Philosophy is Dead

@Fil Albuquerque,

"Poetic noesis" eh? That's a fine compliment.

Cheers Filipe.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Hi Failures, your denunciation of Christ betrays to me a lack of theological insight into this very pertinent and pressing issue. Infact God (as refered to under these terms), means alot to me on a personal level precisely because I have been to church, prayed, and ate and drank the holy communion. This was all at my local hospitals chapel, whereby we were invited to eat the waver and drink the blood of Christ, whether we were Christened or not. (Which was a good job seeing as I have not been). If you want to broaden the picture a bit, then I will be happy to tell you that I am a Buddhist as well, and I find the two faiths completely compatible (seeing as this is more a philosophy then a belief in God proper). And finally I have read Nietzches seminal the birth of tragedy, and was very excited by his discussions of the heavenly struggle between Appollo and the Bacchus, which no doubt you will already know all about and so I have no need to enlighten you more on the matter here (if you will excuse the pun). Seeing as the book, between that and Western European meta-history, seems to take that as its primary focus. OK?

1 Reply

@john2054,

john2054 wrote:

Hi Failures, your denunciation of Christ betrays to me a lack of theological insight into this very pertinent and pressing issue.

False. This is like saying that one must have zoological insight in to various species of pokemon to discuss the mechanics of evolution.

Simply put, I told you so. Christian mythology is no more worth consideration than any other mythology because it has the exact same degree of credibility. Not more, not less.

john2054 wrote:

Infact God (as refered to under these terms), means alot to me on a personal level precisely because I have been to church, prayed, and ate and drank the holy communion. This was all at my local hospitals chapel, whereby we were invited to eat the waver and drink the blood of Christ, whether we were Christened or not. (Which was a good job seeing as I have not been).

Sorry. I don't care. That may be insensitive, but the claims in which your choice of religion(s) makes for supernatural beings and events is a separate topic from your social practices with prayer, communion, etc. None of these experiences grant validity to he claims made on behalf of your religion.

I'm sure Christianity is very important to you, but it simply isn't anything that deserves special consideration. It is just another religion that has failed to support it's claims. That's par for the course. As I said before, you are attempting to make it the center of discussion as if it was special. It is not.

john2054 wrote:

If you want to broaden the picture a bit, then I will be happy to tell you that I am a Buddhist as well, and I find the two faiths completely compatible (seeing as this is more a philosophy then a belief in God proper).

Having two unsupported beliefs doesn't gain any ground. I'm glad you find them compatible with each other. Your opinion on their compatibility ends there however. Neither is compatible with either history or science.

"History is only offensive to those who live in myths."

john2054 wrote:

And finally I have read Nietzches seminal the birth of tragedy, and was very excited by his discussions of the heavenly struggle between Appollo and the Bacchus, which no doubt you will already know all about and so I have no need to enlighten you more on the matter here (if you will excuse the pun). Seeing as the book, between that and Western European meta-history, seems to take that as its primary focus. OK?

Enlighten away. I love pokemon. Apollo is rad. Meta-history sounds more exciting than that boring real history that we are normally shackled to.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

What is the value of philosophy unto itself? What of its value qualitatively to thinking? I think that thinking has been sidelined by an effort to institutionalize philosophy. This is what I mean when I roll my eyes. Philosophy become fashion; it's become sport. Thinking boxed in with brands, and measured in exchanges of egos. Very few people are left in the end to try and use philosophy. Perhaps it is dead.

Early on in my expedition into philosophy, I read in a commentary on Hume that philosophy tends to have an elitist character. Perhaps ego has been part of it for a long time. Whether there is a greater or lesser percentage of the population making use of philosophy in our time than in the past... I don't know.

We live in a peculiar time. There's so much information available and so much freedom to pick and choose from an ideological smorgasbord... critical theory teaches us how to use code words to convey the basic framework behind assertions. We don't have time to discuss things slowly and in depth. Just give me your label and let me fill in the blanks.... I can't daudle around finding out what you really think. It's a side effect of being exposed to a massive amount of information and diverse viewpoints.

