Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:27 pm
It seems to be a personal statement and therefore one of subjective choice.

Metaphysics is consistently 'subjective' otherwise there wouldn't be so many theories, regardless of merit, invulnerable to any critical outcome, conclusion or even half conclusion; all such default to time and temperament modified accordingly.

Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:55 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:27 pm It seems to be a personal statement and therefore one of subjective choice.
Metaphysics is consistently 'subjective' otherwise there wouldn't be so many theories, regardless of merit, invulnerable to any critical outcome, conclusion or even half conclusion; all such default to time and temperament modified accordingly.

Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
Ok, but that does not provide any sound ground for your tendentious philosophical choices.

I do not agree with you that metaphysical understanding is as nebulous or subjective as you paint it, and I see your view as one of will, decision and choice: this is your predilection.
Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
This statement is also debatable. Why not state it in reverse?

However, I do notice your core (and repeated) predicates imposing themselves. No argument really (it is pointless) just further clarification
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:43 am
Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:55 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:27 pm It seems to be a personal statement and therefore one of subjective choice.
Metaphysics is consistently 'subjective' otherwise there wouldn't be so many theories, regardless of merit, invulnerable to any critical outcome, conclusion or even half conclusion; all such default to time and temperament modified accordingly.

Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
Ok, but that does not provide any sound ground for your tendentious philosophical choices.

I do not agree with you that metaphysical understanding is as nebulous or subjective as you paint it, and I see your view as one of will, decision and choice: this is your predilection.
Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
This statement is also debatable. Why not state it in reverse?

However, I do notice your core (and repeated) predicates imposing themselves. No argument really (it is pointless) just further clarification
Examine your own 'core predicates' without accusing others of having theirs. I'm obviously not on your wavelength and therefore find me tendentious whereas I find your views as learned, accepted without further thought. You remain a tyro when it comes to metaphysics which as much as anything requires examination.

You're as mentally inclined to it as any religious fundamentalist would be believing in the bible or the Koran...further questions superfluous. Whether asked, implied or explained, you either ignore or condemn whatever doesn't conform as already noticed by others. You're as much an unyielding slave to your views as anyone here. Don't assume you're unique. That indeed would be 'metaphysical'!
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Nice. But thoroughly false from one end to the other Dubious.

However, I notice and take into account one more fantastic statement that reveals your essential orientation.
You're as much an unyielding slave to your views as anyone here. Don't assume you're unique.
Curious then your statement about yourself, and then about how you see others. Slaves.

Not very flattering I will say.

I may very well indeed determine that my ideas and views do not arise in a slave mentality. It is entirely plausible.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Dubious »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:55 am However, I notice and take into account one more fantastic statement that reveals your essential orientation.
I don't have an 'orientation' as you clearly have. At least not the kind impervious to change. It remains fluidic because in this world there is very little one can denote or establish as an essential truth.
You're as much an unyielding slave to your views as anyone here. Don't assume you're unique.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:55 amCurious then your statement about yourself, and then about how you see others. Slaves.

Not very flattering I will say.
Even less so is this...
OK my beloved morons: let the sparks fly! 😂
FYI, you're conflating 'anyone' with 'everyone'. Desperate to find fault are we!
Anyone means anybody or any person. It refers to an individual in a group; which one doesn’t matter.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

-
Last edited by attofishpi on Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dubious wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:02 am I don't have an 'orientation' as you clearly have. At least not the kind impervious to change. It remains fluidic because in this world there is very little one can denote or establish as an essential truth.
You are making comparative statements:
AJ paraphrases Dubious: You have a position with orientation but if I have one it is different and changeable, fluidic. The reason is because the world changes, is constantly mutating and is mutable (non solid) and as I say: Everything metaphysical proceeds from the surfaces of the non-metaphysical.
because in this world there is very little one can denote or establish as an essential truth.
Here, your core idea places you squarely in (for one example) Iambiguous’s camp. I am merely noting the similarity, not blaming you for it. In my view, Iambiguous is stuck in his mentally determined position.

The idea you present is quite robust and really not fluid as much as you say.
FYI, you're conflating 'anyone' with 'everyone'. Desperate to find fault are we!
Different: I am noting capture by similar (arbitrary) idea sets that operate widely and have far-reaching effect. Attempting what I attempt has upsides as well as downsides. Generalizations are like that.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:39 pmAttofishpi a man entirely wrapped up in subjectivity taken to such a degree that the *mirror* is taken as an actual representation of reality.
What part of a mirror is NOT representing REALITY Jacobi? Are U confused by the X coordinate being reversed?

As a qualified systems analyst.

Je_sus..

I sus the fuck out of this system called REAL_IT_Y

Do explain this "subjective" analysis you keep asserting of me. I assure U I do it OBJECTIVELY something a waffling rambler of waffling input (books) could probably not quite comprehend.


btw: -Is this 'intellectual' :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVeGdafISGs
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:26 pm OK people. The sun is shining and I am heading out for a bike ride into the glorious mountains in my region.
That does sound pretty special.

In turn, I took the ferry with relatives over to the glorious island K'gari for a few days.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:26 pm Australia, sleep well. May you get the candybar you seek when dawn lifts the veil of darkness and aurora shines her light-rays into the world. (Hope you do not wake up hungover...)
Not to worry: hangovers are from boozing, so there's no longer a risk of a hangover here.

I guess you're pinging me out of curiosity as to my reaction to recent happenings in this thread. Assuming that that's the case, here are my thoughts:

Re the debate over the definition of an "intellectual", I've got nothing invested in the question, nor anything to contribute other than to agree that being an intellectual has something to do with engaging with ideas.

