From a Platonic perspective, how can a person become willing to sacrifice the dominance of opinions furthering prestige for the sake of "knowledge of the Good or the source of opinions? People would rather argue than seek the pearl of great price. Yet there are and have always been such seekers of truthLacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:22 amPerhaps as good as the statements by those who claim to know themselves and to have beliefs of right and wrong?
Surely, many who claim to "know themselves" are in denial -- and many who claim to know right from wrong are limited by their views.
How can any person's perspectives encompass all that is possible in regard to themselves or anyone/anything else?
How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
What's an eighty year old guy gonna do with 72 virgins? Sometimes it is better just to surrender rather than acquiring a new and demanding obligation.Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:56 pmand on the 73rd day of eternity?Systematic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:57 amI think you get 72 virgins for nuking the Earth.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:33 pm nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction...
-Imp
-Imp
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Do you believe in objective reality? Do you believe the laws that create and sustain the process of objective truth can be consciously known and understood by Man on earth?
If Plato was right and we do live and react as if in a cave attached to shadows on the wall, it stands to reason that only a few will have the experiences necessary to awaken to the reality of their existence and the source of objective truth.
“Colors are the deeds/ and sufferings of light.”― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Why is it that so many deny opening to the experience of knowledge (white light) but prefer to argue from the point of view of colors (diverse opinions)? It seems to be human nature to miss the forest for the trees. Yet there re some willing to seek the light to serve their need for meaning rather than forever be arguing opinions.
Last edited by Nick_A on Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
It's a malicious imp, I tell ya! A malicious imp!
Mebbe cuz most of 'em are just plain wrong?
1000 folks with no experience of fire are exposed to fire.
Everyone has an opinion: a burning flower, a volatile spirit, a a different form of water, etc., and each and every one is certain his opinion is truth.
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
So, your opinion is that others are only arguing opinions? A dismissive story you tell that serves you by denying others of their view/experience of truth/light so that you can be the one (or one of the few) "in the know", while everyone else languishes in the dark? THAT's your view of spirituality?Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:06 am Why is it that so many deny opening to the experience of knowledge (white light) but prefer to argue from the point of view of colors (diverse opinions)? It seems to be human nature to miss the forest for the trees. Yet there re some willing to seek the light to serve their need for meaning rather than forever be arguing opinions.
Spirituality and truth and light may be much greater and more diverse and innate (in all) than any of us can imagine...and surely it is!! Why would spirituality need to look or be received or expressed in a certain way? Isn't that a story of human egos who want/need to interpret and possess it for their own comfort, use, and control? And some, like yourself, seem intent on using it for the condemnation of everyone else... as if you are somehow an authority of the infinite?
I think it's more truthful and accurate to consider and acknowledge that there's a much broader range and potential of spirituality than what you or any individual speaks of.
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Years go I experienced the diffeence in the psychological horizontal direction in which opinions reside and the vertical psychological direction which attracts Man to experience human meaning and purpose at the depth of their being. I know why the concept of objective quality must be rejected in favor of arguing opinions. There is no reason to return to ignoranceLacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:13 amSo, your opinion is that others are only arguing opinions? A dismissive story you tell that serves you by denying others of their view/experience of truth/light so that you can be the one (or one of the few) "in the know", while everyone else languishes in the dark? THAT's your view of spirituality?Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:06 am Why is it that so many deny opening to the experience of knowledge (white light) but prefer to argue from the point of view of colors (diverse opinions)? It seems to be human nature to miss the forest for the trees. Yet there re some willing to seek the light to serve their need for meaning rather than forever be arguing opinions.
Spirituality and truth and light may be much greater and more diverse and innate (in all) than any of us can imagine...and surely it is!! Why would spirituality need to look or be received or expressed in a certain way? Isn't that a story of human egos who want/need to interpret and possess it for their own comfort, use, and control? And some, like yourself, seem intent on using it for the condemnation of everyone else... as if you are somehow an authority of the infinite?
