Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:06 pm Let's address each statement:-
Alexis Jacobi wrote:You begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.
A ridiculous statement Jacobi, note the word exclusively as your failing here. Do I need to explain Y?

I read books on science, history of science, some philosophy, books on technology - BUT and here is the important caveat, that one DOES NOT soley, exclusively need to read books for intellectual capacity.

I love documentaries on that TV thingy. - Intellectual information can come in many ways these days.

DO U SEE THE FLAW IN YOUR STATEMENT?
Jacobi wrote:I see tha point that you are trying to make Atto, yes, and in my initial post did not negate that there are many ways to exist and also to learn and know. So my suggestion is that you reread what I did write and more fairly and less reactively consider the content.

Well then, you are the one that keeps CHOPPING out our conversation, so please, do reply with this 'negation' of your above statement, you go back and paste what negates this :

"..to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact."
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:41 pm There is a general anti-intellectual movement that becomes seductively attractive as an alternative to the demands of intellectual work. My impression of the general gobbledegook that you profess, DAM, is that you work in the arena. However, is true indeed that growing grass, the air, stars, and the even the Australian grey headed flying fox, never read a book. Astute observation snd unassailable at that. But humans, and human being, is what it is through language.
Yes I know humans use language to navigate their way through life so that it makes some sort of sense to them. It's how humans function as and through their man-made language.

Notice I said man-made, and not made by that which is growing the tree.

Anyone can recite human knowledge/ language. Anyone can remember and recall vast amounts of knowledge if they practice hard enough, anyone can pluck it from out of the brains archive. Gosh even a whole book on demand can be accessed from memory at any time. Dipping into this vast store-house of information on demand is available to all of us any time. Information recall on demand can seem effortless to anyone with a good memory. But that has nothing to do with actual intelligence, it's rather just an intellectual exercise for wannabe brainiac's to appear as if they are know it all's, but in reality know nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially how to make a brain from scratch. No, their so called brain is not actually theirs in the first place, it's just an anonymous placeholder for knowledge, that knows nothing....LOL
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

This forum is THE biggest waste of my fucking time.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:20 pm This forum is THE biggest waste of my fucking time.
Yes I would say everyone's God is the God of their own understanding. It's not like anyone is going to give up their idea of God and substitute it for someone elses, this is obvious. So yeah, definitely a waste of time even mentioning the God of your own understanding to another. These things are privy only to the inner workings of our own unique and never to be repeated minds.

The deliberate engagement of entangling multiple mind models of God only serves to confuse what is always your own clarity.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9453
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Harbal »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:53 pm
I honestly like the guy, but he's poor at actual debating as he operates in a similar way to IC - where everything I state that refutes his (where clearly he hasn't considered the LOGIC of what he is saying) - he then OMITS!!
What he has in common with IC is that they are both here to influence, and convert, folks to their way of thinking. Neither seems to be having much success. They are both intelligent and well capable of employing logic, but some aspects of what they are trying to promote are not logically defensible, so they just have to make the best of it. They are both reluctant to be explicit in what they want us to believe, presumably because of its unpalatability, so they try to guide us into coming to certain conclusions on our own. Alexis's put-downs are intended to shame and embarrass us into some kind of submission, but that doesn't really work on those that relish a good old forum punch-up. 8)
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by attofishpi »

Amen. woops!!
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

What I wrote was this:
You begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.
To make sense of what I said you'd need to include "In our culture" to make the best sense of what I meant.

And it is true: to be an intellectual which has a precise meaning as well as a less-defined one:
[Middle English, from Old French intellectuel, from Late Latin intellēctuālis, from Latin intellēctus, intellect; see intellect.]
For example there is an *intellectual class* who are, say, professional intellects, and certainly among that class "to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others".

The statement I made was entirely reasonable.

Where it is less reasonable is among those who are neither professional intellects nor even interested in ideas. Nevertheless what links them is language, and on the whole to refer to language is to refer to the written word.

However, if one (say) listened exclusively to music and did not read much or at all, one would still be receiving messages (semantic content I guess you cold say) through the musical creations of the composer -- who in one way or another is involved with language, meaning and also value.

I refer often to intellectus:
As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness.
So, I would not and do not negate the cognitive power of the soul nor the traits mentioned in this paragraph.

You'd need to read and interpret what I do say, Atto, more fairly and reasonably.

Hold on ... hold on please ... incoming ...

Filsnardius who says he is a Fourteenth Level Spectovisionary (I have no idea what this means) wants to get into our present conversation. I am having an exceedinly difficult time translating his dense (stellar-intellectual) thought inot English.

I'll need more time ....

