that 'the times had to change'.

So I will sum up this initial response to your intensely moralizing post (!) by stating again that what interests me is how it is that projects that were initiated because they had *the good* as their objective (and as it seems to me) do not result in goods but often in their opposite. There are people now who have critical positions in regard to some of what I call *outcomes* of the cultural engineering of sexuality and which have resulted in gender dysphoria, child sexual grooming, transgenderism and much that is debated today by those who question and oppose these *evolutions*. Their positions are valid, genuine and morally defensible.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

seeds wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:59 am
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 11:30 pm And if you hold your particular ideal as a moral imperative, and the moral high ground, and present your view as the more elevated one, you will simultaneously say to those other people who (honestly) think and see differently, that there is something wrong with them. That they are immoral and, finally, 'evil'.
That is a misinterpretation of my stance. Did you not see this post - viewtopic.php?p=610267#p610267 - where I clearly stated that all "evil" is, or ever was, is "low consciousness" and the actions resulting from it.

So, no, I'm not saying to those "other people" that they are inherently evil. I am merely suggesting that they are functioning at a level of consciousness that prevents them from realizing that their actions can be construed as being evil when viewed from a slightly higher level of consciousness.

I've even created some illustrations to drive that point home; illustrations that represent my own version of the "Great Chain of Being" that we discussed earlier.

They are illustrations that not only suggest that there are vast differences in degrees of consciousness and capabilities between the varying rungs of what I call the "ascending ladder of consciousness" in this universe...
I do grasp your 'you people are on the low-consciousness scale argument'. I think you are avoiding the implication of it.

Like you I have a way of referring to what we are essentially talking about and that is by referencing not a neat diagram like you (I am somewhat jealous of your diagrams I must say!) but by reference to a popular text which contains many tropes: a popular song.

So I presented a 'text' by Taylor Swift called You Need to Calm Down. This is, let's be honest, a moralizing text which can be compared to a social sermon. She pictures the right & good social attitude to have in a specific way and makes very clear statements about who is on the 'low-consciousness scale'. Look and see how they are pictured. These are extensions of the same sort of social manipulation techniques that were outlined by Kirk and Madsen. The vilification of attitudes that one wishes to undermine and then to modify. To do this you have to *transvalue values*.

If you wonder why, before I really jump into a larger commentary on the subject of your main post (speaking about ethnic identity and *race* -- the forbidden topics), why it is I focus on sexuality and sexual manipulation the answer is because I regard it as a sort of *engine* through which a great deal about our attitudes in this world are molded and modified.

I assume you are aware that in this medium (this forum) we can only develop ideas up to a point. I certainly go (far) overboard in terms of length of posts. But to illustrate the connection between manipulation of sexual attitude and the larger manipulation of culture I refer you to a talk (less than 12 minutes) a brief outline by James Lindsay titled Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, & Maoist Education.

You are deeply involved in wielding moral imperatives. You simply have a creative and somewhat *exalted* platform through which you express your moralizing views.

I do not necessarily agree or disagree since, as it happens, my first object is to trace back the causal chain so that I can, and perhaps *we* can, see how we are the *outcomes* I describe.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:33 pm Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.
Why did the universe come into being? What brought the universe into existence? There must have been a transcendent cause which brought the universe into being – a cause outside the universe itself.
Again, let's think about this. Here is the author...just like the rest of us. An infinitesimally tiny speck of existence so utterly, utterly minute in the simply immense vastness of all there is...asserting that the universe must have a transcendent cause.
It's not arbitrary, on his part: it's rationally inescapable.

You cannot speak of the "immense vastness of all that IS," without already assuming the premise that something "IS," i.e. something exists. But if that's what you're assuming, then you aren't, by definition, talking about the origins of the universe at all, but of the question, "What else happens, as soon as the universe exists?"
Or, here, Immanual Can's "proof" that the Christian God must exist because it says so in the Bible and the Bible must be true because it is the Word of God. Well, and the videos, of course.
Did you watch any? They're not just "videos." Each one presents an argument.
We can summarize this argument thus far as follows:

1. The universe began to exist.

2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.

3. Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
You'd better say what you mean by "transcendent," if this is going to hold as a fair representation of the argument. It's evident from the earlier, that you aren't sure.

