A Cold Hell

@Zetherin,

Didymos Thomas,

I'm not twisting your words - they're twisty enough already. And I don't want to argue until I'm blue in the face. The way I see it we're making slow progress toward the inescapable conclusion. To that end let me ask you straight: does the mythos/logos distinction equate to a distinction between fact and non-fact?

This is what I understand from what you've said - and assuming that's correct:

Quote:

Actually, science does not work on the same level as mythos. I'd recommend talking to Aedes for a full explanation as to the limitations of science in this regard.

...this refers to the ought-from-is argument. You say it doesn't, but you do not specify or explain what it is you do refer to. Nonetheless, and despite accusing me of twisting your words, you ignore my plain statement that:

Quote:

This doesn't claim to be a scientific argument, but is a moral argument informed by science

and go on to tell me:

Quote:

What you miss is the fact that drawing moral arguments from scientific knowledge does not make those moral arguments science.

I say over and over again:

Quote:

inform my moral and spiritual calculus

But you do not acknowledge the argument, for in this sense you have to acknowledge it wrong to say:

Quote:

Science does not work on the same level as mythos because science is logos.

I explained what I mean with the example of Aedes, working as a doctor, using science to inform the moral decisions in his work. But still you don't want to acknowledge this because you sense the danger to your position.

Rather, you must maintain:

Quote:

Science is no more "valid of reality" than Aristotle or Jesus or anyone else.

But when Niether Extreme said:

Quote:

Neither hold any more weight than the other

I said:

Quote:

Oh, yes they do. Epistemological weight. Science is not merely assertion, but is knowledge of reality established by experiment and observation - aimed at falsification. By falsifying lesser explanations of observed phenomena, science establishes the validty of its ideas - whereas there is no such method of falsification in religion. It's merely assertion - they've stuck with the first thing they thought of and waged war and killed people to protect it, burnt books, suppressed other systems of knowledge, imprisoned and tortured people, indoctrinate children

And you quoted this, but did not refute it. Rather you said:

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, yes they do. Epistemological weight.

Except that religion does not, should not (because abuses abound), attempt to establish itself as a logical framework. Again, the difference between mythos and logos.

So, I think it's you that's twisting your words. You keep shifting bases of analysis in order to block my argument, but aside from speaking generally about the generality that is religion, I'm saying pretty much the same thing I have been since I became a member of this site in 2007. I'm still saying that science is epistemically superior to religion, because it is falsifiable, and aimed at establishing valid knowledge of something that actually exists, where religion is mere assertion. Mythos. Call it what you like. Where valid knowledge informs a moral and spiritual understanding it's a superior moral and spiritual understanding to one informed by non-factual bases of analysis.

Quote:

But religion is placed upon these texts as a label, and this causes emotional issues with some people. That's a shame. Set the emotions aside for a moment.

Please explain this statement. It seems like you're implying that the Bible, Koran, Torah are not religious texts - distinct from non-factual sources such as 'The Mayor of Caterbridge' that is acknowledged as fiction - has no temples built in its name, no public holidays, no congratgation gathering in the temples on Thomas Hardy Day, no tax breaks, no government posts etc, etc. Are you saying all fiction shoulfd be accorded this status? That can't be what you're saying though because it's ridiculous - and if this is the logical consequence of your assertions to date, you really have to revise your thinking.

And so we return to the significance of religious knowledge in society, relative to science. Do you see that there is a disparity between the superior epistemological staus of science, and the superior social staus of religion?

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

I'm not twisting your words - they're twisty enough already. And I don't want to argue until I'm blue in the face. The way I see it we're making slow progress toward the inescapable conclusion. To that end let me ask you straight: does the mythos/logos distinction equate to a distinction between fact and non-fact?

Nice try, but in the last post I explain how you've twisted and misunderstood me - to which you conveniently do not respond.

To answer your question - no. Niether mythos nor logos is necessarily fact nor necessarily non-fact. Both can produce fact and non-fact. Logos is the rational pursuit of truth, mythos is the figurative expression of truth, particularly ineffable truth.

Quote:

...this refers to the ought-from-is argument. You say it doesn't, but you do not specify or explain what it is you do refer to.

Here again you put words in my mouth. I never claims that I did not refer to an ought-from-is, I said I wasn't aware that I had and then asked you to point out such a refference.

I really am growing tired of this. You can, at the very least, pay attention to what I write before declaring I'm wrong.