Note to the others

Patience!
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:16 pm But that has nothing to do with actual intelligence, it's rather just an intellectual exercise for wannabe brainiac's to appear as if they are know it all's, but in reality know nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially how to make a brain from scratch.
That is why, in some other thread, I referred you to feral children whose acquisition of language was impaired. Without the base in human language the individual could be super intelligent or a dullard and it would not matter much. They were rendered severely retarded (ie backward, and could only advance to the level of a 3-4 years old). It is not a question of hardware, to use that metaphor, but of something else: language. Our human language is a mystery.

You are just as deeply involved in language in presenting the mishegoss that you do present as anyone else!
it's rather just an intellectual exercise for wannabe brainiac's to appear as if they are know it all's
Now you are getting to the core of what you really are opposed to: you seem to have issues with certain people who express certain ideas that you resist and do not like.

That is understandable.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:37 pm Alexis's put-downs are intended to shame and embarrass us into some kind of submission, but that doesn't really work on those that relish a good old forum punch-up. 8)

LOL

Image
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: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:51 pm What I wrote was this:
You begin with a substantial error, Atto. A misunderstanding (a bad understanding). In our culture, like it or not, to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others. And one gets those ideas exclusively through reading. There is no way around this. It is simply a fact.

To make sense of what I said you'd need to include "In our culture" to make the best sense of what I meant.

And it is true: to be an intellectual which has a precise meaning as well as a less-defined one:

[Middle English, from Old French intellectuel, from Late Latin intellēctuālis, from Latin intellēctus, intellect; see intellect.]


For example there is an *intellectual class* who are, say, professional intellects, and certainly among that class "to be an *intellectual* is to be involved with and informed by the ideas of others".

The statement I made was entirely reasonable.

Where it is less reasonable is among those who are neither professional intellects nor even interested in ideas. Nevertheless what links them is language, and on the whole to refer to language is to refer to the written word.

However, if one (say) listened exclusively to music and did not read much or at all, one would still be receiving messages (semantic content I guess you cold say) through the musical creations of the composer -- who in one way or another is involved with language, meaning and also value.

I refer often to intellectus:

As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness.

So, I would not and do not negate the cognitive power of the soul nor the traits mentioned in this paragraph.

You'd need to read and interpret what I do say, Atto, more fairly and reasonably.

Hold on ... hold on please ... incoming ...

Filsnardius who says he is a Fourteenth Level Spectovisionary (I have no idea what this means) wants to get into our present conversation. I am having an exceedinly difficult time translating his dense (stellar-intellectual) thought inot English.

I'll need more time ....

Note to the others

Patience!


My dear Alexis Jacobi..you have made your points above, as usual in your wordsmith let's go around roundabouts subjective manner.

If you haven't noticed, I like things cut down to a binary position, yay or nay - for me that's the ultimate objective pursuit of anything philosophical.

So.

When you make a statement that is flawed, it doesn't matter whatever else you have to say, even when you bring latin, Espanol Greek, whatever - you failed in THAT statement. LOGICALLY, binarily.

Though I find your style of writing and sometimes the subject matter interesting, you have flaws me ol' chum - logical errors in your statements, that cannot be waffled out of. :)

Right now, I am rather annoyed because it's bed time, and I have opened what I thought was Cadbury Fruit n Nut, but NO it's 'Black Forest' - I have no idea what is within the chocolate, but it ain't natural!!

I am far more annoyed about my chocolate situation, that your manoeuvring to escape the clutches of the flaws in your logic.

My new found favourite bedtime drink (was always Horlicks) - but I found a tin of Chocolate Horlicks the other day, and its lovely..I wonder how long the Chocolate version has been around? It took me years to find a dealer in Oz for the original..there ya go.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:37 pm What he has in common with IC is that they are both here to influence, and convert, folks to their way of thinking. Neither seems to be having much success. They are both intelligent and well capable of employing logic, but some aspects of what they are trying to promote are not logically defensible, so they just have to make the best of it. They are both reluctant to be explicit in what they want us to believe, presumably because of its unpalatability, so they try to guide us into coming to certain conclusions on our own. Alexis's put-downs are intended to shame and embarrass us into some kind of submission, but that doesn't really work on those that relish a good old forum punch-up.
Encapsulation, or the attempt at it, is a valuable exercise. What you've written here is intelligible. And because it actually deals in the realm of ideas I can comment productively.

I cannot speak for IC, though his efforts to seem to involve a desire (really a command, no?) to help people convert to having a relationship to Jesus and to avoid *hell*. He has said as much.

However, IC is also involved in many other categories of ideas related to 'conservatism'.