Just side points: my experience has been that technology and science are joined at the hip. They're continuously feeding each other. I think this has always been true.

Those who have no concept of what Christianity is from the inside are bound to be left with a superficial understanding of Western culture. The products of architecture, music, literature, and visual art are easy examples of this. How a certain President of the USA approached decision making... it's there too. Christianity not worthy of consideration? Maybe not. I remember a close relative wondering what his sons might be missing out on since the knew nothing about religion. I think I know the answer, though.. there have always been atheists.... and agnostics... and believers of some kind. And there always will be.

ps. I wanted to end with a smiley face emoticon to show I was smiling, but I don't like the one that's available.... there's a cool movie called "Moon" in which an interactive computer is always displaying some emoticon. It's worth watching.

2 Replies

Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Early on in my expedition into philosophy, I read in a commentary on Hume that philosophy tends to have an elitist character. Perhaps ego has been part of it for a long time. Whether there is a greater or lesser percentage of the population making use of philosophy in our time than in the past... I don't know.

To draw a metaphor: There are too many cooks trying to reinvent spaghetti. Beyond that, the cooks seem to think that they are necessary and responsible for us to be fed (as if we cannot on our own). When we like our spaghetti better than theirs, suddenly, we don't know anything about cooking.

Arjuna wrote:

We live in a peculiar time. There's so much information available and so much freedom to pick and choose from an ideological smorgasbord... critical theory teaches us how to use code words to convey the basic framework behind assertions. We don't have time to discuss things slowly and in depth. Just give me your label and let me fill in the blanks.... I can't daudle around finding out what you really think. It's a side effect of being exposed to a massive amount of information and diverse viewpoints.

The information age is over. Welcome to the opinion age.

Arjuna wrote:

Just side points: my experience has been that technology and science are joined at the hip. They're continuously feeding each other. I think this has always been true.

cooking::food

Arjuna wrote:

Those who have no concept of what Christianity is from the inside are bound to be left with a superficial understanding of Western culture.

...and if they are already apart of western culture???

Arjuna wrote:

The products of architecture, music, literature, and visual art are easy examples of this. How a certain President of the USA approached decision making... it's there too.

Sure. So?

Arjuna wrote:

Christianity not worthy of consideration? Maybe not.

Not worth SPECIAL consideration. It doesn't get to cut to the front of the line. It's no more worth of consideration than any other mythology.

Arjuna wrote:

I remember a close relative wondering what his sons might be missing out on since the knew nothing about religion. I think I know the answer, though.. there have always been atheists.... and agnostics... and believers of some kind. And there always will be.

I would not decribe myself as someone that knows "nothing about religion." I have had a very diverse exposure firsthand. There will always be atheists, and there will always be theists. There will always be a supernatural suspicion, and a natural explanation. I don't expect much to change.

Arjuna wrote:

ps. I wanted to end with a smiley face emoticon to show I was smiling, but I don't like the one that's available.... there's a cool movie called "Moon" in which an interactive computer is always displaying some emoticon. It's worth watching.

Yes, it is an excellent film. Sam Rockwell was great.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

Man, that's good stuff. I wish I could show this to a few people who shape my world.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

The information age is over. Welcome to the opinion age.

Yeap.

failures art wrote:

cooking::food

Sorry, no get. More words, please.

failures art wrote:

...and if they are already apart of western culture???

True. Every person sees a facet of the diamond. What the atheist sees when he looks at his world is no doubt just as rich and deep as the vision of any other. He must see things that aren't visible to his counterpart. If everybody was a concert pianist, there would be no pianos.

failures art wrote:

[Not worth SPECIAL consideration. It doesn't get to cut to the front of the line. It's no more worth of consideration than any other mythology.

"That's just like.. your opinion, man." --The Big Lebowski

Indeed, Christianity is a number of previously existing mythologies with the names changed. Why do you suppose that would happen? Philosophy of Religion can reduce people to algorithms, or draw our attention to the core of religion.. what it really is, so to speak.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

failures art wrote:

cooking::food
Sorry, no get. More words, please.