Quote:

Nonetheless, and despite accusing me of twisting your words, you ignore my plain statement that: 'This doesn't claim to be a scientific argument, but is a moral argument informed by science'

But you also argue that science is epistemologically superior to religion. Obviously, you're non-science moral conclusions cannot be epistemologically superior if they are not science.
So, do you want to suggest your conclusions are epistemologically superior or not?

Quote:

I explained what I mean with the example of Aedes, working as a doctor, using science to inform the moral decisions in his work. But still you don't want to acknowledge this because you sense the danger to your position.

I sense danger? And how would you know that?

Iconoclast - I'm done. If you like, you can educate yourself, or cling to your psuedo-science ideology. Good luck, buddy.

(Notice how I end the conversation without the childish "leave me alone" nonsense?)

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

I can have anything inform my moral and spiritual calculus - as you do, from the Divine Comedy, Confucius, or Russell, or Aristotle through to the teachings attributed to Jesus, but I choose science because it's valid of reality. The fallacy only comes into play if I were to suggest that the moral were determined by the facts, and I'm not suggesting that at all. (I've learnt better from arguments on this forum.)

Good sir, it appears we have misunderstood eachother, because this is exactly what I was speaking about. Anyone can have any line of spirituality or logic inform their moral compass. I also understand what you're speaking about when you talk of spirituality with scientific backing - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that in my book.

I believe the only thing we disagree upon is that you believe logic holds more weight because it's valid of reality. I believe no path is better, and each could be as dangerous as the other if you deny consideration. I also don't believe every influence of religion is as extreme as the brainwashing you implied (and this goes both ways). I know now the discrimination I see within your writing is because you believe of all religious teaching in this manner - it is a stagnation of the mind, a brainwashing, and has no value. Instead, you believe, the spirituality should come from an understanding that has more basis for the reality we are able to observe - through logic, science.

All I'm asking is that you consider that logic does not have more inherent value, your perception of religion could be overgeneralized, and that maybe not everyone reaps from religious teachings in the same way.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

I'm sorry you choose to forfiet, rather than admit defeat with good grace. I do hope I haven't shaken your non-faith in your non-god.

You say:

Quote:

Nice try, but in the last post I explain how you've twisted and misunderstood me - to which you conveniently do not respond.

Is that the one before Diane Grace's post? The one in which you say:

Quote:

Science is no more "valid of reality" than Aristotle or Jesus or anyone else.

How am I to understand that?

If in the attempt to make sense of such patent idiocy I failed to trace the timbre of your insanity I cannot honestly apologize. If it is this mad mode of thought you have sought to educate me in - I'm pleased I proved a poor pupil, and unsuprised I proved too taxing a master.

That said - now you've quit our debate, and wished me 'Good luck, buddy' I do hope in future you'll leave me alone, and allow me to present my arguments without your spurious, yet relentless objections.

adieu,

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Wait, should I really believe we can't conduct constructive debates here?

You both realize that there is no winner here, right? I don't know why the discussion has stopped, and I ask both of you to be more respectful to each other. Just because you disagree or perhaps can't see the perspective with which someone is coming does not justify this kind of immaturity.

Hell, if we can't even civilly discuss our thoughts on an online forum, I see absolutely no hope for the future of humanity.

Let's please continue, if only at my request. I want you to both realize this thread has been very helpful to my situation. I ridiculously enjoy learning of other's intelligently-constructed opinions within this life, and the consideration of each of your viewpoints has further enlightened me. I'm sure others have benefited, too.

I will be in Mexico for the next 2 weeks and so will have little time to reply. However, I will be observing and you better believe this thread will be resurrected - even if I'm the only one left standing!

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Zetherin,

Kind words, my good friend. But am I in this war weary state and in need of allies to my cause, to admit what I have already contradicted?

I appreciate that it's not nice to claim superiority, not even for one kind of knowledge over another, but I cannot deny that I think it's correct to begin with the scientific facts of the matter - and let spiritual considerations be informed by the facts.

But it's 3 am here. I'll think more on your post and respond more fully tommorrow.

goodnight.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

Kind words, my good friend. But am I in this war weary state and in need of allies to my cause, to admit what I have already contradicted?

I appreciate that it's not nice to claim superiority, not even for one kind of knowledge over another, but I cannot deny that I think it's correct to begin with the scientific facts of the matter - and let spiritual considerations be informed by the facts.

