No one here cares where you work.
Campbellism should be accepted as fact because Campbell said it.
I find it interesting, as RL would say, that you seem to come around when RL and BD get themselves into a corner, that even though you aren't on a thread for most of the posts you seem to show up at exactly the right time, that you have been on few threads they haven't, that you seem to take vacations from the site when they do, come back together, and have nearly the same writing style, including using many identical phrases. Yes it's interesting. :wink:
ROFLMAO!!!
I find it interesting, as RL would say, that you seem to come around when RL and BD get themselves into a corner, that even though you aren't on a thread for most of the posts you seem to show up at exactly the right time, that you have been on few threads they haven't, that you seem to take vacations from the site when they do, come back together, and have nearly the same writing style, including using many identical phrases. Yes it's interesting. :wink:
ROFLMAO!!!
Actually real life I was just paraphrasing the strange picture you seemed to have painted in reply to Coluber to try and point out the silliness of it considering what Coluber actually posted and the implications of religion as myth. I think Campbell was excellent and I thoroughly enjoyed watching a series of his lectures that were on YouTube at one point.
What you wrote here:
real life wrote:coluber2001 wrote:Joseph Campbell said that all religions are true in that they are metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery, but if you get stuck to the metaphor, then you're in trouble.
Well, I guess good ol' Joe is all we need then. He's apparently got all the answers.
Can you tell me why you would accept Joe's opinion as if it were fact?
just didn't seem to follow at all from what Coluber posted which was simply an overview of Campbell's position with regards to religion and myth. At most we might suggest Coluber felt Campbell's view/ideas were worth sharing/consideration (which is a million miles away from being unreasonable surely?) but you seemed to instantly dive in with the polarised attitude of depicting Campbell as having some ideology that was naturally to be fought against like anything else that dissents literal views of religion. That you thought sharing another possibility or idea is akin to asking people to accept facts just seemed peculiar in the extreme to me. Suddenly Campbell has "all the answers", he's "all we need" and Coluber accepts "Joe's opinion as if it were fact" like he's yet another religious authority to be submitted to. Sometimes ideas and perspectives are just that, ideas and perspectives, not ideologies to bash people over the head with.
Wo there...I never SAID they were I just said it was interesting. But if I am supposed to believe they are different people they are going to have to provide me proof not just their opinions. :wink:
real life wrote:Your assumption of naturalism is not a provable position, you've admitted as much.
Correct. But I didn't claim it was provable, only rational.
Nothing in philosophy is provable. Core positions must be chosen, upon which expansions of the base philosophy flow. But if you start from an irrational base, then everything that derives from it is fluid and unmeasurable. This is both the strength and the weakness of supernatural foundations; they are limitlessly flexible, but ultimately meaningless in any external sense. The only thing you can learn from this position are things about yourself.
There is nothing rational about insisting that your unprovable assumption is the only one that is logical or acceptable.