"Transcendent," in this context, simply means, "above or beyond the universe itself." And that's logically inescapable. Because if the "universe" (i.e. all that "is") had a beginning (as we know for certain, scientifically, logically, and mathematically, it must have) then whatever the Cause of that was, it must have, by definition, "transcended" the universe.

So there isn't even a thing you can argue with there.

If you want to, you can argue that the Original Cause, the "Thing" that created the universe, or the "Thing" that accounts for the fact that the universe now exists, was not personal, not conscious, not intelligent, not all-powerful, and thus not like God...but that's an argument you'd have to make in such a way as to show it is even possibly cogent.

Go ahead, if you can. I'd be interested in seeing it.
By the very nature of the case, that cause of the physical universe must be an immaterial (i.e., non-physical) being. Now there are only two types of things that could possibly fit that description: either an abstract object like a number, or an unembodied mind/consciousness. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations to physical things. The number 7, for example, has no effect on anything. Therefore the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind. Thus again we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.
There you go: that's the problem with the explanation you might try to offer, suggesting a "transcendent-but-not-intelligent" cause for the universe's existence.
I figured mathematics would come to factor into this somehow.
It does. It makes the argument a slam-dunk, actually.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

seeds wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:59 amAnd my question is, where do you imagine that you, Alexis, are positioned within my fanciful rendition of the human rung?
Well pay attention then! Look at your diagram. Note the *eye*. Go into that eye and then ascend up up up & further up until you enter a domain of blinding light. There, can't you see? Accustom your spiritual eyes. There I am like a gossamer filament flitting about. I descend here as an act of Grace though it is spiritually painful for me. Try to show just a bit of appreciation!
If I were to offer my own assessment of that question,...

...I would say that setting aside the fact that you are an eloquent wordsmith who believes that you can back up your white nationalist philosophy with, as you say "...solid reasonings, that *race is real and race matters*..."
First of all I do not have. *white nationalist ideology* (!) but I am aware that many different people, in many different lands, have a protective attitude about their culture, their cultural forms, their religious traditions, their history, and everything that they are. About those people and about their attitude (I might say) *race is real & race matters*.

What I am doing is exploring, but also potentially exploding, a common moralized attitude that thinking about such things, and having specific or contrary positions on them, is wrong and also evil. The way to do this (or one way to do it) is to try to imagine your bizarre Star-Trek world modification plan applied to a specific country not your own. Take Japan as an example. Do the people of Japan have a right, in your eyes, to preserve themselves, their culture, their way of life, their traditions, and also themselves at a somatic (physical body) level? If there were a project in motion to 'replace' Japanese, or modify their culture through excessive immigration of people quite unlike them, what would you have to say about those among them who sought to oppose that project?

What if it were, say, Nigeria? or any place with a mono-culture. What you advocate for social and cultural engineers to come in and change their culture because you have this odd idea that it is immoral (low level consciousness) to desire to hold on to specific traits and characteristics on many different levels, not excluding the somatic, because you have some sort of exalted vision of the way things should be, must be, and will be? Who are you to make that imposition, son?

Where you are situated is within a social attitude that we can describe as Unexamined Americanism. Americanism is really a totalizing doctrine that makes a vast assertion that everyone not only should but must accept its tenets. It charges forth with a manifest destiny doctrine that operates in many many different areas, unbeknownst to those who have it and carry it forward.

You have a very strong case of it. But I do not think you have examined it, that is philosophically or causally.

See for example Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Tomislav Sunic:
In this book Dr. Tomislav Sunic describes the origins and dynamics of America's founding myths. Quoting and translating from many long-forgotten or suppressed sources from the fields of literature, history, anthropology and philosophy, the book represents an interdisciplinary compendium dealing with the topic of Americanism. The genealogy of early Calvinist Puritanism mixed with the techno-scientific religion of boundless economic progress and legally veiled in the obscure para-Biblical and Jewish-inspired sense of political self-chosenness, created a system that has little in common with its original design. Postmodern Americanism, with its abstract theories of multiculturalism and its global desire for world improvement, turned America into a menacing and self-destructive continent that puts not only the survival of America's European heritage at risk, but threatens the heritage of other peoples worldwide as well.
When I spoke of entertaining ideas by people who are on the outside of 'allowed debate' and ideation it is people like Sunic, and many others, that I refer to.