I am not interested in converting you or anyone and this has never been my purpose which I have stated continually. My purpose is somewhat selfish: I want and need to get clear about where I stand in relation to important issues and controversies that reign in our present. And this explains why I have presented so much criticism of your *position* Harbal, such as it is.

Intelligence and *logic* are on one side of the equation, that is true, but no one of these determine what I think is better understood to be something like *orientation* or *perspective*. These depend on hermeneutical issues.

My understanding is that the larger differences that get expressed in these pages, and on this forum, have to do with far larger issues and these are cultural, intellectual, also religious (dealing with the interior content and meaning with which religion is involved), and all of this in a shifting and rather dangerous present, which is being determined by movements and trends that are difficult to identify. (For example when I have referred to James Lindsay's work and his cultural and intellectual critique).

In some sense though I think you are right: I am more on IC's *side* (if I can put it like this) than I am on your side (which I define as a negation of intellectus to use my preferred term). I suppose it fair to say that I remain more *pluralistic* and more flexible in numerous areas when compared to IC.

But note that I am not interested in *converting* people. How could I convert when, as it certainly seems to be the case, I am not convinced what it is needed to be converted to.

However, in relation to everything that has been discussed in this thread note the following: I do not reject what I understand to be the inner content, the inner meaning, the inner message of what I understand Christianity (and of course Catholicism which is earlier and more relevant than its Protestant evolution) to be involved as presenting, representing and upholding. I am therefore in a peculiar conundrum where critique and opposition exist side-by-side with the *assent* I refer to often.

In relation to all of this I have become aware that many here -- I use a you-plural -- are locked out of the possibility of understanding what I say here. That is my interpretation however.

Therefore if I do anything at all it is to defend a sort of *ramp* to a position or point where what I am on about becomes intelligible.

Very different from *trying to convert*!
Alexis's put-downs are intended to shame and embarrass us into some kind of submission, but that doesn't really work on those that relish a good old forum punch-up.
I have certainly used phrasing to point to your deficiencies -- absolutely! And I retract none of it. But at each juncture I have clearly stated that I am making larger references to cultural trends generally.

My critique of Atto's subjectivity, though related, was enunciated in different terms. I do not think you even care to parse the difference out.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

attofishpi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:11 pm Right now, I am rather annoyed because it's bed time, and I have opened what I thought was Cadbury Fruit n Nut, but NO it's 'Black Forest' - I have no idea what is within the chocolate, but it ain't natural!!
You poor man! I can sympathize. I have no idea how you'll get it worked out. But trust the process! 🙃
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

OK people. The sun is shining and I am heading out for a bike ride into the glorious mountains in my region.

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...)

England, pour a glass of wine, relax! Don't overdo it though.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:58 pm
That is why, in some other thread, I referred you to feral children whose acquisition of language was impaired.
Yes, if you like, you may with my permission label one as a feral child, impaired of language. I can take that, have no problem with that, since no word ever changed anything for me personally, I still function like any other life form, and quite frankly, do so very well at this moment in time. Maybe that will change due to ongoing entrophy that will ultimately ensure my demise, and amen to that, and blessed are the dead for they know nothing and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 8)
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:58 pmWithout the base in human language the individual could be super intelligent or a dullard and it would not matter much. They were rendered severely retarded (ie backward, and could only advance to the level of a 3-4 years old). It is not a question of hardware, to use that metaphor, but of something else: language. Our human language is a mystery.
Yes, if you like, you may with my permission label one as a dullard or super intelligent, retarted, backward, unable to adavance past the level of a 3-4 year old. I can take that, yeah, sounds like a wild adventure of fun. But what I'd like to know is what are you going do about it, detain me in some secure institution for the mentally challenged retarded plebs of society, until we willing submit to being reformed by the sane people like you? :lol:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:58 pmYou are just as deeply involved in language in presenting the mishegoss that you do present as anyone else!
Yes,alright, if you like, err, say so, then so be it.
it's rather just an intellectual exercise for wannabe brainiac's to appear as if they are know it all's
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:58 pmNow you are getting to the core of what you really are opposed to: you seem to have issues with certain people who express certain ideas that you resist and do not like.

That is understandable.
I know what you mean,crazy senseless behavior or activity by the likes of some people, who are labeled as being unread, or uneducated feral serverely retarded, never advancing past the level of 3-4 year olds, are indeed to be resisted, this is very undertstandable, you even said it yourself, it's hard to resist those issues regarding the crazies, much better to oppose them, maybe just put them in a dark box where they cannot be seen or heard of ever again. Eh!
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Christianity

Post by Dontaskme »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:26 pm

England, pour a glass of wine, relax! Don't overdo it though.
Don't drink, or smoke, or take any medication, and never over do things. I guess I'm just really ok, but thanks for the useless tip, anyway.
Post Reply