Science is to technology as cooking is to food.

Arjuna wrote:

True. Every person sees a facet of the diamond. What the atheist sees when he looks at his world is no doubt just as rich and deep as the vision of any other. He must see things that aren't visible to his counterpart. If everybody was a concert pianist, there would be no pianos.

Sure. So what is the relevance to accepting supernatural things as true until proven false?

Arjuna wrote:

failues art wrote:
Not worth SPECIAL consideration. It doesn't get to cut to the front of the line. It's no more worth of consideration than any other mythology.

"That's just like.. your opinion, man." --The Big Lebowski

How is Christianity any more factual or truthful than any other religion?

It seems that the goal of many christian apologists when confronting atheists is to argue that their god exists before they have establish that ANY god could exist.

Arjuna wrote:

Indeed, Christianity is a number of previously existing mythologies with the names changed. Why do you suppose that would happen?

To maintain power of people. People are real. A church can argue they have a connection with deities, but there is no question of their connection with people. where there is connection, there is an opportunity for exchange of power and dominion. Offering to split the difference is a good way to consolidate power.

Arjuna wrote:

Philosophy of Religion can reduce people to algorithms, or draw our attention to the core of religion.. what it really is, so to speak.

Don't sound so great.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I wouldn't cry if this guys came and had a talk with our local political leaders. The last horrible suggestion I heard was directed towards reducing the number of young drivers who kill themselves in traffic.
They suggest things like installing speed limiters on the cars of new drivers, particularly male new drivers. They come up with plan after plan to force[i people into doing what they want rather than coming up with ways that will make people feel the responsibility that is expected of them.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Christian mythology is no more worth consideration than any other mythology because it has the exact same degree of credibility. Not more, not less.

Why do you repeat that fa. You had said it earlier and I offered you two very good and separate reasons why Christianity is worth extra consideration. That it was our religion and that it has demonstrated a successful evolutionary adaptation.

It seems to me that you are entitled to the view you have but that you are not entitled to continually repeat it when you have failed to deal with objections to it and which you have to expect to be raised. Putting the objections on Ignore is hardly what one might expect on a philosophy thread.

Your statement grants equality of credibility to religions involving human sacrifice, temple prostitution, restrictions on mathematics in relation to the infinite, reincarnation, head shrinking, ritual cannibalism, polygamy, suttee, caste, bride price, action at a distance and apathetic resignation. And that is despite all those cultures being at the mercy of western, Christian expansion and slowly being incorporated into it.

I'm not saying you can't answer these points. I'm saying that in a philosophy debate you must answer them before repeating the point which caused them to be raised against you view. By "must" I mean you lose your entitlement to be on a philosophy thread if you fail to answer the points.

Credibilty is not the standard by which such things are judged. You are focussed on credibilty of belief systems to suit your own argument despite the obvious fact that practical considerations are what created the beliefs.

You are cheating and in more than one way. You ignore contervailing argument and you use a partial standard. Neither can be justified on a thread such as this.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You had said it earlier and I offered you two very good and separate reasons why Christianity is worth extra consideration.

Okay, I'll play along for a while...

spendius wrote:

That it was our religion and that it has demonstrated a successful evolutionary adaptation.

You've used this argument many times before regarding what you believe is evolutionary adaption, and what that might mean. Christianity certainly has adapted and evolved, that much you are correct about, but it means quite the opposite of what you propose in terms of consideration. In no abstract terms, the institution of Christianity is desperately insecure about the fact that it cannot substantiate any of it's claims that it has been on a path of compromise for some time now.

It's rather telling.

spendius wrote:

It seems to me that you are entitled to the view you have but that you are not entitled to continually repeat it when you have failed to deal with objections to it and which you have to expect to be raised. Putting the objections on Ignore is hardly what one might expect on a philosophy thread.