Re subjectivity versus objectivity: in defence of atto, it's possible for subjective experiences to lead to objective conclusions. For example, if somebody unexpectedly expresses out loud in my presence a uniquely distinctive and thus unguessable thought that I had been having privately, then I can infer that, objectively, mental telepathy exists. I just can't prove it to anybody else on this basis. My sense, after reflection, is that these are the sort of inferences about objective reality that atto has made from his subjective experiences. Now, in your defence, AJ: even if, as you seem to, one accepts that atto has had the subjective experiences that he says he's had, the soundness of the inferences that he's made from them is open to question or at the very least open to discussion.

Re the "impersonal" nature of some of your critiques: I find this characterisation to be... dubious (with a lowercase D!). Even if you only choose the targets of your critiques as emblems of social trends, there is still a very meaningful sense in which the critique is personal. After all, if one were to say, "There is a growing social trend of pseudo-intellectual paedophiles spreading their deviance as widely as possible, and AJ is emblematic of this trend", I highly doubt that you would brush it off as a mere "impersonal" commentary on social trends, even if it was true (which, of course, it's not).

Re Gary's book of poetry: a little bit of googling uncovered a few free poems of his, and they're pretty decent. Nice work, Gary. I won't be shelling out money for your book, but then, I do very little reading aside from forums and news anyway, so that doesn't say much. It probably is worth the investment for those who read more.

Re the idea of the fixity of the flexible approach, I think it's a useful insight that, in this sense, the worldviews of Dubious and iambiguous (Lacewing too, though she hadn't yet been mentioned) seem to operate similarly. I don't though seek to debate here and now this notion - nor its strengths, weaknesses, and qualifications - so I will probably forego any response to the reactions of others to these sentiments.

Re homosexuality: there is pretty much only one scenario in which I'd consider it valid to (even if only lightly) suppress gay folk in the way that AJ suggests should be done; I reject all of the other arguments I've heard. That scenario is this: that we inhabit a reality created by a good God, in which gendered beings such as ourselves were from the start exclusively heterosexual by (God's) design, and who all understood that that was God's design, who all endorsed that design, and who all preferred it to be that way - but that then, some time after Creation, an adversarial force infiltrated our (God's) reality, and perverted it such that homosexual inclinations began to occur. In that scenario, while gay people would probably not (depending on various factors) be responsible for having those deliberately perverted, ungodly inclinations themselves, we wouldn't anyway want to encourage, promote, or at all validate those inclinations, but rather to recognise them as an unfortunate affliction by a malign force.

Outside of that scenario, the main argument that I see raised - and which, along with all of the others, I reject - is that along the lines of "Marriage has traditionally been defined to be between a man and a woman, and that tradition should be respected." I reject this argument because:
  1. If there is nothing wrong with or perverse about homosexuality (as there is in the scenario I outlined above), and if it instead is simply a natural, benign variation of human sexuality, then "tradition" is a poor (and, frankly, reprehensible) reason to deny gay people the same rights as heterosexuals: to love, to marry, and to have their identity adequately reflected in the cultural milieu.
  2. If, alternatively, there is something wrong with or perverse about homosexuality because something like the above scenario holds, then this argument is not just redundant but also, often enough, and presumably, cowardly: it is wielded by the arguer so as to avoid making the more direct affirmation that homosexuality is wrong and perverse, presumably because the arguer is fearful of the reaction that that claim would elicit in our modern, "woke" society.
(Can I trust, iambiguous, that you will now stop complaining about my lack of engagement with such real-world conflicts?)

If I've missed anything, then let me know. Otherwise, there's the wrap-up of my thoughts on recent events in the world of Philosophy Now's Christianity thread...
Harry Baird
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Harry Baird »

Oh, I see that the "ping" that I quoted was more likely directed at atto, but I had noticed an earlier prayer for energy drinks, so there was a ping of some sort directed at me at some point.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Indeed, you were pinged. You came, you delivered.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:
Harry Baird wrote:Oh, I see that the "ping" that I quoted was more likely directed at atto, but I had noticed an earlier prayer for energy drinks, so there was a ping of some sort directed at me at some point.
Attofishpi a man entirely wrapped up in subjectivity taken to such a degree that the *mirror* is taken as an actual representation of reality.
I guess it must assist people of your age and intellectualism to do things in installments-->

1. What part of a mirror is NOT representing REALITY Jacobi?

2. Is it that U R confused by the X coordinate being reversed, within the reflection of a mirror?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

If it is something you desire, Atto, and I accept that it might not be, you could reread what I wrote originally and offer a full commentary on its content. I do not think you have actually *assimilated* what I have said.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Alexis Jacobi wrote:Attofishpi a man entirely wrapped up in subjectivity taken to such a degree that the *mirror* is taken as an actual representation of reality.
1. What part of a mirror is NOT representing REALITY Jacobi?

2. Is it that U R confused by the X coordinate being reversed, within the reflection of a mirror?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: If it is something you desire, Atto, and I accept that it might not be, you could reread what I wrote originally and offer a full commentary on its content. I do not think you have actually *assimilated* what I have said.
You need to assimilate right now. I am going to prove how OBJECTIVE atto is.

We are on a “philosophy” forum. I see it "philosophy" as logic, that is where objectivity is imperative to comprehension of LOGIC.

So.

Stop meandering, and start getting objective when atto addresses your comments.

1. ?

2. ?

Time for actual answers Jacobi (and you thought condescending to atto was ok 8) )
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Write out your own essay which contains whatever rebuttal you may have. The questions you are asking hold no interest at all.
Post Reply