But it's 3 am here. I'll think more on your post and respond more fully tommorrow.

goodnight.

iconoclast.

Many cannot deny what they think is correct, this is natural! I do feel further consideration of an opposing viewpoint is what we should strive for, but of course this is just my opinion and what I feel is correct. The real problem here, though, is that there appears to be dwindling tolerance for each other's views. And if we can't even be tolerant, how can we be constructive?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

I haven't found a religion or spiritual philosophy I can credit with the same integrity as science. Consider that for many thousands of years people have looked into the night sky and wondered what it's all about. They've made up stories that speak to the emotions of man - in the attempt to try and make sense of it all. And then, slowly, and by degrees, scientific method formed, enabling man to have valid knowledge of reality.

And yet, despite the fact that science yields valid knowledge, that gave man his first true insight into the world beyond the surface appearance of things, scientists have the humility to acknowledge that it's not absolute truth - which would defeat the desire to understand, but rather take pains to point out the inadequacies, biases and limited bases upon which it's suggested the hypothesis explains the phenomena in question.

You ask:

Quote:

Wait, should I really believe we can't conduct constructive debates here?

Without such integrity, constructive debate is impossible, but instead you get what happened here - reason battering down the barricades of unreason, barricades that are constructed in order to protect ideas that have little humility, have a confused sense of thier history and no understanding of thier nature.

To give Didymos Thomas due credit - he is possibly the lest doctrinairre religionist I've encountered, and does make the attempt to understand religion in a rational way, but in another sense he's worse for that fact, in that he erects the all same barricades to defend nothing at all.

I say that acknowledging science honours the essence of man - the curious animal, with all the spiritual solemnity, sense of wonder and celebration of existence that religion has sought to capture - but makes a pretence of by claiming truth, by erecting barricades to rational knowledge, by claiming it is something else - i.e. mythos, when really it's just pre-scientific logos that's claimed the status of mythos in face of disproof.

Rather than develop in relation to the present state of human knowledge, and revel spiritually in scientific truth, because religion would claim absolute truth for its primtive hypotheses, it ties us to the limitations of ages past, in which we didn't know - nor know how to know truth.

Thus, rather than leading humankind along the path to greater accord with the reality we inhabit, science is used as a tool by political institutions founded in an era of religious ignorance - institutions with purposes infused with the same flavour of insanity as primitive explanations of our existence in the world.

This explains why, despite advances in knowledge and technology, things are just getting worse, more dangerous and epic. The power of science is used to multiply the irrationalities of religious ideas, that in primitve times were human in scale. Now they are monstrous, and threaten our very existence. We are primtive minded people with scientifically advanced tools - and this is a situation that can't last.

We must either evolve or die - and I say we evolve by recognizing the truth value of scientific knowledge and drawing from that knowledge our identities and purposes - reconciling who we are with what is true in a profoundly spiritual manner, rather than denying what is true in defence of a religiously described identity.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

We must either evolve or die - and I say we evolve by recognizing the truth value of scientific knowledge and drawing from that knowledge our identities and purposes - reconciling who we are with what is true in a profoundly spiritual manner, rather than denying what is true in defence of a religiously described identity.
iconoclast.

I understand your points and not only acknowledge, but admire, your efforts to condition humanity into a path of evolution. You appear to value humanity as a whole and have intelligently, through inference and rationale, come to a position you think feel will allow us to advance and prosper. And there is nothing wrong with this.

The point, once again:
You are not being tolerant of other ideals and perceptions, you don't appear to be considering you are wrong. You are making the error that this does not have the potentiality of being constructive, when it most definitely can.

Now, my views:
I understand that you find no value in religiously described identity, and that is fine, (and in fact, if you had read my previous posts, you would see that I also value a scientific backing to indentity), but this does not mean there isn't some 'truth', some value, in religion. If you are choosing to stop at this point in consideration, that's fine. But realize that this halt in consideration, which you seem to exuberant, is the breeding ground from which religious endevours, the one's you so much detest, sprang. To me, it appears, constant consideration is key, and accepting that all beliefs, regardless how dense or simplified they appear, can have value. After all, they sprang for a reason, just as your revelations have sprung. Not everything is as appears, and we shouldn't just lump things, especially ideals which are so displaced on this earth, into categorize to please ourselves.