The failure is on the behalf of the Christian, not on me. If they wish to propose their god is real, they can't be lazy. That's all that we see, lazy work. A Christian must first argue as a theist that any god could exist before trying to present their favorite as not only existing, but exclusively existing. That task, mind you is quite the paradox really. How does the Christian persuade someone that other gods don't exist? Any sword that cuts Shiva, wounds Yahweh equally.

spendius wrote:

Your statement grants equality of credibility to religions involving human sacrifice, temple prostitution, restrictions on mathematics in relation to the infinite, reincarnation, head shrinking, ritual cannibalism, polygamy, suttee, caste, bride price, action at a distance and apathetic resignation.

Exactly equal. Exactly as credible.

What you're omitting is that the reason that people do these things ultimately resolves to a belief in one or multiple supernatural beings. The Christian god, and the absurd and inhumane things the Christianity calls upon humans to do are no different.

Exactly equal. Exactly as credible.

spendius wrote:

And that is despite all those cultures being at the mercy of western, Christian expansion and slowly being incorporated into it.

The paradox remains however: The belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster is absurd. The degree of absurdity is no less than any other religion.

spendius wrote:

I'm not saying you can't answer these points. I'm saying that in a philosophy debate you must answer them before repeating the point which caused them to be raised against you view. By "must" I mean you lose your entitlement to be on a philosophy thread if you fail to answer the points.

I have agency to speak as I wish. You are not, nor are capable of playing referee on matters intellectual.

spendius wrote:

Credibilty is not the standard by which such things are judged. You are focussed on credibilty of belief systems to suit your own argument despite the obvious fact that practical considerations are what created the beliefs.

This is a familiar dance with us, spendi.

If proof or evidence (or now credibility) don't support your argument, create a meta-argument on the argument that they are unimportant/irrelevant.

spendius wrote:

You are cheating and in more than one way. You ignore contervailing argument and you use a partial standard. Neither can be justified on a thread such as this.

Cheating, is trying to cut to the front of the line.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Science is to technology as cooking is to food.

Yea... I can see that. Without food there would be no cooking. Some foods would not exist without the art of cooking.

failures art wrote:

Sure. So what is the relevance to accepting supernatural things as true until proven false?

failues art wrote:

Not worth SPECIAL consideration. It doesn't get to cut to the front of the line. It's no more worth of consideration than any other mythology.

How is Christianity any more factual or truthful than any other religion?

It seems that the goal of many christian apologists when confronting atheists is to argue that their god exists before they have establish that ANY god could exist.

You're free to put whatever you like at the front of the line. I think M-theory is nudging for position. Its warrant to special consideration is that it gives a coherent explanation for gravity and the big bang. Unproved, and possibly unprovable... but still... previous outlooks had nothing to prove. I'm not posing as an expert in the topic. I go on what the Japanese dude on the science channel said.... I'm not through with global warming yet.

failures art wrote:

To maintain power of people. People are real. A church can argue they have a connection with deities, but there is no question of their connection with people. where there is connection, there is an opportunity for exchange of power and dominion. Offering to split the difference is a good way to consolidate power.

Well put.

By the way... I dont get the firing away of verbage bombs on invisible theists. What's that all about? This ain't a video game, dammit.

In the Vatican there's a painting that depicts Plato pointing up, and Aristotle motioning down. Philosophy and Religion, dude... some people find it fascinating and personally significant... some don't. But why give a critique of something you don't give a flip about?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

failures art wrote:

What is the value of philosophy unto itself? What of its value qualitatively to thinking? I think that thinking has been sidelined by an effort to institutionalize philosophy. This is what I mean when I roll my eyes. Philosophy become fashion; it's become sport. Thinking boxed in with brands, and measured in exchanges of egos. Very few people are left in the end to try and use philosophy. Perhaps it is dead.

Early on in my expedition into philosophy, I read in a commentary on Hume that philosophy tends to have an elitist character. Perhaps ego has been part of it for a long time. Whether there is a greater or lesser percentage of the population making use of philosophy in our time than in the past... I don't know.