I think it's more truthful and accurate to consider and acknowledge that there's a much broader range and potential of spirituality than what you or any individual speaks of.
A secularist must find this idea repulsive. Yet Plato understood as do a minority of others. That i why it is rarely explored on sites on which secularism is dominantPlato distinguished between knowledge (episteme) and opinion (doxa). This distinction is closely related to Plato's Theory of Forms. ... The difference between a belief, which is sometimes called opinion, and a belief that qualifies as knowledge is explored in the dialogue by Plato called Theaetetus.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Why would it be a good thing if we did?philosopher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:54 pm Is it possible to break down "us vs. them" mentality? How?
"Us" and "them" are very serviceable pronouns. In fact, you used them in the OP: you said "we." But who are "we," if there's no "they"? So you also believe in us-them.
In point of fact, you're now positing a new us-them: there's "us," the enlightened ones who don't believe in us-them, and "them," the unenlightened ones who don't yet see the value.
There's no eliminating difference. That's simply to attempt the impossible to do in reality, and it is generally vicious, requiring the tearing down of success in order to level it with failure, the reducing of intelligence in order to level it with stupidity, the pulling down of achievement to level it with indolence, and the pulling down of good to level it with evil.
Why would any of that be desirable to a sane person?
Look at it this way: if there's no "us" who are advantaged, and no "them" who are not, then we owe nothing to anyone. Even if we wanted to help "them" or give "them" a hand up, we couldn't find "them" to do it.
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Do you seriously believe that world Is the best that a "Supreme Being" could create? One which just happens to suit whatever advantages you think you have?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:11 pmLook at it this way: if there's no "us" who are advantaged, and no "them" who are not, then we owe nothing to anyone. Even if we wanted to help "them" or give "them" a hand up, we couldn't find "them" to do it.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
uwot
If he was lookin' to make Reality as clockwork mechanism: no, obviously.Do you seriously believe that world Is the best that a "Supreme Being" could create?
If he was lookin' to make Reality as home for free wills: yeah, probably.
Re: uwot
Hang on a mo; we're talking two completely different gods here. As I understand it, your Crom doesn't give a fuck, so there are no standards we will get shafted royally for because we don't reach them. Mr Can's "Supreme Being" on the other hand, is a really lovely bloke who will torture most of humanity, you and me included, forever and ever, Amen, because they're not Mr Can enough. It clearly isn't god, so what do you have in common with 'Mannie'?henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:44 amIf he was lookin' to make Reality as clockwork mechanism: no, obviously.Do you seriously believe that world Is the best that a "Supreme Being" could create?
If he was lookin' to make Reality as home for free wills: yeah, probably.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: uwot
shotguns & whiskyuwot wrote:what do you have in common with 'Mannie'?
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
The mistake you are making is judging creation by results. You don't understand that the necessity and value of the universe is found in the process by which creation is sustaineduwot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:46 pmDo you seriously believe that world Is the best that a "Supreme Being" could create? One which just happens to suit whatever advantages you think you have?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:11 pmLook at it this way: if there's no "us" who are advantaged, and no "them" who are not, then we owe nothing to anyone. Even if we wanted to help "them" or give "them" a hand up, we couldn't find "them" to do it.
Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?
Seems an odd moment for you to interject. Am I to understand that the 'Supreme Being' found it necessary and valuable to create a universe in which there are blessed shotgun toting, whisky drinking creatures, like Quirk, Can and presumably you, who could sustain creation by having shotguns and drinking whisky?Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:35 amThe mistake you are making is judging creation by results. You don't understand that the necessity and value of the universe is found in the process by which creation is sustaineduwot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:46 pmDo you seriously believe that world Is the best that a "Supreme Being" could create? One which just happens to suit whatever advantages you think you have?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:11 pmLook at it this way: if there's no "us" who are advantaged, and no "them" who are not, then we owe nothing to anyone. Even if we wanted to help "them" or give "them" a hand up, we couldn't find "them" to do it.