You see? A critical philosophical attitude opens up the field, and the conversation, in unexpected ways. But if you are interested in shutting it down you can of course ban, de-platform and also de-bank people like Sunic whose ideas are vilified. I am not saying you do or would but I am saying that this is surely what is going on around us.

And this ties in at least to references Brother Immanuel has made to the Legacy Media: opinion molders and manipulators with deep ties to the *establishment* and the intelligence community. We have to really become willing to examine these things from a non-partisan perspective. As philosophers we are (supposedly!) in the better position to do this.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by iambiguous »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pm
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
On the contrary, in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- I intertwine what dasein means to me philosophically into the very life that I have lived. Existentially. First in the God [Christian] World then in the No God [atheist] world.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pmIs there a way to reduce the term to some sort of simple, declarative definition? Iambiguous' use of it seems to roughly translate to "situational ethics that depend on the person, the moment, and the general situation, where each person, moment and situation is different and demands different decisions".
Right, a declarative definition that allows one to employ it in resolving the moral conflagrations that revolve around issues like abortion. As though defining abortion as a medical procedure and defining words that will allow us to declare that it is either moral or immoral is, what, interchangeable?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pmCuriously, he then plunges into a moral and ethical conflict fought over in our own day. He is unable to solve the issue. He sees *both sides* which nullify each other (according to his presentation). If there is no god there is no soul. If there is no soul then there cannot be conceived any special stance of protection offered by those born and alive to that soul involved in being a fetus which will, successively, develop into a full-fledged human being and take a place among the community of the living. Thus that embryo cannot be understood to have any particular or innate value or *right*.
My point, however, is that sans an omniscient and omnipotent God, mere mortals don't seem to have access to a secular equivalent. A No God argument that does resolve the conflict.

Now, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, only that "here and now", if it does, it has not come to my own attention.

As for Immanuel Can, I note to him what I note to all others -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- regarding their own One True Spiritual Path. Close the gap between what you believe "in your head" about objective morality, immortality and salvation and what you are actually able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

After all, what else is there in a world where there has not been much that has not been believed in one or another's head?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:58 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 3:44 pm
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
On the contrary, in the OP of this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382 -- I intertwine what dasein means to me philosophically into the very life that I have lived. Existentially. First in the God [Christian] World then in the No God [atheist] world.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
Yes, I remember reading that. And that is why I recently wrote:
What Iambiguous is revealing is, neither more nor less, exactly where he is situated when, as it happened, the reigning moral imperative imploded. And he goes on to assert that *this is in fact the true human situation and condition*. In other words he can find no alternative. So his effort is to *reveal and explain how things really are*. Thus the axial declaration that any 'moral position' and all ethics depend on dasein: a not-at-all-easy-to-grasp-set-of-complex-predicates-about-human-being-and-existence. It is not surprising that, in the course of Iambiguous' expositions the term is tossed in but never talked about except as a vague reference.
So, if I understand you right you object to my statement about a 'vague reference' but not to the general attempt at a fair description of where you stand?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Mr Seeds:

I wanted to follow up with a segment of an ‘important’ American film that dealt on social attitude toward homosexuality. I hope you understand that I am not focusing on the normalization of homosexuality for any other reason except as it involves social engineering of attitude. I like my women raw and with syrup you understand so I’ve little to prove in this region . . .

[I posted this video previously to circumvent potential misunderstanding . . . I watch it every morning! With that vid in mind if I had my way I’d have 200 children by now.]

The film I refer to is American Beauty and the scene is this one.

The ‘faggots’ are normalized and presented as adjusted, upstanding citizens, while the homophobe marine is revealed as a sick monster and the one with the problem to resolve.

These are powerful ‘messages’ that really operated to transform social attitudes. And my point is to indicate that we have all been the subjects of mass-public relations efforts engineered for various purposes. This will play in my following posts where I comment on the topic of ethnic identity which you define as a low-level moral evil.
Last edited by Alexis Jacobi on Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:38 pm, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:28 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:37 pm
Their own.
So, they were telling the truth before, and now they're not?
Or vice versa.
So, the big deal for you is their lack of consistency?

It's not so much about true and false as it is about sticking to one narrative?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:28 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:23 am So, they were telling the truth before, and now they're not?
Or vice versa.
So, the big deal for you is their lack of consistency?
They stand condemned by their own account. They don't need my help.
Post Reply