We live in a peculiar time. There's so much information available and so much freedom to pick and choose from an ideological smorgasbord... critical theory teaches us how to use code words to convey the basic framework behind assertions. We don't have time to discuss things slowly and in depth. Just give me your label and let me fill in the blanks.... I can't daudle around finding out what you really think. It's a side effect of being exposed to a massive amount of information and diverse viewpoints.

Just side points: my experience has been that technology and science are joined at the hip. They're continuously feeding each other. I think this has always been true.

Those who have no concept of what Christianity is from the inside are bound to be left with a superficial understanding of Western culture. The products of architecture, music, literature, and visual art are easy examples of this. How a certain President of the USA approached decision making... it's there too. Christianity not worthy of consideration? Maybe not. I remember a close relative wondering what his sons might be missing out on since the knew nothing about religion. I think I know the answer, though.. there have always been atheists.... and agnostics... and believers of some kind. And there always will be.

ps. I wanted to end with a smiley face emoticon to show I was smiling, but I don't like the one that's available.... there's a cool movie called "Moon" in which an interactive computer is always displaying some emoticon. It's worth watching.

To answer failure; nothing has value unless compared to something other, except life for which there is no compare, but compares everything... And when he says: I think that thinking, etc he is denying the power of the individual which he demonstrates, to form a rational thought apart from institutions, which we know is false... Everyone is a philosopher, but the best work has been done by those who approached their knowledge in an organized fashion... I may disagree with a Kant, or a a Nietzche, or a Heidegger, but my education is not such that I can do more than make a protest... You must have the knowledge to do the philosophy... Understanding, insight, and observation have their place, but you need to know what humanity once thought it knew, and why- if you want to add to knowledge or philosophy...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Yea... it's difficult to assess philosophy's place in our world without being philosophical.

Being is the thing that has no comparison. Yes.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Okay, I'll play along for a while...

Don't bother on my account fa. Does your world view promote infantile condescension of that nature. I hope you don't think it impresses philosophy types. I'm giving you an opportunity to prove your credibility on a philosophy thread which you have failed so far to do. You needn't talk to me like I'm a three year-old.

Quote:

Cheating, is trying to cut to the front of the line.

Which is exactly what you have just done. Again.

You have failed to address the point that Christianity deserves more consideration because it is the religion of OUR culture. There seems little point in raising other religions to equal status with it when they are formed under entirely different conditions to those Christianity was formed in and have different languages, customs, ethics, morals and manners. We give consideration to everything we do on a far higher level to the consideration we give to others. In every respect. Another province of China has been devastated by floods this week. Has as much consideration of that been given to the amount given to Katie Courich crossing and re-crossing her lovely legs.

You have failed to address the point that the anathematising of the infinite in the Pagan religions restricted their mathematics to measurement of the "here and now" and every moment of your day is conditioned by the Christian mathematics of the infinite. The other aspects of exotic religions that I mentioned I don't suppose you wish to comment on. It wasn't an exhaustive list btw.

Quote:

You've used this argument many times before regarding what you believe is evolutionary adaption, and what that might mean.

And I make no apology for using the argument again. It means invading and taking over the territory of others, as with the Americas, imposing Christian values on it and marginalising the previous occupants just as happens in natural evolution. And we have made a success of it. So far. It seems to me that your position puts that success at risk.

Quote:

In no abstract terms, the institution of Christianity is desperately insecure about the fact that it cannot substantiate any of it's claims that it has been on a path of compromise for some time now.

What compromises are you referring to? What are the signs of the insecurity? You are arguing with assertions which also belongs outside of philosophy. Bus queues are more appropriate. It's the Church's refusal to compromise that has created your opposition. You want it to give you the go-ahead for all the things you want to do despite it knowing that those things are destructive of our culture and on the basis, the unphilosophical basis, that you don't know why those things are destructive of society and fondly believe, as is understandable, that they are harmless and conveniently forgetting that whatever you want to do is likely to be, assuming you're normal, what everybody wants to do and it is admittedly harmless if only you want to do those things and nobody else took advantage of the Church's permission.

And the Church has no power to stop you doing those things anyway.