Furthermore, I really believe you're placing science on a pedestal, especially when you imply that science can explain everything. At the end of the day, even if we had all of existence mapped out and every law of nature understood, science still cannot explain all of the "why's". Science can only lead us so far and is not the end that you seem to perceive. Not all of the mythos can be disproved (also we must consider Dydi's point which believes viewing it from this angle is incorrect as they have different functions). We can have unlimited scientific knowledge, but the moment you tap into a religious or spiritual ideal, you are tapping into faith. Either you have it or you don't, and no depth of science can prove or disprove otherwise. You must make the choice. For you to think all of mythos, all of spirituality, can be logically disproved is astounding.

But even with all this said, I tend to value the knowledge of science and advocate using science, but not just science (just as not just spirituality), in our self identity.

3 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

We can have unlimited scientific knowledge, but the moment you tap into a religious or spiritual ideal, you are tapping into faith. Either you have it or you don't, and no depth of science can prove or disprove otherwise.

"Faith" can be tricky to pin down. Given the way you use the term here, I would suggest that experience can be inserted in place of faith. Though, the statement is also true of "blind faith", or perhaps a "leap of faith".

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Quote:

You are not being tolerant of other ideals and perceptions,

No, not really - not when I think they're bad ideas spread for the wrong reasons, and which confuse people's understanding such that they can't tell truth from lie, fact from fiction, mythos form logos.

Quote:

you don't appear to be considering you are wrong.

I know that my arguments are not THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, but they have a lot more validity than the ideas I'm criticizing.

Quote:

You are making the error that this does not have the potentiality of being constructive, when it most definitely can

I don't know what this poor tortured sentance means. Please write simply in plain english words.

Quote:

...but this does not mean there isn't some 'truth', some value, in religion.

If you're saying the Bible is packed with folksy wisdoms - okay, I have no problem with that. But if you're saying there's value in faith in primitive ideas of reality and/or the self then you're wrong. We should accept the truth.

Quote:

If you are choosing to stop at this point in consideration

Ddiymos Thomas called a halt to the debate - and the post before this one was mine.

Quote:

which you seem to exuberant, is the breeding ground from which religious endevours, the one's you so much detest, sprang

Please, please stop torturing the language. Use little wrods well rather than big words badly. Meaning is much more important than vocabulary as an indicator of intelligence.

Quote:

To me, it appears, constant consideration is key, and accepting that all beliefs, regardless how dense or simplified they appear can have value.

I just don't agree. There's no value to Lamarkism - a primitive alternative to Darwinian ideas on evolution, now utterly discredited. And that's how it should be. Knowledge is like carving a statue, not building a house. You have to chip bits off, not just keep adding to it until it's done.

Not everything is as appears, and we shouldn't just lump things, especially ideals which are so displaced on this earth, into categorize to please ourselves.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Quote:

You are not being tolerant of other ideals and perceptions,

No, not really - not when I think they're bad ideas spread for the wrong reasons, and which confuse people's understanding such that they can't tell truth from lie, fact from fiction, mythos form logos.

Quote:

you don't appear to be considering you are wrong.

I know that my arguments are not THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, but they have a lot more validity than the ideas I'm criticizing.

Quote:

You are making the error that this does not have the potentiality of being constructive, when it most definitely can

I don't know what this poor tortured sentance means. Please write simply in plain english words.

Quote:

...but this does not mean there isn't some 'truth', some value, in religion.

If you're saying the Bible is packed with folksy wisdoms - okay, I have no problem with that. But if you're saying there's value in faith in primitive ideas of reality and/or the self then you're wrong. We should accept the truth.

Quote:

If you are choosing to stop at this point in consideration

Ddiymos Thomas called a halt to the debate - and the post before this one was mine.

Quote:

which you seem to exuberant, is the breeding ground from which religious endevours, the one's you so much detest, sprang

Please, please stop torturing the language. Use little wrods well rather than big words badly. Meaning is much more important than vocabulary as an indicator of intelligence.

Quote:

To me, it appears, constant consideration is key, and accepting that all beliefs, regardless how dense or simplified they appear can have value.

I just don't agree. There's no value to Lamarkism - a primitive alternative to Darwinian ideas on evolution, now utterly discredited. And that's how it should be. Knowledge is like carving a statue, not building a house. You have to chip bits off, not just keep adding to it until it's done.

Quote:

Not everything is as appears, and we shouldn't just lump things, especially ideals which are so displaced on this earth, into categorize to please ourselves.