And if the Church did compromise and give in to the hedonists there would only be the ritual left and to condemn that would necessitate you condemning all meaningless rituals, which would be all that was left, such as football, or laying yourself open to the charge that you're hysterically discriminating against just one of them on the Bogeyman principle.

Most of the Church's teaching is enshrined in law. It is only certain parts of it that are relevant. That part of it, much the largest, that is law you can't be objecting to unless you object to law. Your objection must be to the "certain parts" of it.

And it's a fair enough objection. It's just that you spend so much time attacking the Church that you have no energy left to tell us what it entails if the Church gives us the all-clear on those "certain matters" which, I might remind you, are quite legal. Allowing us all to have your Brave New Utopia on Ignore is a distinct advantage to your argument. And an unfair one.

Quote:

the absurd and inhumane things the Christianity calls upon humans to do are no different.

Like what? What is the Church calling for us to do that is absurd and inhumane and not justifiable. Does any other institution call upon us to do absurd and inhumane things? What do you consider absurd or inhumane? Assertions are a waste of time about matters like that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Like what? What is the Church calling for us to do that is absurd and inhumane and not justifiable.

For one thing, it is trying to encourage us to give of our hard earned monneh to those who for whatever reason are without. Preposterous and absurd!
And it calls on us to behave like moral individuals and tries to tell us that material wealth isn't everything. What inhumane nonsense!
And it claims that we should be thankful for our lives and our wealth, and that gratitude should be always in our hearts. Lies without justification!

Or at least, it may seem that way to a person who has denied himself any of the wisdom religion can teach, one who rests his version of truth soley on scientific fact.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

And the Church knows that the culture we are living in is far too subtle and complex for the likes of us to even discuss re-engineering it in any dramatic way.

I'm defending the status quo and proper consideration being given to any significant changes to it by people who have a long experience to draw on. I have no need to describe my Utopia. It is right before your very eyes.

Another thing the Church knows is that the present is forever tempted to give the past a context constantly capable of falsifying what that past reality was like. Which is a temptation our tin-pot historians have entirely succumbed to.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Like what? What is the Church calling for us to do that is absurd and inhumane and not justifiable.

For one thing, it is trying to encourage us to give of our hard earned monneh to those who for whatever reason are without. Preposterous and absurd!
And it calls on us to behave like moral individuals and tries to tell us that material wealth isn't everything. What inhumane nonsense!
And it claims that we should be thankful for our lives and our wealth, and that gratitude should be always in our hearts. Lies without justification!

Or at least, it may seem that way to a person who has denied himself any of the wisdom religion can teach, one who rests his version of truth soley on scientific fact.

Crazy religionists. I picked up the habit of thanking the creature I'm eating. Due to exposure to Albuquerque I realize more deeply lately that when I do that, I'm thanking everything everywhere... everything acknowledges itself.

On the other hand, fa may have been referring to some modern religious architecture. A rectangular brick building, a greek temple porch with a steeple on top. What the heck is that? Why not just put a big sign on a brick box: "CHURCH." But I realize even those... if they've been around a while... there's somebody who loves it because of the living moments they associate it with.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Quote:

Why not just put a big sign on a brick box: "CHURCH."

Because the architecture is a monumental symbol of the Faustian way of feeling about the world. Compare any cathedral to your brick box as a subject for meditation. And if meditation about such things is too tiresome and boring for anybody then they automatically disqualify themselves from having anything meaningful to say about it and if they do feel the need to say something the need is the same need a jackass has when it brays.

Compare a cathedral to a mosque. Infinity is deliberately excluded from a mosque and focussed and welcomed in a cathedral which is a symbol of it. The one arises from a people sick of the sun and the other from a people whose lives depended upon it returning every springtime. The one squats on the landscape and the other seems to be taking off from it which is not as obvious now because of urbanisation around it and the necessity to see it close up. Each is a metaphor for a way of feeling and thinking.

A brick box marked "CHURCH" would be a harbinger of a clodhopper culture dawning.

1 Reply

Philosophy is Dead

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know