Nothing is as it appears - but what's the point. It's because nothing is as it appears we have to categorize and classifiy and generalize. These are artifacts of the limits of understanding but can be recognized as such and accounted for. This was my problem with Didymos. If I said 'religion requires faith' - it's like saying 'cars run on gasoline.' Not all cars run on gasoline... Well, no, but it's not therefore false.

You say:

Quote:

even if we had all of existence mapped out and every law of nature understood, science still cannot explain all of the "why's".

No, but the point of my argument is that if we have to decide why for ourselves, it's better to have that why informed by knowledge of what and how - rather than continue to employ the why from decisions made thousands of years ago on the basis of very little valid knowledge, a large amount of political intrigue and much superstition.

Quote:

Science can only lead up so far and is not the end that you seem to perceive.

Either you didn't read or didn't understand the argument I had with Ddiymos Thomas. I've acknowledged that science is not an end - at the very least you would need to employ science to the end of securing human survival. All ethical and moral values flow from these two ideas together, valid knowledge employed to the end of securing human survival.

Quote:

We can have unlimited scientific knowledge, but the moment you tap into a religious or spiritual ideal, you are tapping into faith. Either you have it or you don't, and nothing, not even the depths of science, can prove or disprove.

Again, I just don't understand this. Let me respond to what I think it means. Faith is wrong because it's a bad epistemological approach to knowledge. Without proof, the best God can be is a hypothesis - and you would be right to say that science has found no proof for or against the existence of God.

But it would be wrong to claim that therefore it's right to believe in God. The correct conclusion is that it's a bad hypothesis. For example, I could hypothsize that we are all brains in jars connected to some reality machine, and science could not disprove it. Is it therefore a valid hypothesis? No, it's nonesense.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Iconoclast,

1.) I apologize for some of the wordy, messy sentences I've typed. I am typing quickly as I am in Mexico with limited internet usage. However, I didn't feel they were too ****ed up for you to understand - perhaps I'm wrong. Regardless, I'll make more of an effort to simplify.

2.) Just because you feel something is better does not mean it is better.

3.) Your extremist attitude is the problem. Again, you appear no different than the religious extremist - a fixed agenda, walking in the clouds. Not only do you fail to consider others, but you are discriminative. It's "my way or the highway" with you

4.)The point that Didy was attempting to make was that you don't, and often times shouldn't, address God as you would a proof of science. Logically, that jar you mention (which was a metaphor for a spiritual God, right?) has the same probability as a God existing. But if you try to apply logic to everything, you are missing the point. Please reread what Didy was saying.

I understand your points:

Religion has no value as it is based on thousand year old beliefs with no valid knowledge. Identity of oneself should be based on valid, scientific knowledge rather than leaps of faith.

I think the funny thing here is that you think I've been arguing against any of this, when I haven't. I just don't advocate the extreme with which you imply! You keep bringing up religion, when that's not even what Didy nor I were referring the entire time! There is a difference between an extremist religious follower and one that considers spirituality on some level! You appear to believe I am advocating thousand year olds beliefs with no further consideration. Haha, and to think in other threads I've been quoted for saying "Religion is like a cage". Wow, the level of misunderstanding is amazing, though admittedly most of it is probably my fault.

Let me sum up my argument in a few simple sentences so you have a better grasp:

Do not outwardly discriminate (show everyone respect!) even if you feel your perception holds more value. Do not make the mistake that something is better just because it's scientifically valid; this is implying an absolute truth, the truth being how you feel the direction of humanity should follow (which may not be the correct path... there may not even be a 'correct' path).

It appears perhaps Didy was right: This discussion really can't be constructive anymore.

If this is where you stand:

"No, not really - not when I think they're bad ideas spread for the wrong reasons, and which confuse people's understanding such that they can't tell truth from lie, fact from fiction, mythos form logos."

Then I can safely assume that you simply think my considerations are a bad idea. And not only do you believe they're a bad idea, but you would extinguish me if given the chance. I also think you believe my wordy language and these points are the mark of an unintelligent fool. So, if these are your notions, Didy was correct.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

"Faith" can be tricky to pin down. Given the way you use the term here, I would suggest that experience can be inserted in place of faith. Though, the statement is also true of "blind faith", or perhaps a "leap of faith".

I was referring to a dogmatic interpretation of faith - a belief in an ideal with no scientific backing - more in line with the "leap of faith". Though, you've actually brought up a very interesting thought - I could easily say iconoclast is taking a leap of faith. Though not dogmatic, he does have faith in science, and more specifically, the scientists. To label, we could call him a logical empiricist. The opposite being one who believes in fideism, where one relies completely on blind faith alone (my understanding may be a little off). My point is that I don't believe we should be on either extreme. We should consider that some "truths" cannot be understood by reason alone, while acknowledging the value of reason also.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Z,

If you're interested in do-it-yourself meditation, pick up that nice illustrated copy of the Tao Te Ching. It's basically philosophy (religion? I dunno) masquerading as poetry. Worth reading even if you don't believe it, at all, but I've found that it contains much of what I consider to be truth, and that it has a very calming effect on me.

You mention that you recently watched a video about Nietzsche; have you read any of his books? Like the Tao, he is extremely readable and entertaining, even if you end up disagreeing with him. If you want to walk down this path (it has its pratfalls, but really it sounds like you've already started), I'd pick up Beyond Good and Evil and then move onto the Genealogy of Morals. Who can dislike a philosophy book that starts at the end (typical of N) with the question "Supposing truth is a woman - what then?" Those two books contain the essence of Nietzsche's thought in the form that is easiest to digest. Really, his other books don't make much sense until you have digested those two.

Nietzsche won't try to erect metaphysical edifice which will pull you out of your cold hell (doesn't sound like you want one), but he might light a path by which you can begin to find your own way out, so long as you keep your hubris in check. Either that, or you'll end up feeling worse. Individual results may vary.

I haven't read every post in this thread, so if I'm repeating something that's already been said, oh well.

2 Replies

@Grimlock,

Zetherin,

How can you, on the one hand argue for the relativism of opinion and yet on the other hand tell me that what I think is better, isn't? Your illogic aside, it bloody well is. I've done the leg-work. I've considered the question for twenty years - and it all makes sense.

I can explain in the same terms the origin of the concept of God, the occurence of art and artifacts, the transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to multi-tribal and social groups, the structure of societies from primitive times through to the present day, the extinction threats now facing humankind and how to avoid extinction.

While such an understanding naturally passes through a great number of contensious issues, and raises a plethora of philosophical debates, it makes sense of each within the overall scheme of the theory.

Without appreciation of that overall scheme - others would raise points I have considered at great length and come to a position on, and argue as if they were disproof, or as if I'm intolerant, but I know it just doesn't make sense that way because I have considered it.

You advise:

Quote:

Do not outwardly discriminate (show everyone respect!) even if you feel your perception holds more value.

Then how are we to arrive at truth? Remember, it's not like building a house - you have to chip bits off. You have to say 'no, this is not so, because...' and it's perfectly legitimate to do so. You do it with yourself, right? You consider two solutions to a problem, and decide against one - because it doesn't make sense in the larger context, so, why should it be wrong to do so in discussion?

This is part of the problem - this secular relativism, wherein everyone has a right to thier opinion - no matter how stupid it is, and I am supposed to respect thier right. What about thier obligation to concede to a better understanding?

That's what I mean by integrity - the integrity to concede to a more valid argument. I had to have integrity with myself - and let go of the fond delusions of my recieved mind in order to construct my mind anew. So, if I don't seem to have a great deal of tolerance for people who don't understand the ABC's of the matter - but who would howl down a greater understanding with spurious objections based on ill-formed opinion - it's because they have no integrity. And as I said, without such integrity constructive debate is not possible.

You say:

Quote:

Do not make the mistake that something is better just because it's scientifically valid; this is implying an absolute truth, the truth being how you feel the direction of humanity should follow (which may not be the correct path... there may not even be a 'correct' path).

I could show you that it's better - if you'd let me finnish a sentance without jumping in with one of the many arguments I've thought about and come to a position on - including this one. And when I'd shown you - all your objections would melt away. I can show you greater spiritual fulfillment than you'll find in any religion - but despite your expressed desire to understand, you don't seem willing to put in the effort.

Do you really think you can understand what took me half my lifetime to understand on the basis of the debate with Didymos Thomas? I only engaged in it so as to let him have his say - that I might then go on to make these arguments without his constant interuptions in defence of his petty prejudices.

But if I haven't shown that I've got something to say worth saying, and if you don't find yourself wondering what that is - if you'd rather we paddled here in the shallow end splashing at eachother, rather than immerse ourselves in deeper waters - then you will never understand what I'm saying, and it will be to your detriment that you do not.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

I'm sorry you choose to forfiet, rather than admit defeat with good grace.

I almost laughed - but then I realized that you are serious.

The conversation wasn't a game with a winner and loser. But if you have to build yourself up in this way, be my guest.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Zetherin,

How can you, on the one hand argue for the relativism of opinion and yet on the other hand tell me that what I think is better, isn't? Your illogic aside, it bloody well is. I've done the leg-work. I've considered the question for twenty years - and it all makes sense.

You're right. If I were to say that my opinion is better, I'd be hypocritical.

I am interested in hearing your perspective. Make my objections melt away. Start delving into those deeper waters you speak of based on your omniscient experience of twenty years. If you have it all figured out, then please proceed, and don't let me splash you with shallow puddles. But be weary that I do not agree with your mentality on extinguishing those that do not follow your idea, or your truth. Again, I believe if given the choice, you would quarter everyone that you deemed stupid and not following the path of evolutionary advancement you speak of - everyone that got in the way of the house you want to build... they would be the chippings, per say. I just can't agree with that, and I've come across this mentality many a time.

I'll tell you a recent experience: I became friendly with an elderly man, a U.S army vet, of about 72 now. We used to talk for hours on many levels, usually political. His idea was that he believed that we should kill all those opposing the U.S.A. That is, he believed we should kill the majority of Middle-Eastern countries as he feared it would be a "Kill or be killed scenario". He believed, like you, that we must not respect everyone, and exterminate those that do not agree with the path of advancement he spoke of.

I looked at him in bewilderment, "Really, you think we should just bomb Afghanistan and Iraq right now?" Mind you, he didn't appear mentally ill, this was actually an intelligent, well thought perspective that took him years to come to. He would cite specific points and had tons and tons of books, authors, and scientists from which he would refer. In the end, I couldn't help but be disgusted.

And without further ado, Iconoclast!

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Z,

If you're interested in do-it-yourself meditation, pick up that nice illustrated copy of the Tao Te Ching. It's basically philosophy (religion? I dunno) masquerading as poetry. Worth reading even if you don't believe it, at all, but I've found that it contains much of what I consider to be truth, and that it has a very calming effect on me.

You mention that you recently watched a video about Nietzsche; have you read any of his books? Like the Tao, he is extremely readable and entertaining, even if you end up disagreeing with him. If you want to walk down this path (it has its pratfalls, but really it sounds like you've already started), I'd pick up Beyond Good and Evil and then move onto the Genealogy of Morals. Who can dislike a philosophy book that starts at the end (typical of N) with the question "Supposing truth is a woman - what then?" Those two books contain the essence of Nietzsche's thought in the form that is easiest to digest. Really, his other books don't make much sense until you have digested those two.

Nietzsche won't try to erect metaphysical edifice which will pull you out of your cold hell (doesn't sound like you want one), but he might light a path by which you can begin to find your own way out, so long as you keep your hubris in check. Either that, or you'll end up feeling worse. Individual results may vary.

I haven't read every post in this thread, so if I'm repeating something that's already been said, oh well.

Thanks for these suggestions. While we did touch on Nietzsche earlier in this thread, the specific book recommendations are appreciated! I will be renting those two as soon as possible. However, as is the major theme throughout this thread: Thinking for yourself, I do not immediately 'cling' onto a belief. I'm beginning to realize that this mental anguish I suffer is the reflection of the perspective I have, "I must figure all of this out immediately". The reality is that it may take me another 30 years to come to my personal truth, or I may never. But, I think the important thing is that I dig myself out of this Cold Hell by not worrying about immediate results or epiphanies. It will come when it comes. I will continue reading, speaking with others, and considering. Really, that's all I can do.

I will continue delving into these deeper waters, but at the same time value my present life - value those around me, apply a set of morals (I have this mindset where I feel it's 'wrong' or presumptuous to bind to a set of morals). Instead of acknowledging that I am a being that will change, I feel as though I must build an immediate house now to use for the entirety of my lifetime! Coming out of this 'Cold Hell' will be an effort and advancement in maturity, in acknowledging and appreciating life, and more importantly appreciating myself and the journey I must face. I will most definitely go through more pain and anguish, but the key is managing the pain, and acquiring a certain perspective to journey forward.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Didymos Thomas - Zetherin, OK. Shhh! Listen and learn.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know